Is atheism lacking?

[historia]

This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:

If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.

I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.

I think we can all appreciate the case where a person might be ignorant of a particular topic and thus have no beliefs about it. That seems straight-forward.

But, if a person previously believed in X but now no longer believes in X, while spending time on an online forum debating X, it seems less straight-forward (to me anyway) to say that they simply "lack" belief in X. Even if that person is merely contending that there is insufficient evidence (for them, at least) to believe in X, surely we must conclude that constitutes a belief about X.


Question for debate: Is it accurate to say that atheists debating the existence of God on an online forum lack belief in God (or gods), or is there a more accurate way to describe their beliefs vis-a-vis God (or gods)?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #208]

Clearly the hard problem of consciousness is the burden of materialism because it is believed that human consciousness [which is as immaterial as any ghost] to have been created by the material [brain], and necessary for that beings survival.

This is called "Emergence Theory" and if it is true, then it is evidence that a material universe could conceivably create an immaterial mind. ["Cosmic Mind" as you referred to it] - so hardly any more 'supernatural' than human consciousness.

It would have to be regarded as natural, not supernatural.

It also explains why theism exists as something humans have to investigate. [if they want to do so.] [[note I used the word theism rather than the word religion]]

That you personally have seen no evidence in nature of this cosmic mind, does not in itself mean that there is no evidence to see.

However, I agree that it is difficult to impossible to see if one has already decided materialism is the truth, and certainly if present day science is seen through that bias-lens - it will only ever shown what one expects to see.

But Science itself has not made it known as the truth either way, so the agnostic position is the best one to assume regarding that.

Materialism gives us things like the bomb and climate change and pollution et al - which appear to be showing signs of overshadowing the more positive things materialism has provided us with, as those things dominate the event horizon...

I see no way has been found of fixing that problem, so turn inwards into a more theistic approach to the overall experience I am having as a string of interconnected experiences I am having in the outward reality.

People who mock that - [and I am not accusing you of doing so here, but they do exist and are active in the world] - appear to me to be squandering intelligence and perhaps showing more than a little nervousness in their efforts to handwave the things of the mind, away, while over-praising Materialism as The Truth...

[Miles]

First, let me thank you for this explanation. You're the first person in the thread to actually articulate this particular nuanced view -- which I suspect several others hold as well, but it has been very difficult to get them to actually spell it out clearly.

A few more questions, for clarification, if you don't mind:

Do you consider doubt to be a belief?

In as much as doubt is a sense of uncertainty or lack of conviction. and belief is just about the opposite; a sense of certainty or conviction, I don't consider the two to be synonyms.

Do you consider your own opinion regarding the existence of God to be a belief?

No I don't. I regard it as a wait-and-see position on the possibility that god exists. Maybe god exists. Maybe he doesn't, but until someone can convince me he does I will continue to lack belief in his existence.


.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #208]

Clearly the hard problem of consciousness is the burden of materialism because it is believed that human consciousness [which is as immaterial as any ghost] to have been created by the material [brain], and necessary for that beings survival.

This is called "Emergence Theory" and if it is true, then it is evidence that a material universe could conceivably create an immaterial mind. ["Cosmic Mind" as you referred to it] - so hardly any more 'supernatural' than human consciousness.

It would have to be regarded as natural, not supernatural.

It also explains why theism exists as something humans have to investigate. [if they want to do so.] [[note I used the word theism rather than the word religion]]

That you personally have seen no evidence in nature of this cosmic mind, does not in itself mean that there is no evidence to see.

However, I agree that it is difficult to impossible to see if one has already decided materialism is the truth, and certainly if present day science is seen through that bias-lens - it will only ever shown what one expects to see.

But Science itself has not made it known as the truth either way, so the agnostic position is the best one to assume regarding that.

Materialism gives us things like the bomb and climate change and pollution et al - which appear to be showing signs of overshadowing the more positive things materialism has provided us with, as those things dominate the event horizon...

I see no way has been found of fixing that problem, so turn inwards into a more theistic approach to the overall experience I am having as a string of interconnected experiences I am having in the outward reality.

