Belief and Knowledge

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It would be far more accurate to say that one's atheism is likely to be informed by the inabillity to observe supernatural causes. Atheism is part of my world view because my skepticism leads me to not accept the divine as a likely or well-supported explanation for any causes. You've got the cart before the horse in the case of many of us. My worldview was fundamentalist Christianity, I started being skeptical long before I became an atheist, and God was the last supernatural thing I stopped believing in, not the first. I don't doubt there are exceptions, especially among those raised atheist, but there's no excuse for you to have been here this long and be this wrong about something so basic.

---

You said non-divine cause, not natural cause... a worldview necessarily contains more than one belief.

Okay, since you're all about semantics, what do you call an opinion that potentially affects everything else you believe about the world?

An opinion. It's the everything else part that's the worldview.

[Cato]

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.

Your presupposition requires you to consider the role of god when you observe the universe and is why you see a dichotomy where there is none. I have no such hindrance. My conclusion of 'no god' is a consequence of my observation and world view, not its starting point or basis. I'm a little surprised this very simple idea gives you so much trouble.

[Heywood]

Neither have the majority of murders.

Yet we are able to examine them after the fact, and determine, with a high level of certainty, the method of death, the type of weapon, time of death, etc, etc.

The only thing necessary to make abiogenesis more rational to believe as the source of life, as compared to a god, is that it has natural explanations for every step and does not break any laws.

The fact that we don't have the exact way it occurred on earth, does not mean we don't have a way it could have happened. There is no need to add a step in the process for 'magic'.

Humans have lots of experience with death and are in a very good position to say, "Well there's the problem....this person has an extra hole in their head....since we have seen putting extra whole in people's head often kills them....we can conclude the putting of an extra whole in the decendents head probably is what killed him/her".

We simply have no experience with lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process.....none....zippo.

Your analogy doesn't follow.

[Cato]

Humans have lots of experience with death and are in a very good position to say, "Well there's the problem....this person has an extra hole in their head....since we have seen putting extra whole in people's head often kills them....we can conclude the putting of an extra whole in the decendents head probably is what killed him/her".

We simply have no experience with lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process.....none....zippo.

Your analogy doesn't follow.

We also don't have any experience observing gods poofing things into existence.

The analogy, although not perfect, is suitable. In fact, your example better illustrates the technique of using existing experience and knowledge to provide an explanation for events that weren't directly witnessed. Invoking God explains nothing and raises even more questions.

[Mister Agenda]

God probably exists.
God probably does not exist.

I don't know if God exists. That is me making a statement about my knowledge. Nevertheless, I have committed to one of those propositions. Have you? If you have I don't think you can hide behind, "I simply lack belief in God or gods". Lack of belief is lack of commitment. Taking on the label "atheist" and participating in the atheist community certainly suggests to me some sort of commitment.

I think God probably does not exist. If you call willingness to change my mind at the drop of a hat in the presence of a convincing miracle or even the right words from the right person, 'committment', I feel like you're trying to manipulate me in some way. Like slipping in a redefinition of 'lack of belief' as a 'lack of committment'. A belief is what you think is true. It doesn't require committment. I don't even think there is a choice involved, we HAVE to believe what we think is true. I don't believe God is real. I think God probably doesn't exist. I lack a belief that God is real. I lack a belief that God probably exists. I know you don't like the term, but you're never going to get us to agree to use different language as long as we think it's true that the language we're using describes our position the most conclusively and accurately. My mind has been changed before at least twice about the best defintion for atheist, through the introduction of new facts. Unless you have one of those, your choice is to suck it up and move on instead of dwelling on this sticking point, or keep going around in circles chasing your tail trying to get us to define ourselves in a way that pleases you.

---

We simply have no experience with lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process.....none....zippo.

I can't see any way in which this cannot be interpreted as an argument from ignorance.

[Esquilax]

We simply have no experience with lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process.....none....zippo.

I can't see any way in which this cannot be interpreted as an argument from ignorance.

It's also simply untrue: as I pointed out, we have experimental evidence that shows that the building blocks of life can form via natural processes. And if Heywood's next inclination is to scoff that we've only got the first few steps and not a complete picture then my next inclination would be to point out that the first few steps is an obstacle that claims of supernatural origins have never been able to surmount, despite being around for much longer than the scientific method which yielded positive results for natural means has been.

That's been kinda my sticking point all along: saying we've got no reason to entertain abiogenesis is a lie, plain and simple, and if we have to choose between a hypothesis which only has real evidence behind it, and a wild claim that has none, I don't understand why it'd be less rational to go with the latter. Heywood's thread is based on a specious premise, and an overinflated sense of worth for his own beliefs.

[genkaus]

You said non-divine cause, not natural cause... a worldview necessarily contains more than one belief.

Okay, since you're all about semantics, what do you call an opinion that potentially affects everything else you believe about the world?

A foundational belief or a basic belief or a core belief. Unfortunately, atheism does not qualify.

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, since you're all about semantics, what do you call an opinion that potentially affects everything else you believe about the world?

A foundational belief or a basic belief or a core belief. Unfortunately, atheism does not qualify.

It's more a conclusion, I would think. I have concluded that belief in God is not rationally justified, and that's why I don't believe it. I didn't start with 'there is no God' and look for ways to shore that premise up. I actually started with 'God is real' and kept running into things that seemed at odds with it until my mind was changed.

[genkaus]

A foundational belief or a basic belief or a core belief. Unfortunately, atheism does not qualify.

It's more a conclusion, I would think.

Agreed.

[fr0d0]

You can be such an ass, fr0d0. We know you're some flavor of Christian. We don't get stuck on the fact that you're a theist, we want to know more about your position than that. We're still working on getting people to understand atheists come in different flavors. I'm more than happy to defend 'my flavor' but I won't be dishonest and claim atheism is something it isn't for your convenience and satisfaction. I can count on one hand the times a theist has tried to ascertain what my position is beyond mere atheism without prompting. I'm looking forward to the day when we don't have to spend so much blasted time on the fundamentals of what an atheist is and isn't that we can actually get past that to something more interesting. Look how long Heywood has been here and he still has to have the simplest things explained to him.

I think we're saying the same thing MA. Likewise I find the Christian position severely misrepresented. The theist position, well I ascribe to that too. Haywood, as I see him posting now and recently, has a perfect understanding of what constitutes atheism. That's my point. The objections are nit picking. You're not allowing him to generalise where generalisations are warranted. I find that a dishonest diversionary tactic.