My view and reasons for them. Atheist and Christians welcome here. (short)

[Simon Moon]

I am not saying there is a God creature. God may just be that which explains the unexplainable.

What you are describing is a panacea. But in reality, a panacea explains nothing.

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to just admit when we do not have an explanation, instead of sticking in something that does not explain a thing? You could just as well say, "falmbo may just be that which explains the unexplainable", and you have changed nothing.

Remember, your god 'explanation' was once used to explain: lightning, earthquakes, famine, disease, floods, etc. All have since been actually explained by using evidence and reason.

God may be the force that drives the universe to work the way it does.

Nature seems to be a fine explanation for that.

Why put the "god" label on it?

[Quick]

I can't be sure my subjective mappings of reality are any more accurate than anyone else's.

Bold mine.

But others do have a method to see of our beliefs accurately map to reality. And that is by basing them on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic.

You really don't believe that there is a reliable method to determine fact from fiction? Or what is likely true, from what is unlikely true? Then why do we lock up insane people? I am sure there are many schizophrenics you can get many different subjective interpretations of reality from, that are demonstrable not true. And of course, you don't believe them.

The fact that you are unable to see the difference in the reliability of beliefs based on subjective interpretations, and based on demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, says a lot about your credulity.

When I accept a claim to be true, I do so based on the above criteria (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic). If the claim is not supported by those criteria, then I withhold belief.

The interesting thing is, I can guarantee that, when it comes to other aspects of your life, you don't base your beliefs on subjective interpretations. I'll bet when you cross the street, you make your decision based on evidence, not subjective interpretation. "It sure looks there is a car coming, but my subjective interpretation makes me believe the street is clear", said you never.

Why are your god beliefs immune to the same level of scrutiny as other aspects of your life? Why base them on subjective interpretations, yet use evidence and reason when choosing a surgeon, for example?

I think due to the lack of grasp on reality that we have as a species that this influences our effectiveness or lack there of in determining what is fact. I think we can know some things but that is limited to our perception/brain/tools. I think we have bias because of our limitations and that what we think we are measuring might be things that we want to happen anyways, again due to our bias because of our limitations.

I never said or claimed that my beliefs are not something that can't be put under scrutiny. I've never been in surgery, but if you mean that I direct my actions based on what I know, they yes, ofc, but I can't always assume that what I know is accurate because my perception is not perfect. What you are arguing here is what I would call is based on a priori knowledge and not anything that I really need evidence for. Action is not the same as belief.

[Simon Moon]

I'd say the belief that there is no God is a faith as well. The only way for your belief to not be a faith is to say you don't know since there isn't proof one way or another.

Absolutely incorrect.

First of all, atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by theist that there is a god.

At its most fundamental, atheism is nothing more, than not being convinced that a god exists.

Second, how is not being convinced of an unsupported claim, a faith based position?

I'll bet you disbelieve in many supernatural claims (bigfoot, alien abductions, Jinn, tarot cards, etc, etc). Is you disbelief in any of those a faith based position?

Do you require faith to disbelieve in the Greek pantheon of gods?

[Quick]

I am not saying there is a God creature. God may just be that which explains the unexplainable.

What you are describing is a panacea. But in reality, a panacea explains nothing.

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to just admit when we do not have an explanation, instead of sticking in something that does not explain a thing? You could just as well say, "falmbo may just be that which explains the unexplainable", and you have changed nothing.

Remember, your god 'explanation' was once used to explain: lightning, earthquakes, famine, disease, floods, etc. All have since been actually explained by using evidence and reason.

 

Had to look up what panacea was. I supposed that is one way to look at it. What I am doing is providing an explanation to things that cannot be explain and I don't have a problem with that. I am not saying what I am doing does nothing. That is what you are saying what I am doing is. Intellectual honesty is a tricky thing because we have so many different things that are pushing and pulling on us to direct what we do that we can't always make the best intellectually honest thing because in essence, it doesn't apply to the situation.

God may be the force that drives the universe to work the way it does.

Nature seems to be a fine explanation for that.

Why put the "god" label on it?

Sure, you can call it nature, but then nature is something that is limited to a specific function and the idea of God is not. What I mean is that The complexities of the universe may be explain by a God. Nature is just a process rather than a cause.

[Succubus]

I think it;s cute that you think that, while simultaneously imagining that there's some atheist factory out there in the world..... and that you, yes you...are a credible authority on atheism.

So long as you presist in this utterly common bullshit about atheism being a belief...you will have missed what atheism actually is by as far as it could be missed.  You'll likely be treated as if yoiu were any of the other nutters before you who;ve been through here and made the same claims, providing the same rationalizations.

I am just noting an observation when I talk about the dance.

IIRC, the reason for atheism is that they believe there is no God because there is no/ineffective evidence to support that there is a God, which leads people to believe there is no God or something very similar. Which, sure, but there is no evidence that life should exist either and yet here we are.

Transcended Dimensions; is that you?