People who mock that - [and I am not accusing you of doing so here, but they do exist and are active in the world] - appear to me to be squandering intelligence and perhaps showing more than a little nervousness in their efforts to handwave the things of the mind, away, while over-praising Materialism as The Truth...

There is still the problem of Faith in the way. Faith (it seems) in the reality of this cosmic mind. The idea of a Cosmic Mind, and having 'emerged' out of cosmic matter as the mind emerges out of the brain is not (as I said to a philosopher who doubted the logical possibility of it) is not an absurd proposition.

But that does not make it probable, let alone validated.

That's the ongoing problem, it seems - that agnosticism logically mandate not believing a thing is so until convincing evidence for it is produced. Now, you may have what you think is convincing evidence, so I could be wrong, but I suspect that you have a god (or Cosmic Mind) - Faith and that is preventing you from seeing that the burden of proof of this entity is on you, just as you seem to be unable to understand that the material is known to exist, it is known to work without a god, and so materialism is the default theory until a god, Creator or Cosmic Mind is demonstrated.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #213]

I suspect that you have a god (or Cosmic Mind) - Faith and that is preventing you from seeing that the burden of proof of this entity is on you,

Search: What is faith?
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

What reason do you have for thinking that if a Cosmic Mind exists that trust or confidence in said Mind is appropriate?

just as you seem to be unable to understand that the material is known to exist, it is known to work without a god, and so materialism is the default theory until a god, Creator or Cosmic Mind is demonstrated.

Seems to me that your statement above is a demonstration of faith. You have trust and confidence in the belief that the material which is known to exist is also known to work without a Cosmic Mind and thus have placed this faith in materialism as the default setting re your world view.

This is also known as "Confirmation-Bias"

Search "Confirmation-Bias"confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs.

[brunumb]

You have trust and confidence in the belief that the material which is known to exist is also known to work without a Cosmic Mind and thus have placed this faith in materialism as the default setting re your world view.

It is not a matter of placing faith in materialism. Unless there is compelling evidence that a Cosmic Mind exists, then the default position is non-existence. That also means that, by default, we must accept that the material which is known to exist does so without the need for a Cosmic Mind.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #215]

It is not a matter of placing faith in materialism.

No more than it is a matter of placing faith in the existence of a Cosmic Mind, as my reply to TRANSPONDERs suspicion, indicates.

That also means that, by default, we must accept that the material which is known to exist does so without the need for a Cosmic Mind.

What rule tells us that we have to accept as the default that the material which is known to exist does so without the need for a Cosmic Mind?

The rule of materialism?

As an agnostic, I would argue that such a rule is not based in truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #213]

I suspect that you have a god (or Cosmic Mind) - Faith and that is preventing you from seeing that the burden of proof of this entity is on you,

Search: What is faith?
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

What reason do you have for thinking that if a Cosmic Mind exists that trust or confidence in said Mind is appropriate?

just as you seem to be unable to understand that the material is known to exist, it is known to work without a god, and so materialism is the default theory until a god, Creator or Cosmic Mind is demonstrated.

Seems to me that your statement above is a demonstration of faith. You have trust and confidence in the belief that the material which is known to exist is also known to work without a Cosmic Mind and thus have placed this faith in materialism as the default setting re your world view.

This is also known as "Confirmation-Bias"

Search "Confirmation-Bias"confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs.

Wrong.The material world is known to exist. I doubt that you would try to argue that it doesn't. The way it works is known, to a great extent and no god is necessary. And this is where you slip into theist thinking. The burden of proof is on you to show that a god is involved in any of these processes, or there is no evidence for a god if you can't.

If you you can produce no evidence for a god in these processes you are left with ... agnosticism. 'nobody knows whether a god (or cosmic Mind - a God -claim as near as makes no difference) exists or not and the logic is that you don't believe in it until the evidence is produced. Evidently, you Want to. To argue that it exists until disproved is starting with an invalidated Faith claim and a reversal of the burden of proof - logic. That would put you in the wrong even if you weren't trying to force an accusation of atheist denial on those who have no evidential reason to accept the Cosmic Mind claim. That alone would be a signal that we are dealing with Theistic bias here, not atheist bias. Never mind the disgraceful accusation of scientists being biased. It is again a confession (as we saw with the debate about geology) when science has to be accused of bias when the evidence doesn't support a God -claim, or why would the believers do it?

