(May 15, 2020 at 4:56 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 15, 2020 at 10:07 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: I see no reason to mince words. I'm an atheist, and that's that.
But you do have beliefs -- by which I mean things which you hold to be true about the world. And if you are a naturalist you have a metaphysical belief which can't be proved by science.
EVERYONE has beliefs. Which like you say, is just the psychological state in shich one acceots a premise of proposition as being true.
It all depends on whether one is a philisophical naturalist, or a methodological naturalist.
Quote:Focusing instead on one particular belief you DON'T have -- your atheism -- means that your beliefs go unexpressed, unexplained, and possibly unexamined.
Why would one's lack of beliefs go unexpressed, unexplained, and possibly unexamined? I don't get why that would follow from the position of not being convinced that gods exist?
I can't speak for every atheist, but for me:
I express my lack of belief everytime someone makes some unsupported god claim.
I explain my lack of belief in gods, as being my state of mind as not being convinced that gods exist.
And I examine my lack of belief in gods every single time I come to a forum with theists making their god claims, or in real life whenever I discuss the existence of gods with friends or family.
One of my main goals in life, is to have the best epistemology as possible. I want to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many fasle things as possible. I think it is important to have my internal model of reality map as closely as possible to actual reality.
The best method ever devised to do that is, basing one's beliefs on: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.
Not only will I believe all claims that meet those criteria, if someone is able to point out a belief I currently hold that does not hold up to those criteria, you know what I will do? I will stop believing it.
THe reason why I stopped believing in gods, is because theists continually fail to provide a case that meets those criteria.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
