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)?

[TRANSPONDER]

Will we ever, ever, ever, get this misunderstanding corrected? Is it deep -seated indoctrination of religious propaganda? As a kid I also had the idea that 'agnosticism' was the reasonably doubtful position about the god -claim and atheism was unreasonably (if not dogmatically) denialist about it. I now know, having been sharply corrected upon arrival at my first discussion forum (my botty is still smarting) that agnosticism is the basic knowledge position for everyone (even if some theists believe they have some revealed Truth about it) and the ONLY two Belief -positions are..believe, or not (1). Theism or non -theism (or atheism as it is usually called).

This is very, very simple, but often gets confused because of evaluation of the evidence which affect degrees of credibility of the God or god -claim (because one may mean Bible god (or the god of some religion) or a non -religious Creator, which is really a different argument. Also the degree of conviction about Biblegod (99% sore it isn't true) leads some to say 'There is no God' which sounds like gnostic denial but really isn't.

Setting aside those red herrings (gleefully exploited by the Theists when they are not making up canards and strawmans, like 'a-theist means a positive belief in no -god') the basis is simple. Atheism is a belief -position (not having one a-theist) based on a knowledge position - we don't so we are a -gnostic. Not knowing logically mandates not believing until we do know. Very simple, but apparently impossible to remember.

(1) This is So often misunderstood by atheists as well as theists who confuse it with a sliding scale of credibility based (hopefully) on evaluation of the evidence (Dawkins' rather misleading hard -to soft atheist -scale). But bottom line is one either believes, or not. Though I am perhaps prepared to credit that many are hovering around the believe -disbelieve line depending on how much they believe or reject, what the claim is or which propaganda video they watched last. But one either believes the god -claim (in some form or other) or not. I said that it can get complicated even if the basic propositions are simple.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #261]

Do I need to point out the cheap groinkick of asking what science research I have done myself?

I do not know what your needs are, but it is a fair question to ask anyone who is convinced that there is no mind behind creation, to show us how they reached that conclusion.

Pretending that the question itself is some cheap trick isn't helpful to the debate process.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #263]

I must say you don't give up easy. Considering you have not a scrap of decent evidence for your claim (not to say Faith) but have to go on the attack in hopes to discredit the opposition and all their evidence.

What do you mean by 'decent evidence'? Something materialists can embrace?

'Nobody knows' which - logically again - makes believing anything at all irrational.

Belief is not the motivation behind the purpose of my argument. It is simply accepting the truth that nobody knows and therefore it is completely logical observation that one believing in anything one does not know, is an illogical response.

I prefer the logical response of keeping the mind open to ideas, no matter how far-fetched these may appear to an individual anchored firmly in materialist thinking.

My old posting mate Raffius came up with what I call, admiringly, Raff's Law, which essentially says that Theists are Good with all scientific theories - apart from the ones that conflict with their Faith, and then those are denied as the biased opinion of closed - minded atheists.

As I remarked earlier - These opposing world-views mirror one another. The attachments are different but are attachments nonetheless. One cannot easily convince the religious nor the materialist to place their faith in their precious beliefs aside and the tragic consequence of that, is the world we currently exist in, it being created through opposing images intent on being the side that is right.

My observations do not incorporate the necessity of having to rely upon faith.

We almost all rely on the research of others for our verified data. so, apart from being yet another grubby groinkick from you, it is irrelevant.

An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.

So your point is as worthless as trying to smear science as a 'religion'.

It is not science which I am calling religious. It is materialism. I am not taken in by the idea that science is the foundation of materialism.
Indeed, I did not say that materialism was a religion. I simply acknowledge the religiosity of materialists as being a godless form of religious practice. This is verified with such exclamations as "If the world that can't agree on anything can agree on science, that's a religion worthy of bias." and "There are many religions; there is only one science" and shows compelling evidence that materialists are all about making science their religion.

So I'm just saying that none of this is impossible, but there is no reason to believe it as probable just yet, and you certainly haven't given any good reason or evidence,

It is difficult to speak of something which could well be natural when one is then accused of reverting to supernatural explanations and accused of "engaging in a lot of Faithclaims" [show me even one such claim I have ever made]

I am truly sorry for, as you 'Deist -goddissts'/Deists or irreligious Theists are 'Next in Love' to atheists, but it is their bias and Faith in their own...Theism and their hatred of the name of atheism that makes them regard us as enemies.

I am an agnostic theist. I do not hate the position of atheism. What is there to hate? It is a lack-position - nothing more. There are no 'enemies' which such a position could logically produce.

I am not focused upon those claiming to be 'atheists' as that is a fundamentally meaningless position. I am not at all under any impression that I am dealing with an atheist here, no matter that you might use the term to describe your position or to argue from the platform of...I recognize the materialist behind that façade and call it as it really is.

It is cutting to the chase instead of being distracted by the confusion - but even so, I do not hate you for being a materialist any more than I hate a person for being a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness.