I have to winder again, why is this so important? Why is it necessary to toss out accusations of bias against atheists and accusations of dishonesty, frankly against science? Really a Cosmic Mind - the 'God of Einstein'as I call it,
is an academic matter is Religion is not involved. So why is is necessary, to employ the same denunciations, really, of atheism and science,which are wrong, illogical biased and frankly rather grubby. What compels you, William, to argue like a religious fundamentalist?

Well, personal investment could be one thing. This is a Pet Theory and by damn'you are going to fight for it. Or it is residual Faith; you are no longer Religious, but you still believe in a Sortagod, and by damn' you are going to fight for it. Or it could be that atheists are considered Liberals and are the political enemy. I've seen that one as well. I don't know. You do. Examine your heart, and see why you are making this Cosmic Mind-faith such an issue that you have to smear atheists and science to do it.
Or maybe just that the name of atheist stinks so much in the US. So atheists have to be misrepresented and supposed denial of a Creative Cosmic Cognizance be made a reason to push away the logical validity of the atheist position? I don't know. Tell me.
Or it could be that you have nothing to use but to go on the offence. With the Christians, they have to Bible and some of the other arguments from morality and all the Good the Church hath done. But as a sortagoddist, you can't use that, and you know the ID apologetics are at least up against a serious pushback. So what does the "Agnostic" have other than to go on the attack against atheists, materialists, scientists (by damn) and probably secularists, too? Again I don't know. Maybe William can search his heart and explain to us what drives him in this crusade for an unproven possibility.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #217]

The material world is known to exist. I doubt that you would try to argue that it doesn't. The way it works is known, to a great extent and no god is necessary.

It is obvious that you equate the Cosmos having a Mind as The Cosmos being a 'God' and therefore, your argument is that the Cosmos [material Universe known to exist] does not need a mind to exist, and so cannot be a 'God'.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

If not, then it would be best not to make such claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #217]

The material world is known to exist. I doubt that you would try to argue that it doesn't. The way it works is known, to a great extent and no god is necessary.

It is obvious that you equate the Cosmos having a Mind as The Cosmos being a 'God' and therefore, your argument is that the Cosmos [material Universe known to exist] does not need a mind to exist, and so cannot be a 'God'.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

If not, then it would be best not to make such claims.

Complete evasion of every point and question, and trying to make a case out of pointless questions and invalid insinuations.

You would be quite clear that you can call it a cosmic mind or a god or a Creator. The argument remains the same. Again you try to reverse the burden of proof. Instead of you providing evidence for a cosmic mind, you argue that I have to prove there isn't one.

Ok, The evidence is in every book of geology, Biology, mechanics,physics or cosmology that (even if it uses the term 'God'waggishly) explains everything in terms of natural laws and physics. That is negative evidence against the existence of any Creative mind.

That plonks the burden of proof squarely back in your part of the court. Can you provide any decent evidence for this Cosmic mind, Creator god or whatever? If not, I'd suggest you desist in making such claims. And I'm still interested in why the need to claim the existence of such an entity is no all -fired important to you when you don't seem to have any truck with Religion.

[historia]

Going back to an earlier question:

What I'm challenging here is the contention that the atheist simply lacks belief in God, as if their opinion regarding the existence of God is not a belief at all, as some seem to imagine.

Why would pointing out that an atheist simply lacks belief in God, imply that our beliefs about God are not beliefs at all?

I don't think it necessarily implies that, but, as Miles just demonstrated (post #212), that is precisely what some of the atheists in this thread contend. He doesn't consider his opinion regarding the existence of God to be a belief.

And I don't think he is alone in that perspective. Earlier in the thread, there were several comments from atheists complaining that my contention that all atheists on this forum have a belief about God's existence amounted to me "putting a belief" on them, strawmanning their position, or at least skeptical questions about whether I could articulate said belief in explicit terms. Those comments don't make a lot of sense unless they think their opinion regarding God's existence isn't really a belief.