Are cats atheists?

[Whateverist]

That's fine, but disbelieving it based on absence of evidence is fine as well.

Not necessarily. Everytime there is an absence of evidence it is not always the case that we should disbelieve something.



Because there is not evidence for X, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should disbelieve X. Only if there is another premise in the argument like, "there is no evidence for X, and if X were true, we would expect more evidence than there is for X." However, this is not just an absence of evidence then. There is a claim here.

"Disbelief" isn't a word in my vocabulary. It seems too slippery to mean what I would mean it to mean. It seems, as though you use it, to mean "an active belief in the opposite". But that doesn't describe anything going on with me.

So when you say "Every time there is an absence of evidence it is not always the case that we should disbelieve something", I agree. I don't automatically think "the opposite of that must be true!" Does your mind work that way? Mine doesn't.

When the evidence offered is insufficient to result in the generation of a shared belief, I just treat it as unactionable. Nothing I can use. I don't find I have to strongly disbelieve it in order to keep it at bay so that it can't contaminate all by other beliefs. I don't think it has that kind of power. I just ignore it.

How exactly are you using the word "disbelieve"?

[Reforged]

Atheists are generally very clear that they want atheism to be defined as a lack of belief in God, and not the belief or claim that there is no God. If this is so, why aren't cats and trees and birds and mentally challenged people who cannot think about things like the supernatural realm atheists?--they all lack belief in God too.

Because they haven't the capacity to understand abstract concepts?
Kind of obvious really.

[Tobie]

@Jeffonthenet

Your personal experience, whatever it may be, fallacious or no, is no proof or evidence of any god existing. You can't prove that it happened. In my opinion, what you believe a god has given you can most likely be pinned down to a kind of placebo effect.

You are correct in saying that a lack of evidence for something does not necessarily mean it is false, but it definitely does not mean you should believe in it. That it is a pitifully weak defense of theism. In the world of science, you'd be laughed at if you went around believing in theories with no evidence, why should anything regarding religion be any different?

[Minimalist]

Mkay. I'd really love to hear how you did that.

He did it by wanting to believe in his own particular brand of bullshit.

[LastPoet]

The question in the OP itself, shows a blatant ignorance towards the real world. I surely hope the OP was in jest.

[Mystic]

There is still a lot of debate that free-will exists. The latest neural science is showing that we don't have free-will, we only have the illusion of free-will.

You seem to be making the claim, with absolute certainty, that free-will exists, when in reality some of the best minds in science and philosophy are not so sure.

Therefore you believe no one is justified in believing in free-will? Or claiming to know we have it from personal experience?

What I'm getting from you, we aren't justified in believing any of the following:

Free-will.
Objective morals.
Past exists beyond yesterday.
Induction outside of mathematics.

Because none of these can be proven by other then means of properly basic knowledge?

Here it is again. If I disbelieve that there is insufficient evidence to support claim X, that does not mean I necessarily believe claim X is false.

I got your point, I'm saying should you not believe in free-will?

Because there is a debate about free-will, we should all become agnostics towards free-will existing?

[Felasco]

In the world of science, you'd be laughed at if you went around believing in theories with no evidence, why should anything regarding religion be any different?

Do you believe in the theory that human reason is currently capable of determining what doesn't exist in all of reality, an arena we can not currently define in even the most basic way? Like for instance, how big is reality, what are it's dimensions?

Which scientists are laughing hysterically at the theory that we can know what doesn't exist in an arena that we can't define?

[Faith No More]

Edit: Statement redacted, because in hindsight, it was too harsh.

[Adjusted Sanity]

If cats believe anything they're sure as hell not telling us about it. For now I'll just assume cats think that they are god.

[Anomalocaris]

Atheists are generally very clear that they want atheism to be defined as a lack of belief in God, and not the belief or claim that there is no God. If this is so, why aren't cats and trees and birds and mentally challenged people who cannot think about things like the supernatural realm atheists?--they all lack belief in God too.

They are. Not only mentally challenged PEOPLE, or small brained cats, and brainless trees, but totally inanimate rocks and dirt are atheists and therefore far smarter than you.