Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[FebruaryOfReason]

Lack of belief in a fairytale is only a minor consequence of the scientific method.

More important consequences are food refrigeration, disease prevention, homes that stay warm, clean water and safe childbirth. Surgical operations without agony, the ability to speak to people on the other side of the world, effective contraception, useful guidance of ships at sea, storm warnings, etc would be others.

These are all a consequence of a detailed, disciplined examination of the real world, and a willingness to change our opinions when faced with hard facts.

Lack of belief is not the best we can do. It is merely one facet of a much greater solid.

[Simon Moon]

Except that my post had nothing to do with religious believers.  I was asking atheists to prove the qualifications of their own chosen authority, or tool if you prefer.

The qualifications are, it works.

EVERY advancement ever made is a result of reason. 

Human lifespan has more than doubled in the last 100 years, airflight, modern medicine, computers, etc, etc, etc... All because of reason.

Atheism is not a dogmatic position. It is a provisional one. 

My atheism is contingent on the current and continuing lack of demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods (or supernatural, for that matter) exist.  

The methods I use to come the the conclusion that the belief in gods is unjustified are: evidence, reason, logic, critical thinking. If you can show me how these methods/tools fail, or I am misusing them, I am all ears.

I'm not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, that's sweet Nymph!   Thank you.    You give me too much credit though.  I'm just an emotionally reactive poster, and it gets me into trouble sometimes.  It's something I'm actively working on.  Not evidenced in this thread, obviously, lol.

We all get emotional (well, narcissists don't), and we all have our moments, but that's what makes us human

And I watch your posts. I've seen you apologize on many occasions. You are a humble lady and I have much respect for you.

Aww, thank you!  Much love! 

[RobbyPants]

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/

Honestly, apart from tribal identity and simplifying one's views of others, labels don't really matter. I don't particularly care if the "best" label for me is atheist, agnostic, or wargarble. I don't believe in any gods. I don't believe that I can disprove the nonfalsifiable notion of gods. I don't believe in leprechauns. I don't believe that I can disprove the nonfalsifiable notion of leprechauns.

[Mister Agenda]

And another thing: If you follow my posts here at AF (which I think you don't, because you don't feel I have anything to say that would be worthy of your attention) you can plainly see that I am more than happy to humbly concede where I am wrong, and have done so on several occasions. So, this whole, "you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational" is a strawman.

LC, you have integrity. Something that some of the theists here seriously lack.

A few of the atheists, too, if we're being honest. We can only be responsible for ourselves, though.

[Mister Agenda]

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a subtle strawman.  No one has said that things cannot appear contradictory. Why are you asserting that they assume that?

Please re-read the post you are quoting, and the post I was responding to, thanks.

And after that is done, how do you intend to back up your claim that I assumed that nothing can even appear to be contradictory?

[Felasco]

The methods I use to come the the conclusion that the belief in gods is unjustified are: evidence, reason, logic, critical thinking. If you can show me how these methods/tools fail, or I am misusing them, I am all ears.

If you are a person of reason, you will challenge your own chosen methodology with the same vigor with which you challenge the chosen methodology of others.  If you are an ideologist, you will resist such a process by any means necessary. 

If you are a person of reason, it's YOUR job to challenge the qualifications of evidence, reason, logic, critical thinking to create meaningful statements about the fundamental nature of all reality, a realm no one can define in even the most basic manner.

You've already done this with the other fellow's chosen methodology.  That's good.  Now just do the exact same thing with your own chosen methodology.

Or be a proud ideologist, everyone is entitled to that choice too.  If you are an ideologist then you will argue with anything anybody says that doesn't reinforce your own preferred conclusions.  

I can show you how it's unlikely that the abilities of a single species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies are adequate to grasp the nature of all reality, but I've already typed that a couple times above and if you wanted to hear it, you could easily figure it out for yourself.

[Felasco]

The qualifications are, it works.

EVERY advancement ever made is a result of reason. 

Human lifespan has more than doubled in the last 100 years, airflight, modern medicine, computers, etc, etc, etc... All because of reason.

And as already discussed above, this is not proof that human reason therefore works for EVERYTHING. 

Can we use reason to fall in love, a key aspiration of most humans?   No, we can't.  

I am declining to believe in the infinite power of human reason on faith, just as you reasonably decline to believe in the infinite power of holy books on faith.  I am the real atheist here.

[Simon Moon]

The qualifications are, it works.

EVERY advancement ever made is a result of reason. 

Human lifespan has more than doubled in the last 100 years, airflight, modern medicine, computers, etc, etc, etc... All because of reason.

And as already discussed above, this is not proof that human reason therefore works for EVERYTHING.

Never said it did.

In this discussion, I am only concerned with existential claims. 

Can we use reason to fall in love, a key aspiration of most humans?   No, we can't.

Seems like a non sequitur to the discussion we are having.


We are discussing whether reason is the best method to discern whether it is justified to believe in supernatural, existential claims. 

I am declining to believe in the infinite power of human reason on faith, just as you reasonably decline to believe in the infinite power of holy books on faith.  I am the real atheist here.

Straw man alert!!!

Who the hell has claimed that human reason has infinite power?

All we are claiming, is that reason is by far, the single best method we have discovered (so far) to discern fact from fiction.

Sorry, but there is zero faith required to accept reason as the best method for examining the universe.

Here's a question for you; do you currently accept the premise, that at least one god exists, to be true?

[LadyForCamus]

This was also my question to her. She never answered me. Possibly because of snark. [emoji56]