Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[LadyForCamus]

If the belief is indeed irrational, how does make the atheist arrogant?  I'd say it's just telling the truth.  Remember, theists come HERE to us to argue this stuff.  If the theist is hyper-sensitive about their beliefs then they should keep them within the theist circle.

I think Jorm is just saying if a hard atheist finds the "lack of belief" stance irrational, wouldn't it be more consistent to call it out as such just as they are happy to do in the case of theist belief.

Oh, okay I'm sorry. I misunderstood. In fairness, yes they should. I wonder if that is the feeling of our hard atheists here? I don't think I've ever seen it discussed.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I am also happy with the majority of other atheists stating that they simply lack a belief in a god. It would be arrogant of me and anyone else to tell them what they think.

Yet we don't consider it arrogant to tell theists that what they think is irrational, would not a similar standard apply if the "lack of belief" stance is irrational?  If it's an irrational position to hold, shouldn't we criticize it likewise?

I meant in the way that theists can use a strawman argument. Like, you don't actually believe that you believe this.

If an atheist tells me that they simply lack a belief in a god then I will accept that.

Judging it as rational or irrational is completely different.

[Mister Agenda]

As a believer I still like to follow the musings of the "opposition". Occasionally I find positions with which I agree. Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief. I have posted this link as an invitation to discuss the points raised by the author who just so happens to be an atheist:

https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

Whether it's the best we can do is irrelevant. It's the most accurate description of my actual position.

[LadyForCamus]

As a believer I still like to follow the musings of the "opposition". Occasionally I find positions with which I agree. Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief. I have posted this link as an invitation to discuss the points raised by the author who just so happens to be an atheist:

https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

Whether it's the best we can do is irrelevant. It's the most accurate description of my actual position.

Right, and the innuendo being that such a position is inadequate...because philosophy.

[Felasco]

[quote pid='1230839' dateline='1458741200']
Lol, fair enough.  See above for my edited content.  I am curious to know why you assume there is a scale beyond the one we currently experience. 
[/quote]

Thank you. 

I don't know that there is, but it seems a quite reasonable possibility. 

Every species ever discovered is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there.  But beyond it's niche, every species is largely blind, as it has no need for that information.  It's of course true that humans have a bigger niche than say, donkeys, but it doesn't automatically follow that we are therefore capable of understanding everything at some point.  It seems more reasonable to assume we are like every other species ever discovered, capable to a point, and then limited.

As example, what is our sample size?  That is, what is the relationship between what we can observe, and all that is?    Answer: Nobody has the slightest idea.

Thus, even if we were to agree that the rules of human reason are binding on all we can observe, that is essentially meaningless information in regards to the fundamental nature of all reality.

In any case, if anyone is going to propose that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the burden is on them to prove it.   The same is true of holy books of course.

[Felasco]

Human reason is not an authority, it's a tool.  Again, the analogy fails.  We use it because it works. 

Please prove that the tool of reason "works" in all of reality, the scope of most god proposals.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist here.

Please explain why I am required to accept without proof that rules created by a single species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies are binding upon all of reality, a realm no one can define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).

Please explain what you mean by "all of reality" and why you assume that any god is contained within it.

I don't assume there are any gods contained within.  All of reality = all there is.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote pid='1230839' dateline='1458741200']
Lol, fair enough.  See above for my edited content.  I am curious to know why you assume there is a scale beyond the one we currently experience. 

Thank you. 

I don't know that there is, but it seems a quite reasonable possibility. 

Every species ever discovered is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there.  But beyond it's niche, every species is largely blind, as it has no need for that information.  It's of course true that humans have a bigger niche than say, donkeys, but it doesn't automatically follow that we are therefore capable of understanding everything at some point.  It seems more reasonable to assume we are like every other species ever discovered, capable to a point, and then limited.

As example, what is our sample size?  That is, what is the relationship between what we can observe, and all that is?    Answer: Nobody has the slightest idea.

Thus, even if we were to agree that the rules of human reason are binding on all we can observe, that is essentially meaningless information in regards to the fundamental nature of all reality.

In any case, if anyone is going to propose that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the burden is on them to prove it.   The same is true of holy books of course.
[/quote]

But from a practical standpoint, what function does pondering over what may or may not lie beyond our mortal limits serve? How would this change my every day life? I don't see how it would effect me in any meaningful way. If we are talking about God as described in the bible, that's a completely different story. Now we are getting into rules, rituals, worship, and specific instructions on how to live life, but this version of God also requires considerably more evidence in order to be taken seriously.

[LadyForCamus]

Human reason is not an authority, it's a tool.  Again, the analogy fails.  We use it because it works. 

Please prove that the tool of reason "works" in all of reality, the scope of most god proposals.

Again, I am making no comment on this "all of reality" stuff, because I'm not sure what you mean by it. Human reason is effective within the reality that my feeble human brain is capable of experiencing. What I'm saying is that's enough for me. Anything beyond that is unsupported speculation and serves no practical purpose in my life.[/quote]

Please explain why I am required to accept without proof that rules created by a single species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies are binding upon all of reality, a realm no one can define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).

No one is requiring you to accept anything. Sadly, it doesn't ever seem to work both ways...

[Mister Agenda]

Lol, fair enough.  See above for my edited content.  I am curious to know why you assume there is a scale beyond the one we currently experience. 

Thank you. 

I don't know that there is, but it seems a quite reasonable possibility. 

Every species ever discovered is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there.  But beyond it's niche, every species is largely blind, as it has no need for that information.  It's of course true that humans have a bigger niche than say, donkeys, but it doesn't automatically follow that we are therefore capable of understanding everything at some point.  It seems more reasonable to assume we are like every other species ever discovered, capable to a point, and then limited.

As example, what is our sample size?  That is, what is the relationship between what we can observe, and all that is?    Answer: Nobody has the slightest idea.

Thus, even if we were to agree that the rules of human reason are binding on all we can observe, that is essentially meaningless information in regards to the fundamental nature of all reality.

In any case, if anyone is going to propose that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the burden is on them to prove it.   The same is true of holy books of course.

Sure we don't know everything. It does not follow that some particular thing we don't know is real. Only that something that doesn't contradict what we know to be factual and doesn't have contradictory attributes is possible. I know human reason isn't necessarily binding on the whole universe, but barring Last Thursdayism or the Matrix; I think we're in a position to know some properties a proposed entity won't have; it won't be a married bachelor or have created the universe by pushing peanut butter and chocolate together.

[Felasco]

But from a practical standpoint, what function does pondering over what may or may not lie beyond our mortal limits serve?  How would this change my every day life?  I don't see how it would effect me in any meaningful way. 

Well, I really don't know.  Presumably it would effect you at least to the degree that assuming you are in a position to reject god proposals affects your life, whatever that might be.