RE: Is atheism a belief?
February 25, 2019 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2019 at 7:40 pm by bennyboy.)
(February 25, 2019 at 5:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:Quote:Bennyboy
Let's drop the God idea and just look at Schrodinger's cat
That's where this goes off the rails.
Cats and particles are well defined.
A god is not.
Therefore your analogy is false.
?
I feel like people aren't reading the posts. Please read the posts first, and then respond to them.
(February 25, 2019 at 5:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: If I could get theists to understand one thing about atheism, this would be it.
The only hurdle that needs to be cleared in order to be an atheist, is to not be convinced that gods exist.
The fact that some atheists go further and claim that no gods exist, does not alter the fact that not being convinced that gods exist defines one as an atheist.
Those that claim no gods exist, are still clearing the hurdle of not being convinced that gods exist.
Atheism can be a belief-- the belief that no god exists. I'd say in response to specific enough god claims, most atheists are positive-- "Skydaddy. No way. It's logically incoherent." In the face of a very general question: "Do you believe in ANY god at all?" then you're likely to answer, "No, I don't have a definition of God of my own about which I have an active belief-- and I'm pretty sure I don't believe in yours either."
(February 25, 2019 at 12:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Quantum cats and potential ambiguity don't matter if any of the above statements are true, and they can't all be true simultaneously. Again, if you have some valid reason for your agnosticism...and I'm perfectly willing to believe that you do (especially since the bar for a valid reason for agnosticism is "I just don't know", lol..?), the panpsychism angle isn't among them.
I'm going to have to stop responding to you if you keep doing this, because arguing with someone who refuses to get what you're talking about isn't very interesting. I'm not talking about panpsychism per se, I'm talking about definitions of God which cannot be expressed bi-axially. I'm giving an example of a definition of god in whose existence a belief would be conditional on knowledge.
Let's try it one last time, then I'm just going to believe that my verbal powers are insufficient to even get it known what point I'm even trying to make. I don't mind arguing, but I'd like to argue the thing I'm actually trying to talk about, which we currently aren't.
IF one chooses to view a panpsychic Universe as a super-intelligent entity, and to define (DEFINE) that as God. IF. IF IF IF IF. If one says that if panpsychism is true, he'd call the Universe, which would be full of mental activity God. IF. IF one defined it that way. IF.
In that case, the belief would still be dependent on a knowledge state. That God, under that definition, cannot either be positively believed in or disbelieved-- i.e. there cannot be said to be a default position, but rather an unresolved superposition. In this case, there's no agnostic/gnostic theism/atheism expressible as a belief. You cannot say that you lack a belief, nor that you hold a belief. There's only "I don't know."
You can do this with other definitions of God. You could say something like, "If the Universe was created, I believe there was a creator God. But if it wasn't, then there could not have been a creator God." Now, can this person say they believe that a creator God exists if they don't have a belief about whether the Universe was created or not? No, not really. It's a superpositional belief, dependent on knowledge which we don't, and possibly cannot, have. There's no default position under this definition. There's no "You lack an active belief, so you're atheist." The truth is the person is both/neither theist and atheist, because they hold a conditional belief, the condition of which cannot be resolved.
