Belief and Knowledge

[Mister Agenda]

First, a little background on what inspired this thread. In another thread, Surgenator claimed that atheists do no believe in things which have not been proven to be true.

Atheist can believe in anything but gods.

I challenged him on that claiming that atheists believe in abiogenesis(which is an un-falsifiable hypothesis not proven to be true).

All atheists?

Others jumped in claiming atheist have no such beliefs...they just don't know. Anyways, that prompted me to make a poll at another atheist forum....too gauge what atheists really believe. You can find that poll here

I'm mystified why anyone who has been here for awhile would try to over-generalize about atheists.

Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

It's almost like we're a diverse demographic with only one thing in common.

One poster wanted to vote for 2 options. The "I don't know" and the "Via some natural process". I thought about this position and concluded it wasn't contradictory. He was confused. Was the poll asking belief or knowledge? The poll didn't specify. Although he didn't express it, this poster is savy enough to realize there is a difference between belief and knowledge.

Which made your poll unanswerable for many of us.

When an atheists(or anyone for that matter) says, "I don't know" he isn't saying anything about his beliefs....he is saying something about his knowledge.

Correct. May I now embrace you as a brother or sister?

[Neo-Scholastic]

By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause.

How would you demonstrate a phenomena has a divine cause?

If this isn't possible, then I'm left with either a natural cause, or an "I don't know" what caused it.

"I don't know," isn't a real option for you, because what you are essensially saying it you don't know what the natural cause is. You have already excluded the supernatural from consideration.

[Mister Agenda]

Can't you say that since we've never observed abiogenesis....it should not be believed?

You can SAY anything, but science would slow down quite a bit if the standard for accepting evidence was that it must be direct observation at the time of the event.

Belief does not require knowledge.

True enough. But belief, even in a tentative sense should be justifiable in terms of at least prior knowledge.

[Jenny A]

Theists continually attempt to patch together various beliefs into an 'atheist world view'.

That's because atheism logically entails a very specific worldview: a world without the influence of god(s). By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause. I'm open to hear of a middle ground that someone actually believes and promotes. If I'm wrong then, I would like to here something any AF member atheist believes does not have a natural cause.

The proposition that there has never been a god or supernatural force, does lead to the conclusion that all things must have natural causes.

But there are two problems with such a sweeping proposition: 1) lacking a belief that there is a god is not affirmative belief that there isn't one; and 2) it is possible to believe that there isn't a god now, but there was one in the past.

So the middle ground could be either: 1) I don't know if either all things are natural or somethings are caused by a god or other supernatural force; or 2) there once was a god, gods, or some other supernatural force, which created some things but no longer exists.

That said, I personally believe that it is far more likely than not that everything has a natural cause. I base this belief on the plethora of obvious natural causes I see around me and the ever expanding number of things which were once thought to be supernatural and have since been discovered to be natural.

I also affirmatively believe that in the unlikely event that there is a god, it does not intervene in the doings of human beings or interact with them. I base that belief on the lack of evidence of any such intervention.

But my views are not the views of all atheists. I'm sure there are many atheists who simply don't think very deeply about either the possibility of god or whether there are supernatural causes. Atheists who join a atheist forum are more likely to be of the thinking variety.

[Cato]

Theists continually attempt to patch together various beliefs into an 'atheist world view'.

That's because atheism logically entails a very specific worldview: a world without the influence of god(s). By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause. I'm open to hear of a middle ground that someone actually believes and promotes. If I'm wrong then, I would like to here something any AF member atheist believes does not have a natural cause.

Okay, I guess continued shit throwing is what you want.

Atheism = No god = non-divine. No shit. A serious master of the obvious moment, particularly since this is the point that has been made repeatedly in this thread. My argument was that this does not constitute a 'world view' precisely because atheism says fuckall about abiogenesis or anything else for that matter.

Seriously, what is the fucking point of all this world view bullshit if all it means is that atheists don't attribute events in the universe to a god? Atheism is not a world view, it is a position on a single proposed aspect of reality; that's it. It does not inform my opinion on anything else.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism is not a world view, it is a position on a single proposed aspect of reality; that's it. It does not inform my opinion on anything else.

Bullshit! If you have any opinion about how the world works, either 1) with divine influence or 2) without divine influence, then you have a "worldview." And that worldview does affect other beliefs, like what you believe about religion.

[Mister Agenda]

Lots of reasons to believe stuff without actual knowledge. Perhaps you are told something by someone you trust who has or should have actual knowledge.

That's actual knowledge. It's probabilistic, but you have a basis to trust them and think they know what they're talking about based on prior knowledge.

Perhaps you believe something because it conforms with your world view. Abiogenesis conforms to an atheistic world veiw which is why they believe it.

Why 50% believe it, according to you, and that seems to have affected your stance on our positions not a whit. I think it's the most likely scenario because I have enough biology and chemistry to follow the scenario, and evaluate the hypotheses. I consider it probable that one or a combination of abiogenesis hypotheses is the best explanation for the origin of life on our planet, probably with a lot of modification needed. Abiogenesis is not fanciful, and it's based on what we actually know. However, there is insufficient evidence yet to justify concluding that it's definitely the case. There may never be sufficient evidence for us to know exactly what happened over 3 billion years ago to start off life. But there are numerous possible discoveries that could have falsified the idea already, and we've found nothing inconsistent with a natural origin for life. If I had to bet, I'd go with abiogenesis, as every other proposition for the origin of life I've been exposed to has much less going for it; but I don't have to bet. I'm willing to wait and see, or live with not knowing.

[coldwx]

Atheism is not a world view, it is a position on a single proposed aspect of reality; that's it. It does not inform my opinion on anything else.

Bullshit! If you have any opinion about how the world works, either 1) with divine influence or 2) without divine influence, then you have a "worldview." And that worldview does affect other beliefs, like what you believe about religion.

Would you then argue that theism based on the standard definition, which includes multiple religions and doctrines, is a worldview?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Bullshit! If you have any opinion about how the world works, either 1) with divine influence or 2) without divine influence, then you have a "worldview." And that worldview does affect other beliefs, like what you believe about religion.

Would you then argue that theism based on the standard definition, which includes multiple religions and doctrines, is a worldview?

Yes and it would be option 1). That option does not conflict with various religions having different opinions of how or who is exercising divine influence.

it is possible to believe that there isn't a god now, but there was one in the past.

To my mind that falls into the category of option 1. A divine influence in the past (or future) is divine influence still.

[coldwx]

Yes and it would be option 1). That option does not conflict with various religions having different opinions of how or who is exercising divine influence.

So a this worldview is based on a belief in god or gods, not on which god or gods are believed?