Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In response to the discussion on another thread with NatesDude, who has declared he is not-atheist, which is an interesting declaration by itself, i decided to look up if non-belief is a thing. To my surprise it is! It is a statement atheist live by. That threw a bit of light on a discussion that went around in circles. Here is quote for those who, like me, are not upto date with atheist claims. Also interesting that the term for atheists in Sanskrit is Na-astika, the one who asserts non-existance. The reference is to non-existance of Atma/Conciousness.
Quote:
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality.
Is not believing in Yetis a thing?
Is not believing in little green men a thing?
Is not believing in my gold plated Porsche 911 a thing?
All you need to be to be an atheist is to not believe in gods. There are different reasons not to believe, either because you do not find religious claims credible (consciously or subconsciously), or because you have considered the position rationally based on what we currently know.
This game about is atheism a belief is a ridiculous attempt to move the burden of proof. But we can not prove atheism is true, we can not prove gods do not exist. And we do not need to, we do not believe because we do not accept the evidence provided by religious people as credible. That is enough to not believe, and that is the position for many atheists.
Atheism only becomes a positive belief when you argue for atheism. What would one expect if there are no gods? Natural forces creating complexity? We have that. For the allegedly improbable things we require an old, large universe. We have that. Is this a better argument than gods? Rationally I say yes, that is why I am an atheist.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I see no evidence I am.
Is not believing in Yetis a thing?
Is not believing in little green men a thing?
Is not believing in my gold plated Porsche 911 a thing?
All you need to be to be an atheist is to not believe in gods. There are different reasons not to believe, either because you do not find religious claims credible (consciously or subconsciously), or because you have considered the position rationally based on what we currently know.
This game about is atheism a belief is a ridiculous attempt to move the burden of proof. But we can not prove atheism is true, we can not prove gods do not exist. And we do not need to, we do not believe because we do not accept the evidence provided by religious people as credible. That is enough to not believe, and that is the position for many atheists.
Atheism only becomes a positive belief when you argue for atheism. What would one expect if there are no gods? Natural forces creating complexity? We have that. For the allegedly improbable things we require an old, large universe. We have that. Is this a better argument than gods? Rationally I say yes, that is why I am an atheist.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I see no evidence I am.
it is about corporeal and not corporeal. I may not believe in virus unless i see it in EM, similarly, with not corporeal things, they require special tools to see.
it is about corporeal and not corporeal. I may not believe in virus unless i see it in EM, similarly, with not corporeal things, they require special tools to see.
I do not have a belief that the Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this year. I also don't have the belief that they won't. I do believe the Red Wings will not even be in the running for the Cup this season.
I also lack a belief that there are intelligent life on other planets in the universe. I do belief that it is highly probable that there is life on other planets.
And your post missed the part of atheism and agnosticism are separate statements. I consider myself an agnostic atheist others consider themselves as gnostic atheists. One can also be an agnostic theist and there are more than a few gnostic theists posting on this forum.
And to me personally the term New Atheist appears to apply towards very vocal atheists rather than a different kind of atheism.
: absence or lack of belief
especially : absence or lack of religious belief
nonbelief in God We turn to Dawkins not for his views on sundry social topics, but for clarity on religion and nonbelief.
The article is an interesting one though if the discussion is about the legitimacy of non belief. Thanks for the link. But he doesn't seem to really understand what atheism is. Take his following statement of accusation against atheists.
“I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”
Ask yourself what should replace this non belief. Belief? How would that remove any pre-bias in the scientific method? Take the statement
"I believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I believe"
What sort of sense would this make?
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-16-2021 at 10:21 AM..
Wasn't this topic beaten to death and beyond in the seemingly endless "Defining Atheism" thread?
Non-belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. The nonbeliever has made at least some inquiry into atheism, deism and theism and reached a negative conviction about deism and theism and a positive conviction about atheism. It may be a very weak conviction, and the atheist may remain genuinely open-minded, but if he identifies as an atheist and chooses to live his life as though atheism were true and deism and theism were false, then his non-belief is indeed a "thing" that functions precisely the same way as religion does in the life of a theist or deist (who may likewise hold a weak conviction and be genuinely open-minded). If this weren't true, the individual would identify as an agnostic.