[Quick]

I'd say the belief that there is no God is a faith as well. The only way for your belief to not be a faith is to say you don't know since there isn't proof one way or another.

Absolutely incorrect.

First of all, atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by theist that there is a god.

At its most fundamental, atheism is nothing more, than not being convinced that a god exists.

Second, how is not being convinced of an unsupported claim, a faith based position?

I'll bet you disbelieve in many supernatural claims (bigfoot, alien abductions, Jinn, tarot cards, etc, etc). Is you disbelief in any of those a faith based position?

Do you require faith to disbelieve in the Greek pantheon of gods?

If that is the definition of what atheism is, I am not quite sure why this place exists considering it doesn't actually have a theory of its own. I guess I nailed it with my antithesis argument. That seems to be the basis for the entire belief system.

But then you provide a different definition of what an atheist is which confuses me because this definition looks a lot more like a pessimistic agnostic's beliefs.

I think not believing an unsupported claim is fine but it doesn't actually tell you much. I mean there are a lot of things I can simply not believe the claim of, but you don't see me giving a big up and all about those things. What exactly is the direction that atheism gives you? I guess this is a question I would be open hearing from others as well as yourself.

I mean, I can call myself an anti-conspiracist, but that doesn't actually give me much to work with.

Any stance one makes towards something that cannot be proven one way or another is what I would say is a belief. Do I believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? No, but I can't be sure they do not exist; I can only say it is unlikely that they do.

I think a definition of what an agnostic is in order because I fail to see the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist.

---

I am just noting an observation when I talk about the dance.

IIRC, the reason for atheism is that they believe there is no God because there is no/ineffective evidence to support that there is a God, which leads people to believe there is no God or something very similar. Which, sure, but there is no evidence that life should exist either and yet here we are.

Transcended Dimensions; is that you?

Hm?

[Simon Moon]

Bold mine.

But others do have a method to see of our beliefs accurately map to reality. And that is by basing them on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic.

You really don't believe that there is a reliable method to determine fact from fiction? Or what is likely true, from what is unlikely true? Then why do we lock up insane people? I am sure there are many schizophrenics you can get many different subjective interpretations of reality from, that are demonstrable not true. And of course, you don't believe them.

The fact that you are unable to see the difference in the reliability of beliefs based on subjective interpretations, and based on demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, says a lot about your credulity.

When I accept a claim to be true, I do so based on the above criteria (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic). If the claim is not supported by those criteria, then I withhold belief.

The interesting thing is, I can guarantee that, when it comes to other aspects of your life, you don't base your beliefs on subjective interpretations. I'll bet when you cross the street, you make your decision based on evidence, not subjective interpretation. "It sure looks there is a car coming, but my subjective interpretation makes me believe the street is clear", said you never.

Why are your god beliefs immune to the same level of scrutiny as other aspects of your life? Why base them on subjective interpretations, yet use evidence and reason when choosing a surgeon, for example?

I think due to the lack of grasp on reality that we have as a species that this influences our effectiveness or lack there of in determining what is fact. I think we can know some things but that is limited to our perception/brain/tools. I think we have bias because of our limitations and that what we think we are measuring might be things that we want to happen anyways, again due to our bias because of our limitations.

Of course our knowledge of reality is limited, and imperfect. But that does not mean that we don't have some tools to evaluate claims.

The fact that we don't have a perfect grasp of reality, does not mean we should throw up are hands and just believe anything that makes us feel good, or seems to fit our subjective interpretations.

The scientific method seems to do a pretty damn good job of eliminating biases, presuppositions and preconceptions.

Human life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years, we fly on planes, use cell phones, travel to other planets, etc, all based on evidence based science. Zero faith was involved.

I never said or claimed that my beliefs are not something that can't be put under scrutiny.

I said that. I was trying to show that you most likely use evidence in other aspects of your life, but you rely on subjective interpretation for your god beliefs. If you applied the least bit of critical scrutiny to your subjective god beliefs, you would see that you have not rational reason to accept them.

I've never been in surgery, but if you mean that I direct my actions based on what I know, they yes, ofc, but I can't always assume that what I know is accurate because my perception is not perfect. What you are arguing here is what I would call is based on a priori knowledge and not anything that I really need evidence for. Action is not the same as belief.

Beliefs inform actions.

If you did need surgery, would you go to a faith healer, or a highly (scientifically) trained professional?

The fact that our perceptions are not always accurate, does not mean there is no way to tell the best course of action, based on what evidence we do have.

[Quick]

I think due to the lack of grasp on reality that we have as a species that this influences our effectiveness or lack there of in determining what is fact. I think we can know some things but that is limited to our perception/brain/tools. I think we have bias because of our limitations and that what we think we are measuring might be things that we want to happen anyways, again due to our bias because of our limitations.

Of course our knowledge of reality is limited, and imperfect. But that does not mean that we don't have some tools to evaluate claims.

The fact that we don't have a perfect grasp of reality, does not mean we should throw up are hands and just believe anything that makes us feel good, or seems to fit our subjective interpretations.

