Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

" I'd say in response to specific enough god claims, most atheists are positive-- "

Based on what evidence exactly? That is not my experience, nor my position as an atheist.

My position and experience is that  most atheists avoid making claims, as to do so  attracts the burden of proof. Instead , I and others say only that "I do not believe". This a statement  of position, not of belief .

Of course I realise that your  direct experience with atheists may well be  far in excess of mine.  I would be grateful  if you could let me know the factual basis for your generalisation.

A specific enough god claim would be "God is the Creator God as defined perfectly in the books of the Bible."  I believe most atheists would say that such a god cannot exist, due to problems with omni-3, for example, or for other logical reasons. My evidence is mostly circumstantial, though-- it's the sense I get from the particular atheists in these forums.

If an atheist says there is no such thing as God, under any definition, then he's going to have to carry an impossible burden of proof. If he says, "Your definition of God, Skydaddy who gave teens strong sexual instincts but will punish them with eternal hellfire if they masturbate-- I find those ideas to be logically exclusive," then this isn't really a "claim," and doesn't really require proof.

Remember, in the end the burden goes to the one who wishes to change another's view-- you have to provide a compelling reason for that change.

[Peebothuhlu]

Hey bennyboy.

Though, wouldn't your comment be more a 'Refining' of people's position when having a discussion?

Like... As my openenr (And sub handle?) I'm happy to identify as "Non-theist".

Once more specific things are broght up/about... I can give my stance/understanding upon said positions in deeper detail.

I must admit to not/never really wanting to change another's points of view. Just see if I can grok their position, is all....



Cheers!

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

Your two criteria are OK, but there are better ones,

I'm glad you find criteria important for rejecting these claims. 

People sometimes mention pink unicorns as something which we can disbelieve without any criteria. But that seems odd to me, since the criteria for disbelieving in unicorns are very easy:

1) No reliable witness has ever seen one, no skeletal or fossil evidence remains. 

2) They don't appear in medieval manuals about actual hunting, but in fake "natural history" books alongside cynocephalic creatures, which we have good reason to see as fiction. 

These are the facts (as I see them) which I use to reject the existence of unicorns of any color.

In the case of Christ's literal resurrection, I just wanted to show that there are criteria which instantly spring to mind, and for which I am willing to assume a burden of proof. So I'm comfortable with the idea that there are better criteria. In the case of literal resurrection, what criteria do you prefer? 

AND neither yours nor the better ones are "claims" nor are they "beliefs".

Well, I just use "claim" to mean "I assert that it is true," and "belief" to mean "I hold it to be true." But if you want to use different definitions I'll be glad to work with you.

[Bucky Ball]

A specific enough god claim would be "God is the Creator God as defined perfectly in the books of the Bible."  I believe most atheists would say that such a god cannot exist, due to problems with omni-3, for example, or for other logical reasons.  My evidence is mostly circumstantial, though-- it's the sense I get from the particular atheists in these forums.

Not at all specific enough. "God" is never *defined* in the Bible, (if you think it is, show us where). A completely coherent definition is not only NOT there, but also impossible. 

If an atheist says there is no such thing as God, under any definition, then he's going to have to carry an impossible burden of proof.  

Hardly. Show me one. 

Remember, in the end the burden goes to the one who wishes to change another's view-- you have to provide a compelling reason for that change.

Nope. Who says it a game of changing minds, anyway ? 
Christian religionists admit that what they believe is not the result of reason ... (a "gift of god" .. St. Paul)[/quote]

[Belacqua]

A completely coherent definition is not only NOT there, but also impossible.

I certainly agree with you that there is no coherent definition in the Bible. That's why sola scripture literalists don't interest me. 

The different definitions given later, on the other hand, have been pretty interesting. Always with the caveat that just about any definition accepts an apophatic element -- something as beyond human understanding as god cannot be described completely in human terms, they say.

