atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[Mystic]

That's irrelevant to my question. I simply asked what your basis is for thinking "I don't believe you." is a belief. Justification doesn't matter.
"I don't believe you." is not the same as "I believe you are wrong."

If someone doesn't believe in morality, people are allowed to wonder, "Why don't you believe" because they believe it's common human intuition to know morality is true.

The same is true for non-intuitive things, but "common knowledge" like earth being round or the great wall of China existing.

To theists it feels like it's common knowledge often, like praise, morality, etc, is common knowledge...so they wonder why Atheists don't believe while people tend to believe.

It's a matter of perspective, and I don't think it can be simplified to simply "I don't need to provide evidence but you do, because I'm not making any claims".

[jstrodel]

Atheists not only trust authorities like Theists do, they trust their own reasoning capabilities. For example, they believe so and so is using fallacious reasoning, but they trust they themselves have used proper reasoning in rejecting "proofs" or "evidence" in favor of God. They realize others are in error but they will have faith they are not in error.

They also have to have faith in free-will to function. They also have to have faith in praise and value.

Perhaps it's not all about "thinking for yourself". Perhaps we need to discuss with experts, debate with one another, get feed back to our own thoughts....

I think a little distrust in one own's reasoning capabilities is also healthy and there needs to be balanced approach with regards to learning from authority and thinking for yourself.

I think distrust in ones reasoning capacity is very healthy. Too much reasoning and taking oneself too seriously leads to pride, and it is authoritarian, because people always act on their beliefs and they affect others.

The will does not belong to the individual, it belongs to the whole community that it effects, knowledge is not individualistic, it is collectivistic, people can question and learn but they have to rely on others and listen to others and learn from people that are different from them.

This is what love requires, pride says I can make up my own standard and impose it on others. Love says that what others believe is important because I don't always know everything, and I don't know how to care about others.

Trust and humility are characteristics of intellectual virtues just as rigor and clarity are. If someone only has rigor and clarity in perceiving their first principles with respect to the things they care about, they build systems and impose them on others without concern for the very likely possibility that their systems will be based on ideas that are not shared by others, though they must accept them.


Life is complicated. Love requires people to trust in established means of understanding the world so that the weakness of each can be offset by the strength of the whole.

[Joel]

That's irrelevant to my question. I simply asked what your basis is for thinking "I don't believe you." is a belief. Justification doesn't matter.
"I don't believe you." is not the same as "I believe you are wrong."

If someone doesn't believe in morality, people are allowed to wonder, "Why don't you believe" because they believe it's common human intuition to know morality is true.

The same is true for non-intuitive things, but "common knowledge" like earth being round or the great wall of China existing.

To theists it feels like it's common knowledge often, like praise, morality, etc, is common knowledge...so they wonder why Atheists don't believe while people tend to believe.

It's a matter of perspective, and I don't think it can be simplified to simply "I don't need to provide evidence but you do, because I'm not making any claims".

I didn't simplify it to that... Anywhere. I agree with you, even.

[Mystic]

I didn't simplify it to that... Anywhere. I agree with you, even.

Heh. True enough. It isn't a belief to not believe.

[jstrodel]

That's irrelevant to my question. I simply asked what your basis is for thinking "I don't believe you." is a belief. Justification doesn't matter.
"I don't believe you." is not the same as "I believe you are wrong.

EDIT: It does require justification, yes; because there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

"I don't believe you" is a belief. To deny a belief is no different neurologically or epistemologically than to affirm a belief. To deny a belief is also to believe whatever the denial says.

For instance, look at this conversation:
"God is exists."
"No, I don't believe you" - When you say, no, I don't believe you, you are also saying at the same time "God probably does not exist". The statement "I don't believe you" depends on the statement "God probably does not exist", otherwise it is a lie, the person is saying "I don't believe you" but the words don't refer to anything. I suppose they could be saying "I don't know if God exists or not but I don't believe you" but at the same time they are saying "I don't believe you because God probably does not exist ".

"God probably does not exist" is a belief which requires justification, just as "the earth is probably not round" requires justification.

What is the difference between rejecting religious claims and rejecting scientific claims? Are atheists so cowardly that they believe rejecting religious claims requires no justification?

[Joel]

To deny a belief is not to side with the opposite, or anything similar.

What is the difference between rejecting religious claims and rejecting scientific claims? Are atheists so cowardly that they believe rejecting religious claims requires no justification?

It depends on the claim. The principle of rejecting a belief depends on the claim, that is. (It's not limited to scientific/theistic claims)
I don't believe the multiverse exists; I don't see any evidence for it (maybe I would if I looked into it further) and, to me, it seems unlikely. That is not to say that I believe it doesn't exist. It's not that I believe it doesn't exist; simply that I don't accept it as true or false.

No, I don't believe you

I wouldn't say "no" I would only say "I don't believe you."

[Silver]

Are atheists so cowardly that they believe rejecting religious claims requires no justification?

Requiring justification of a deity that does not exist is the same as requiring justification that leprechauns do not exist. It is already plain to the logical thinker that leprechauns do not exist, because there is no evidence for its existence, and the same logic can be applied to a deity.

Unless you want to inform us that you now believe in leprechauns as well as god.

[jstrodel]

Mr Infidel, do you think beliefs about leprecauns are rational? How do you differentiate rational beliefs about leprecauns from irrational ones? How do you know whether leprecauns are false? Does that require justification?

You are using specific philosophical terminology but you don't really know what it means.

[Silver]

Mr Infidel, do you think beliefs about leprecauns are rational?

No, and neither is a belief in a deity.

[jstrodel]

To deny a belief is not to side with the opposite, or anything similar.

What is the difference between rejecting religious claims and rejecting scientific claims? Are atheists so cowardly that they believe rejecting religious claims requires no justification?

It depends on the claim. The principle of rejecting a belief depends on the claim, that is. (It's not limited to scientific/theistic claims)
I don't believe the multiverse exists; I don't see any evidence for it (maybe I would if I looked into it further) and, to me, it seems unlikely. That is not to say that I believe it doesn't exist. It's not that I believe it doesn't exist; simply that I don't accept it as true or false.

No, I don't believe you

I wouldn't say "no" I would only say "I don't believe you."

So you think it is acceptable for people to reject beliefs based on irrational considerations, so long as they say "I don't believe you"? You think that people can simply say "I don't believe you" and at that point, irrational rejection of a belief becomes permissible?

Why?

---

Mr Infidel, do you think beliefs about leprecauns are rational?

No, and neither is a belief in a deity.

How do you differentiate between rational beliefs about leprecauns and irrational ones? Do you think it is possible to believe things about leprecauns in ways that are rational and irrational?