Perhaps you might think about dropping the ad hominem and actually address my arguments, we can get on track.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have been on track all along. The burden of proof is on the God -claimant. Materialism (in the practical sense) is based on the findings of science which explain how things work. There was no need for a god. Whatever one says about belief, the science supports the material and not a god, there and even if atheism, science or materialism was a religion, it would still have the support of validated data. Theism doesn't, whether that is religious theism or irreligion theism which you call 'agnosticism'. But nothing that I know of on the scientific, materialist or skeptical side approximates a religion, anyway.

So we come down to the god -claim which really has nothing to support it other than appeal to unknowns. Accepting 'we don't know' is what agnosticism really is, not 'I believe in a god, never mind the lack of evidence'. That logically mandates non belief or a -theism as it is called, based on the materialist default, backed up by science and the lack of a god anywhere, other than as a faith -claim.

Why you refuse this clear logical chain is better known to you; I can only speculate.

[William]

Materialism (in the practical sense) is based on the findings of science which explain how things work.

What explanations about what things?

As I wrote;

I am not taken in by the idea that science is the foundation of materialism.

Science has not shown that there is no need for a mind behind our existence. That is simply how the materialist interprets the science.

Science isn't 'explaining that there is no requirement of a Mind in the process of the unfolding reality we are experiencing.'

That is simply a materialist claim which has not shown to be fact.

[alexxcJRO]

Second, we use "X of the gaps" reasoning all the time. Can't explain why light from distant galaxies gets bent the way it does? There must be matter we can't see. Call it "dark matter." Distant galaxies more redshifted than they should be? There must be energy in space itself. Call it "dark energy." Any time we believe in something rationally, it's because there's a gap in our understanding that needs to be filled. The process of explaining things just is filling in "gaps" in our understanding. Inference to the best explanation is a valid mode of reasoning, not a fallacy, and it doesn't magically become a fallacy when you don't like the Explanation that stands head and shoulders above all competitors.

Not liking the best answer anyone's come up with doesn't magically make the answer "not count."

The problem with your analogy is your reasoning is flawed.
Although we fill our gaps in knowledge with mysterious unknown concepts this does not stop there. Scientists then go about demonstrating their hypothesis by either trying to find corroborative, compelling evidence through experimentation or by trying to falsify their hypothesis. They put their work up for peer review and for others to try and replicate the findings or falsify their findings. This is honest approach. They don’t make arguments and play with words.
If they find they filled the gap wrongly they don’t move the concept they propose in another hole ad infinitum.
On the other hand religious people acts disingenuous. They put God in a gaps(god of the sun(RA), gods of wind, epilepsy divine, the god moon). Then when certain gaps of knowledge get filled up they move god in the next gaps (creation of the planet, tectonic plates and angels) and when this new gaps get filled up they moved god in the next gaps(creation of life and universe) and so on ad nauseum.
That’s why God of the gaps is fallacious.
You would think after thousands of year of doing this they, the religious people would learn from their past mistakes and stop doing this.

Albert Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results."

[TRANSPONDER]

Materialism (in the practical sense) is based on the findings of science which explain how things work.

What explanations about what things?

As I wrote;

I am not taken in by the idea that science is the foundation of materialism.

Science has not shown that there is no need for a mind behind our existence. That is simply how the materialist interprets the science.

Science isn't 'explaining that there is no requirement of a Mind in the process of the unfolding reality we are experiencing.'

That is simply a materialist claim which has not shown to be fact.

You are again reversing the burden of proof. The scientific explanation of how things grow, weather works, matter is made of molecules. Do I really have to explain this? No book explaining the natural and physical working of anything invokes a god nor needs to. It doesn't matter what takes you or not. Science is the basis (tin the sense of the evidence for it) of materialism. What else could be?

And the burden of proof is on you to show how the evidence can be 'interpreted' to need a god? It is either trying to make the Watchmaker ID case or appeal to unknowns and here again, the IOU's of science are good while the cheques of Theistbank Inc have bounced.

[TRANSPONDER]

Second, we use "X of the gaps" reasoning all the time. Can't explain why light from distant galaxies gets bent the way it does? There must be matter we can't see. Call it "dark matter." Distant galaxies more redshifted than they should be? There must be energy in space itself. Call it "dark energy." Any time we believe in something rationally, it's because there's a gap in our understanding that needs to be filled. The process of explaining things just is filling in "gaps" in our understanding. Inference to the best explanation is a valid mode of reasoning, not a fallacy, and it doesn't magically become a fallacy when you don't like the Explanation that stands head and shoulders above all competitors.

Not liking the best answer anyone's come up with doesn't magically make the answer "not count."

