Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Expired]

Think I'll give it a miss.

[ignoramus]

To God, thanks for boobs too!

---

[/url]

---

PS, what you see in A69, you cannot unsee!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Many thanks to those who thoughtfully accepted my invitation to comment on the points made by the author of the blog post “Philosopher Groans”. I’m glad to see that at least some of you are skeptical of this uniquely New Atheist staple asserting that atheism makes no knowledge claims. I did not raise the issue to pin the “burden of proof” on others so as to avoid it myself. Instead, I wanted to show that theists are not the only ones who think saying “there is no evidence for god(s)” makes a knowledge claim similar to something like “this bucket contains no water”.

On a related point, I feel conflicted about a particular response made by some that because there are so many types of god(s), a blanket doxastic position that none exist is justified. This seems like a reasonable position for a skeptic who is not inclined to speculate on philosophical issues. At the same time I think it overstates the problem. Polytheism, Classical Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, and Polytheism exhaust the major categories. As such, interfaith dialog often revolves around specifics within each type, like two people debating whether a garden apartment is in a basement or actually on the first floor, or the degree to and means by which a particular type of God makes itself known.

[Angrboda]

I noticed recently that there are a lot more arguments that attack the justifiability of believing rather than assert the position of knowing. In order to assert the justifiability of claiming to know there are no gods, it seems one would need to show that the existence of a god was impossible. There are arguments along those lines, but they're less prominent than justifications for simply not believing (the argument from evil and the incoherence of god's attributes pops to mind). An example of the kind justifying nonbelief is comparisons of gods to mythical creatures. That a god betrays signs that s/he is a mythical creature is not positive evidence that said god does not exist, only that it would be unwise to believe in such a god. This is similar to the blog author's claim that god belief is irrational. Should we be claiming that a) I lack belief and b) that those who profess belief are being unreasonable, instead of just claiming a lack of belief? Is the relative obscurity of proofs of the impossibility of god a problem for atheism?

[LadyForCamus]

It's only a problem from the theist's standpoint. IMO, ofc. [emoji57]. I don't know...doesn't one's justified lack of belief, in and of its self, imply that anyone who does hold that belief is being unreasonable? I mean, are we not saying that loud enough?

[Cyberman]

I just want to add that a quick skim through some of the theist postings on these very boards will show that the canard of atheism being a knowledge claim isn't unique to 'New Atheism'.

[Mystic]

The thing is if I was Atheist, I would see chance of Creator to be high, in that it's at least 50%.

Let me explain. It seems there are good arguments to show time had a start. Now you can say a timeless universe may have started the universe into becoming a time one, but for all you know, that could be impossible and be proven to be rational impossible. You don't know a universe can change without time already being part of it and property of it. And it seems to be more special pleading to say the universe had a timeless state when we know time is a property of it, rather, then to state something else created it that was timeless. And the latter seems more logical. But if uncertain to a 50/50, it's more like a coin toss.

The same is true of knowing whether a soul exists or not. I believe I can see a soul exists I experience it directly and know it exists. But if I was Atheist, how would I dismiss the possibility of a soul being part of reality and necessary characteristic of consciousness. Again we have 50/50, for all we know type perspective.

The same is true of nature of morality, love, value, praise. The same is true of perpetual identity, inheriting our actions....etc....something keeping score to our value and objectively maintaining and giving it's reality through seeing it, and what we earn is being upheld by this being.

The same is true of other things like "from nothing, nothing follows" - knowledge of that, may imply we have knowledge of nature of existence to a degree, and the same knowledge perhaps points to us knowing "everything existing has a constant cause...either it constantly causes itself or is caused by something else". The question is the smallest unit of existence what causes itself to exist....or is more logical to assume a super powerful being is causing existence even at this very moment?

These type things....at the very least, make it a coin toss. And even a person says "well I don't know", it is not reason to assume others can't know or don't know. Perhaps the nature of knowledge of these things takes a bit of trust in reason we been given.

Perhaps Atheist lack trust in their reason. In other words, to simply say, believers are foolish to believing in God seems to be making at sort of way of argument "If I don't affirm these things, no one else can...if they aren't convincing to me, they can't be convincing to anyone else".

The other thing is denying the validity of faith. If God exists, he is a mystical magical being, and link to him can be mystical and magical. That is to say different levels of faith can exist, and the reality of faith in God can rely on a nature of knowledge linked to him, that is higher and more sacred then other type.

Perhaps due to how humbling and sacred this love, some people, wanting to make their world or themselves number 1, may deny it all together, being afraid of the unseen path that lies in such a journey through faith.

Or there being high exalted ranks through this faith, they may want to deny such stations to justify their lower station.

Some people may just be deceived into thinking their soul has little potential, no help of God can come to it and make it rise to high states of witnessing and knowledge of Him.

This all done by usually by assuming there is no God so as to be a mystical connection, and then assuming there is no proof in form of arguments, and assume there is no evidence as well.

[Angrboda]

The thing is if I was Atheist, I would see chance of Creator to be high, in that it's at least 50%.

Let me explain. It seems there are good arguments to show time had a start. Now you can say a timeless universe may have started the universe into becoming a time one, but for all you know, that could be impossible and be proven to be rational impossible. You don't know a universe can change without time already being part of it and property of it. And it seems to be more special pleading to say the universe had a timeless state when we know time is a property of it, rather, then to state something else created it that was timeless. And the latter seems more logical. But if uncertain to a 50/50, it's more like a coin toss.
. . . .These type things....at the very least, make it a coin toss. And even a person says "well I don't know", it is not reason to assume others can't know or don't know. Perhaps the nature of knowledge of these things takes a bit of trust in reason we been given.

The principle of insufficient reason is a method of coping with our ignorance, not a positive assertion of the probabilities.

The other thing is denying the validity of faith. If God exists, he is a mystical magical being, and link to him can be mystical and magical. That is to say different levels of faith can exist, and the reality of faith in God can rely on a nature of knowledge linked to him, that is higher and more sacred then other type.

Perhaps due to how humbling and sacred this love, some people, wanting to make their world or themselves number 1, may deny it all together, being afraid of the unseen path that lies in such a journey through faith.

Or there being high exalted ranks through this faith, they may want to deny such stations to justify their lower station.

Some people may just be deceived into thinking their soul has little potential, no help of God can come to it and make it rise to high states of witnessing and knowledge of Him.

This all done by usually by assuming there is no God so as to be a mystical connection, and then assuming there is no proof in form of arguments, and assume there is no evidence as well.

Bollocks on all counts. That you see mystical magical things is not in doubt. Why others don't see what you see is the matter of doubt. You have been deceived by the person most capable of deceiving you -- yourself.

[downbeatplumb]

There has never been an answer to anything that has, after thorough investigation, been magical, mystical or supernatural. Until they are proved to even be a thing outside of fiction they can be discounted as an explanation for anything.

[Mystic]

The thing is if I was Atheist, I would see chance of Creator to be high, in that it's at least 50%.

The principle of insufficient reason is a method of coping with our ignorance, not a positive assertion of the probabilities.

I think I worded this wrong. It would not prove the probability of God existing or what probability he has if any....but it would give the probability of "from all we know" perspective to be high.

That is to say, from our perspective, we should see the possibility as high. Not in the actual chance of God existing...but it's more like...from all we know perspective, he may exist type opinion should be high in our minds.

And that should humble people to not be so hostile to believers, which I showed, for all they know  have known from reason as well as a mystical connection and link to God.