The "non-belief isn't belief" argument is a word game played by atheists in an effort to suggest they occupy some intellectual higher ground, operate strictly on the basis of rationality and hard evidence, have no position to defend and thus no burden of proof.
Atheism, deism and theism can all be equally "scientific." They all rely to some degree on scientific evidence. The convictions are arrived at least partly on the basis of the individual's assessment of the scientific evidence.
The article is an interesting one though if the discussion is about the legitimacy of non belief. Thanks for the link. But he doesn't seem to really understand what atheism is. Take his following statement of accusation against atheists.
“I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.”
Ask yourself what should replace this non belief. Belief? How would that remove any pre-bias in the scientific method? Take the statement
"I believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I believe"
What sort of sense would this make?
Wasn't this topic beaten to death and beyond in the seemingly endless "Defining Atheism" thread?
Non-belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. The nonbeliever has made at least some inquiry into atheism, deism and theism and reached a negative conviction about deism and theism and a positive conviction about atheism. It may be a very weak conviction, and the atheist may remain genuinely open-minded, but if he identifies as an atheist and chooses to live his life as though atheism were true and deism and theism were false, then his non-belief is indeed a "thing" that functions precisely the same way as religion does in the life of a theist or deist (who may likewise hold a weak conviction and be genuinely open-minded). If this weren't true, the individual would identify as an agnostic.
You need to check what agnostic means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The "non-belief isn't belief" argument is a word game played by atheists in an effort to suggest they occupy some intellectual higher ground, operate strictly on the basis of rationality and hard evidence, have no position to defend and thus no burden of proof.
No, non-belief does not suggest an intellectual high ground. Many atheists simply do not believe because many religious claims are simply not believable. That is not intellectual, that is using our primitive but faulty Bayesian calculator known as a brain.
That you need to deliberately misrepresent this again is ironically dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Atheism, deism and theism can all be equally "scientific." They all rely to some degree on scientific evidence. The convictions are arrived at least partly on the basis of the individual's assessment of the scientific evidence.
Wasn't this topic beaten to death and beyond in the seemingly endless "Defining Atheism" thread?
Non-belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. The nonbeliever has made at least some inquiry into atheism, deism and theism and reached a negative conviction about deism and theism and a positive conviction about atheism. It may be a very weak conviction, and the atheist may remain genuinely open-minded, but if he identifies as an atheist and chooses to live his life as though atheism were true and deism and theism were false, then his non-belief is indeed a "thing" that functions precisely the same way as religion does in the life of a theist or deist (who may likewise hold a weak conviction and be genuinely open-minded). If this weren't true, the individual would identify as an agnostic.
The "non-belief isn't belief" argument is a word game played by atheists in an effort to suggest they occupy some intellectual higher ground, operate strictly on the basis of rationality and hard evidence, have no position to defend and thus no burden of proof.
Atheism, deism and theism can all be equally "scientific." They all rely to some degree on scientific evidence. The convictions are arrived at least partly on the basis of the individual's assessment of the scientific evidence.
We can admit that non belief doesn't exist in a vacuum, religions abound. But it doesn't have the impact in many places as it does here in the US. In many northern European countries, as well as places ,like NZ or Oz, religion is a thing of little to no consequence or importance. I know this first hand from relatives there. The amount of talk and importance on religion in the US befuddles them. They don't as a whole make big inquiries into it before dismissing it as irrelevant in their lives. They are amused at the need to go to church 10 times a year, much less weekly. Religion is sort of symbolic for many; you go to church at weddings, funerals, maybe as part of Christmas tradition, but it has more of the Santa Claus/Easter egg hunt feel . Maybe like we approach astrology. I never gave 2 thoughts to astrology before dismissing it. No serious investigations were made into it, I simply always thought the concept of reading your horoscope in a newspaper a ridiculous thing. Many atheists are this way. They haven't thoroughly thought the concept of gods through and intellectually chosen to be an atheist, the concept of gods is just sort of silly to them and they dismiss it. Folks who move from theism to atheism obviously give it hard thought, but theists assume without knowledge that all atheists arrive there this way, and they don't.
The bolded sentence is simply wrong. Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge , on evidence/proof. Atheism is a position of belief. The two are not the same. One person can be an agnostic and decide to worship a god "just in case". Another can be an agnostic and decide to be an atheist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