Anyway, Nicholas of Cusa, in line with his mathematical work, defined god as infinite and completely immanent, which allowed him to propose a non-geocentric universe decades before Galileo -- and he didn't even get in trouble. Jacob Boehme defined god as a dialectic of spirit, unfolding entirely through human beings, a concept which Hegel called the foundation of modern thought.

I'm certainly not arguing that either of these definitions is persuasive. I'm not saying you should study them or value them at all. 

What's important, to me, if we genuinely propose that their ideas should be rejected, is that it requires better reasons than the old Sky-Daddy concept does. Of course a person could reject those ideas on a whim, or because he just doesn't like the word "god." But I don't think those would be good, thought-out reasons. They're no better than a fundie who rejects evolution because he doesn't like the sound of it. 

Anyone atheist who rejects all concepts of god for the same reasons he had as an infant is thinking at an infant's level, and hasn't thought out his conclusions.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Belaqua!

Just a question in passing.

Is,

'Not accepting a proposition.'

The same as,

'Rejecting a proposition.'

?

Such as the afore mentioned 'Unicorn existing proposition.'

I don't accept that Unicorns (Under the classical, mystical, mythical defi ition) exist.

I do not, howevef, actually reject the claim that Unicorns exist.

Hope I'm grokkable to yourself!

Cheers!

I

[Belacqua]

At work.

Hello Belaqua!

Just a question in passing.

Is,

 'Not accepting a proposition.'

The same as,

 'Rejecting a proposition.'

  ?

Such as the afore mentioned 'Unicorn existing proposition.'

I don't accept that Unicorns (Under the classical, mystical, mythical defi ition) exist.

I do not, howevef, actually reject the claim that Unicorns exist.

Hope I'm grokkable to yourself!

Cheers!

I

Interesting question! 

My first impulse is to say that for all practical purposes they're the same. 

What would be any different in these two dialogues:

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. B: I don't accept that.

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. C: I reject that. 

The end result is the same. The proposition is deemed to be unpersuasive.

It would be different from this, for example:

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. D: Maybe; I don't know. I remain undecided. The criteria by which I could decide this question aren't sufficient yet.

To me, this constitutes "neither accepting nor rejecting." 

Or in terms of a speech act which is other than intellectual assent to a proposition: if a girl rejects your marriage proposal, it's the same as if she doesn't accept it. That sort of case is like an on/off light switch; either it's yes or no. 

This kind of thing is what language philosophers work on, I guess. There may be cases where there is a significant difference. But I can't think of any off hand. 

What do you think? Is "not accept" maybe weaker or more agnostic than "reject"?

[bennyboy]

Not at all specific enough. "God" is never *defined* in the Bible, (if you think it is, show us where). A completely coherent definition is not only NOT there, but also impossible. 

It's sufficiently defined to state gnostically that it's an incoherent description. You can positively assert that you do not believe that God, as depicted in the Bible, can possibly exist.

When I say not specific, I really mean not specified. If someone says, "Do you believe in god?" a natural enough question is "Which God do you mean?" I don't think you'd ask a Biblical Christian that.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Belaqua!

Just a question in passing.

Is,

 'Not accepting a proposition.'

The same as,

 'Rejecting a proposition.'

  ?

Such as the afore mentioned 'Unicorn existing proposition.'

I don't accept that Unicorns (Under the classical, mystical, mythical defi ition) exist.

I do not, howevef, actually reject the claim that Unicorns exist.

Hope I'm grokkable to yourself!

Cheers!

I

Interesting question! 

My first impulse is to say that for all practical purposes they're the same. 

What would be any different in these two dialogues:

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. B: I don't accept that.

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. C: I reject that. 

The end result is the same. The proposition is deemed to be unpersuasive.

It would be different from this, for example:

Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. D: Maybe; I don't know. I remain undecided. The criteria by which I could decide this question aren't sufficient yet.

To me, this constitutes "neither accepting nor rejecting." 

Or in terms of a speech act which is other than intellectual assent to a proposition: if a girl rejects your marriage proposal, it's the same as if she doesn't accept it. That sort of case is like an on/off light switch; either it's yes or no. 