The scientific method seems to do a pretty damn good job of eliminating biases, presuppositions and preconceptions.

Human life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years, we fly on planes, use cell phones, travel to other planets, etc, all based on evidence based science. Zero faith was involved.

Sure, the scientific method can eliminate a lot of biases we hold but where we disagree is that we are always going to be biased towards things no matter how much we do end up figuring out.

For the other stuff, again, I think you are equating evidence with direction and I don't think the two go hand in hand. I would obviously go to the hospital if I needed surgery, but I consider this an action that is dictated by a priori knowledge since myself and everyone I know would do the same exact thing that I would.

[Whateverist]

Then you're not an agnostic though you may be a pantheist.

I have no belief in gods so I am an atheist.  I don't argue that gods don't exist so I am also agnostic.  I do however think that gods which people have so long believed in do not justify a belief in anything supernatural.  God belief is natural.  But that doesn't mean people have been correct to posit some ultra dimension in which they may exist.  God belief exists in people's experience and that is where you need to look to find of what a god actually consists.

Yes, I more or less straddle the line between agnostic and pantheist because I believe that there may or may not be a God that explains out existence and that if there is a God that this God likely is/was more just the push that put the universe into existence. That said, I do believe there are active effects of this supposed God's existence that are represented as phenomenon that cannot be explained.

You didn't ask me a question, so I was not quite sure how to respond.

Fair enough. I was basically challenging your self description as an agnostic. Given what you've just written it seems all the less likely. In response to the question "does a god exist", your answer would seem to be "yes, there are effects of this supposed God's existence that are represented as phenomenon that cannot be explained (otherwise)". Whether or not you are certain, your belief status where God/gods is concerned is affirmative. You have your reasons even if you're not completely certain. It isn't as though you don't think there is any way to know whether gods exist, you've just given one.

I don't claim to know for certainty that gods do not exist but until there is a very good reason to think there might be I choose to ignore the question. So in the meantime I'm a weak atheist: no belief in gods, no claim that they do not exist. But frankly I don't really care either. Do you?

If there was a God or gods how would that change how you live your life? Do suppose that would mean we'd have an afterlife as well?

[Simon Moon]

Absolutely incorrect.

First of all, atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the rejection of the claims made by theist that there is a god.

At its most fundamental, atheism is nothing more, than not being convinced that a god exists.

Second, how is not being convinced of an unsupported claim, a faith based position?

I'll bet you disbelieve in many supernatural claims (bigfoot, alien abductions, Jinn, tarot cards, etc, etc). Is you disbelief in any of those a faith based position?

Do you require faith to disbelieve in the Greek pantheon of gods?

If that is the definition of what atheism is, I am not quite sure why this place exists considering it doesn't actually have a theory of its own. I guess I nailed it with my antithesis argument. That seems to be the basis for the entire belief system.

Well, in reality, you are right. There shouldn't even have to be a word to describe people that don't believe gods exist.

But the reality of the world is, that the majority does believe in gods, and their beliefs inform their actions. Theistic beliefs lead to many real world, negative consequences.

Atheism isn't an entire belief system. It is a position on only one claim. Theists claim gods exist, we are not convinced.

Every other belief a particular atheist has, that is not specifically the disbelief in the existence of gods, is outside the purview of atheism. Atheism is not even a worldview.

But then you provide a different definition of what an atheist is which confuses me because this definition looks a lot more like a pessimistic agnostic's beliefs.

I don't think I am defining it differently. Oxford defines it - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Which is the meaning I was using.

As far as agnosticism, I am an agnostic. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground, as many believe, between theism and atheism. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a position on knowledge, atheism/theism, is a position on belief/disbelief.

I think not believing an unsupported claim is fine but it doesn't actually tell you much. I mean there are a lot of things I can simply not believe the claim of, but you don't see me giving a big up and all about those things. What exactly is the direction that atheism gives you? I guess this is a question I would be open hearing from others as well as yourself.[/quoe]

The belief in bigfoot does not lead to; people flying planes into buildings, trying to get pseudoscience taught in school science classes, people trying to legislate morality based on bigfoot beliefs, starting wars based on religious beliefs, etc, etc.

Atheism does not give me any direction. As I said before, atheism only describes one position on one claim.

I get my direction from myself.

My atheism is a natural outgrowth of my skepticism and critical thinking. Those skills came first.

Any stance one makes towards something that cannot be proven one way or another is what I would say is a belief. Do I believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? No, but I can't be sure they do not exist; I can only say it is unlikely that they do.

And therefore, you disbelieve they don't exist. You are an atheist with regards to the Greek pantheon.

I can not prove that your god does not exist, either. But without evidence and reasoned argument to support the case that it does exist, what should be my justification to believe it does?

I think a definition of what an agnostic is in order because I fail to see the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist.

---

Agnostics take the position that whether a god exists is either unknown, and possibly, unknowable. This describes me. I am an agnostic.

Atheists disbelieve that gods exist. This also describes me. I am an atheist.

Atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions.

[/quote]