Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Felasco]

Anytime faith is a component of a belief, reason has left the building.

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

[AFTT47]

Chad, most people here gnosticaly reject the God of the Bible and probably every other human God claim. We do this because those specific claims make assertions which are easily falsified. We cannot reject all possible God claims though unless you define God in a way which is logically inconsistent with itself. I don't believe the word, "agnostic" applies to us because we don't reserve judgement when it comes to specific claims which can be falsified. At the same time though, we can't reject all possible claims of God as long as those claims do not violate the known laws of physics or are logically inconsistent.

If you don't want to call us, "atheists", what do you want to call us? I'm open to suggestions.

It sounds to me like you just want us to admit to being something we're not so as to more easily attack us. Sorry, Chad. We are what we are. If you want a new label for us, try to coin one yourself. I personally couldn't care less what you call me as long as you accurately represent what I am.

[Felasco]

If you don't want to call us, "atheists", what do you want to call us? I'm open to suggestions.

Reasonists.

One possible problem with this label however is that a person of reason is, ideally at least, not concerned with victory or being right.  That would be an ideologist. 

Atheists vary quite a bit on where they land on the reasonist <=> ideologist scale.  The amount of emotion included in one's writing on such subjects can serve as a rough guide.

[Simon Moon]

Anytime faith is a component of a belief, reason has left the building.

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

Since I consider reason to be using a combination of demonstrable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, I would be hard pressed to think of anywhere that reason would not be a valid method.

I would not claim to know this with absolute certainty, but I suspect it is the case.

Especially since the logical absolutes are true everywhere, and not dependant on a mind.

[LadyForCamus]

Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief.

1) I admit to having tried the mocking technique on this subject, and have concluded that such activity is mostly just an advertisement for my own emotional immaturity, and a practice which typically generates far more heat than light. Not mocking your mocking :-) just doubting it will accomplish much.

2) I agree the "lack of belief" definition is less than useful. I prefer to see atheism as a belief that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods that may be contained within. Reason is to the atheist what holy books are to the theist, a chosen authority which is referenced because it is assumed qualified.

As best I can tell, the "lack of belief" definition of atheism persists because many or most atheists sincerely consider the infinite power of human reason to be an obvious given. Their faith in that power is typically so strong that they don't recognize it as faith, and thus they don't define themselves in relation to their own beliefs, but in relation to the theist's belief.

As example, the label "reasonist" would reframe the atheist position more accurately, as the positive assertion that it is. The "reasonist" could then proceed to argue for the infinite power of their chosen authority in the same way the theist argues for his chosen authority.

The person who concludes that neither the reasonist nor the theist has proven their most fundamental assertion, the qualifications of their chosen authority, can still be called an agnostic.

The person who rejects the premise the god debate is built upon, a widely shared belief that knowing is preferable to ignorance on such subjects, might be called a fundamentalist agnostic.

That is a terribly false analogy...

[LadyForCamus]

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

Since I consider reason to be using a combination of demonstrable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, I would be hard pressed to think of anywhere that reason would not be a valid method.

I would not claim to know this with absolute certainty, but I suspect it is the case.

Especially since the logical absolutes are true everywhere, and not dependant on a mind.

Annnnd...philosophical gibber-jabber about the specialness of God starts in 3...2...1...

[Simon Moon]

I lack belief not because I credit humanity with extraordinary powers of reason, but simply because I see no evidence and I ain't built with faith.

"Seeing no evidence" means, you feel the rules of human reason are binding upon the topic, and those rules have not been complied with adequately.  There are two assertions here:

What else do we have besides "human reason"?

It kind  of goes without saying that we are relying on human reasoning (demonstrable evidence and sound/valid logic) to come to the conclusion that the claim that a god exists has insufficient evidence to justify belief. 

1) human reason is the qualified authority

I'll bet you used human reason to come up with that statement. 

What else do we have? 

2) this authority does not allow the god proposal, due to a failure to meet the authority's evidence rules.

if you use another method other than human reason, I'd sure like to know what it is. 

Oh...

And how would you go about testing if a conclusion you come to, that is not based on human reason, is true? 

In order to arrive at "lack belief" in regards to gods, a person first has to have belief in the above assertions regarding human reason.

What we have going for us by basing our conclusions about the universe on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence and valid and sound logic, is that we have a method of testing the conclusions.

Once you let us know what your other method is, besides reason, also let us know how would you go about figuring out if it leads to true conclusions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I lack belief not because I credit humanity with extraordinary powers of reason, but simply because I see no evidence and I ain't built with faith.

"Seeing no evidence" means, you feel the rules of human reason are binding upon the topic, and those rules have not been complied with adequately.

No, it doesn't. It means that absent any support, I'm not obliged to lend credence to a claim that is otherwise ridiculous.

There are two assertions here:

1) human reason is the qualified authority

My brain's gotten me through fifty years on this rock without too much in the way of trouble. I'm good with that track record.

2) this authority does not allow the god proposal, due to a failure to meet the authority's evidence rules.

You've obviously mistaken me for a gnostic atheist, which I am not. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not claim that there is no god. There may well be. I simply do not believe in any I've read about, because if someone makes a claim that is true, that claim should leave support laying around reality -- it's kind of the way things work.

To go further, the odder or more fantastic the claim, the odder or more fantastic should be the evidence to hand.

These are not hard and fast rules, and they do not preclude using subjective judgement, either.

In order to arrive at "lack belief" in regards to gods, a person first has to have belief in the above assertions regarding human reason.

Wrong, for the stated reasons.

[Whateverist]

Give me one good reason to put my trust in reason. Oh look! Some flowers ..

[robvalue]

Why do you care so much that people don't believe?

Because I like to encourage the rationality of my fellow man. ;-)

I like to encourage that too.

To that end, I've been meaning to do another video regarding arguments and evidence. I shall get to it soon. It will be very relevant to your style of debate.