This kind of thing is what language philosophers work on, I guess. There may be cases where there is a significant difference. But I can't think of any off hand. 

What do you think? Is "not accept" maybe weaker or more agnostic than "reject"?

Most definitely about the nuance of language bit.

I think the 'Reject' over 'Not accepting', for me, comes with acknowledging/accepting the "No black swan" fallacy.

I can't, categorically, totally reject the claim of "No black swan/Unicorn/diety" because of the very nature/aspect of magical unicorns and mythical dieties.

While pretty much every one is in agreement that 'Magic' doesn't exist....... Well, we're back to possibly stumbling over black swans of a sort some time in the future again, aren't we?

The side conversation reminds me of a David Brin story where, with the help of a kind of 'Catalyst', people actually can effect quantum wave collapse. To the point of influencing both chance and, through a constant successive build up over time, actuall reality to seemingly create 'Impossible magical' type effects.

So..... of certain swans, unicorns and dieties I categorically reject. The broader, rhetorical, types of such things I must simply not accept at this time.

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

I certainly agree with you that there is no coherent definition in the Bible. That's why sola scripture literalists don't interest me. 

The different definitions given later, on the other hand, have been pretty interesting. Always with the caveat that just about any definition accepts an apophatic element -- something as beyond human understanding as god cannot be described completely in human terms, they say.

Right off the bat, the definers insist that they are meaningfully wrong.  Great start. 

Anyway, Nicholas of Cusa, in line with his mathematical work, defined god as infinite and completely immanent, which allowed him to propose a non-geocentric universe decades before Galileo -- and he didn't even get in trouble.

This one was a head scratcher.  What could that description of a god concept have to do with the proposal of a non-geocentric universe, I wondered?  So I googled the guy.  Turns out his socioeconomic status as the educated son of prosperous parents who became a papal envoy and was then elevated to cardinal is what allowed him to do that and not get in trouble.  So, not only can I reject that wishy washy definition for an existent god out of hand, I can also reject your characterization of it and what ought to impress me about it. 

 Jacob Boehme defined god as a dialectic of spirit, unfolding entirely through human beings, a concept which Hegel called the foundation of modern thought.

Hegels characterization of modern thought, hegel, circa 1770-1830ish...? It refers to something that was significantly flawed, itself, and which lends no credence to any definition of a god in the first place.  This, again, and the reason it ought to impress..can be rejected out of hand like the first.

I'm certainly not arguing that either of these definitions is persuasive. I'm not saying you should study them or value them at all. 

What's important, to me, if we genuinely propose that their ideas should be rejected, is that it requires better reasons than the old Sky-Daddy concept does. Of course a person could reject those ideas on a whim, or because he just doesn't like the word "god." But I don't think those would be good, thought-out reasons. They're no better than a fundie who rejects evolution because he doesn't like the sound of it. 

Anyone atheist who rejects all concepts of god for the same reasons he had as an infant is thinking at an infant's level, and hasn't thought out his conclusions.

They can all be rejected out of hand for attempting to manufacture a referent rather than describe one.  It might have been more helpful to point out something about the definitions themselves, rather than attaching some tertiary claim, if we wanted a more thorough perusal of the ideas and how the contents can be rejected simply or significantly.  Here;s the rub, though.  If you can reject something simply, for a base reason..it doesn't matter how visciously you approach the flourish and baubbles in the larger concept.  

If someone told you that there were dragons of indescribable finery, you could reject the notion of indescribable finery as an incoherent concept of propositional accuracy under this or that theory of language - or you could just remind the guy that they are no dragons to be indescribably fine in the first place.  It doesn't matter how fine or how plain a person asserts them to be. Similarly, the ultimate problem of specific god definitions is not their relative finery, complexity, or flourish.

That's not the focus of atheism, nor what atheism rejects. Atheism rejects the base existential claim, not the finery, complexity, or flourish of a definition or that it can effect the world. As an atheist, this is the only thing required to reject any description of a god.