Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Minimalist]

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.

A book of shitty old poetry is no substitute.

[Felasco]

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:

1) human reason is the qualified authority

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

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

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

[Silver]

Religious belief is dredged from irrationality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Reason is to the atheist what holy books are to the theist... 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.

Sorry, friend. Reason is not the exclusive property of atheists.

[Simon Moon]

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

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

Kind of in a "those who can't do, teach" sort of way.

The question is, will the rational disbelief in gods rub off on you?

[Simon Moon]

Reason is to the atheist what holy books are to the theist... 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.

Sorry, friend. Reason is not the exclusive property of atheists.

It is when it comes to the belief in gods.

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

[LadyForCamus]

I don't think you understood what I meant, or I wasn't clear. What you just said above is exactly what I was trying to say.

But, pushing forward; I have a comment/question: I think one reason many atheists stop before gnostic atheism is because declaring knowledge that an unfalsifiable claim is false, is logically fallacious.

From your article:


So, if it can be argued that the existence of God is in fact falsifiable, might atheists feel more comfortable placing themselves in the "gnostic" category? What does everyone think?

Chad, what do you think? Is the author's reasoning satisfactory to consider God falsifiable?

"God exists" is not falsifiable in the sense of finding a tangible disqualifying object or physical circumstance but it is to the extent that properties attributed to God can be shown to be incoherent.

So it is, but it's not? Either way, theists have an endless number of ad hoc loop holes to get them around the logically incoherent properties of God, and they all pretty much amount to: "that is not an accurate description of God's properties according to my interpretation/knowledge of him." In other words, "you have God all wrong!"

[Felasco]

Sorry, friend. Reason is not the exclusive property of atheists.

 
Sorry in turn, I didn't say that it was.

[Minimalist]

Sorry, friend. Reason is not the exclusive property of atheists.

It is when it comes to the belief in gods.

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

Which they themselves admit.

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.

Martin Luther

Yep.  A fucking moron.