The problem with your analogy is your reasoning is flawed.
Although we fill our gaps in knowledge with mysterious unknown concepts this does not stop there. Scientists then go about demonstrating their hypothesis by either trying to find corroborative, compelling evidence through experimentation or by trying to falsify their hypothesis. They put their work up for peer review and for others to try and replicate the findings or falsify their findings. This is honest approach. They don’t make arguments and play with words.
If they find they filled the gap wrongly they don’t move the concept they propose in another hole ad infinitum.
On the other hand religious people acts disingenuous. They put God in a gaps(god of the sun(RA), gods of wind, epilepsy divine, the god moon). Then when certain gaps of knowledge get filled up they move god in the next gaps (creation of the planet, tectonic plates and angels) and when this new gaps get filled up they moved god in the next gaps(creation of life and universe) and so on ad nauseum.
That’s why God of the gaps is fallacious.
You would think after thousands of year of doing this they, the religious people would learn from their past mistakes and stop doing this.

Albert Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results."

Yes. The post was pushing 'unexplained' rather too much. Light is bent and no -one knows why? It is Unknown. It does not mean 'God'. That is simply opportunistic far more than suggesting Dark Matter. If indeed the whole idea went no further than trying to discredit Science, which often seems to be the objective rather than validating a god. I gather that there are reasons to postulate Dark matter other than light bending, but unexplained problems are not in themselves evidence for a god.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #276]

You are again reversing the burden of proof.

No. I am demanding a level battlefield and am simply asking you to provide any scientific evidence for your belief that there is no mind behind creation.
This - of course - is unfair of me, since I already know that you cannot produce scientific evidence to support your position on the matter.

Science is the basis (in the sense of the evidence for it) of materialism. What else could be?

Search "Science"

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"

Search "Materialism"
1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.


2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

As I wrote "science has not shown that there is no need for a mind behind our existence. That is simply how the materialist interprets the science.

Science isn't 'explaining that there is no requirement of a Mind in the process of the unfolding reality we are experiencing.'

That is simply a materialist claim which has not shown to be fact."

I am therefore committing no fallacy in asking you to provide your evidence for your belief in materialism and your accompanying statements.

If it is just [as I suspect] ones preferred position as a matter of opinion, then admit this and there is no requirement on your part to provide evidence to support said opinion.

For my part, I acknowledge that there are plenty of materialist scientists who see no point or profit in pursuing any science involving the idea of a mind behind creation. Since most scientists are beholding to whatever funding is available to them through shareholder invested interest in what profits can be made through the scientific creation of purely materialistic pursuits, I can see how easy it is for someone to mistakenly think that Science is the basis of materialism, but even what science of the mind has uncovered, is not only about materialism, even that emergent theory might claim otherwise.

And the burden of proof is on you to show how the evidence can be 'interpreted' to need a god?

My understanding is that the physical evidence can be interpreted that there is a mind behind creation - that we exist within a simulated reality. What has that to do with gods?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #276]

You are again reversing the burden of proof.

No. I am demanding a level battlefield and am simply asking you to provide any scientific evidence for your belief that there is no mind behind creation.
This - of course - is unfair of me, since I already know that you cannot produce scientific evidence to support your position on the matter.

Science is the basis (in the sense of the evidence for it) of materialism. What else could be?

Search "Science"

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"

Search "Materialism"
1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.


2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

As I wrote "science has not shown that there is no need for a mind behind our existence. That is simply how the materialist interprets the science.

Science isn't 'explaining that there is no requirement of a Mind in the process of the unfolding reality we are experiencing.'

That is simply a materialist claim which has not shown to be fact."

I am therefore committing no fallacy in asking you to provide your evidence for your belief in materialism and your accompanying statements.

If it is just [as I suspect] ones preferred position as a matter of opinion, then admit this and there is no requirement on your part to provide evidence to support said opinion.

For my part, I acknowledge that there are plenty of materialist scientists who see no point or profit in pursuing any science involving the idea of a mind behind creation. Since most scientists are beholding to whatever funding is available to them through shareholder invested interest in what profits can be made through the scientific creation of purely materialistic pursuits, I can see how easy it is for someone to mistakenly think that Science is the basis of materialism, but even what science of the mind has uncovered, is not only about materialism, even that emergent theory might claim otherwise.

And the burden of proof is on you to show how the evidence can be 'interpreted' to need a god?

My understanding is that the physical evidence can be interpreted that there is a mind behind creation - that we exist within a simulated reality. What has that to do with gods?

You cannot demand now a level field in view of the science that has explained how things work (and don't try to pretend you don't know what that means) and no god has been found. If it has, show it. Burden of proof falls on you to show a god, not on me, materialists, atheists or scientists to show there isn't a possible one , only that the evidence for it isn't found or apparent. Therefore the burden of proof falls on you. So it's a question of interpreting the evidence? Ok, Interpret it and show a god. Not an Unknown or Unexplained. That is simply...not known. It is Not evidence for a god.

As to materialism, Yes, I know that philosophy seems to define materialism as a claim that nothing else but the material can be. Perhaps in the rules of philosophy that has to be, but in the practical world science can't be so sure. But even if it was, one could only show it to be logically untenable. That wouldn't make it factually untrue. For all we know or any theist has been able to show, it very well could be only the material exists.

I'm aware by the way that we (or you) are already on Theist apologetic of the 2nd kind, since there was little Evidence, so not it's about rhetoric,tinkering with logic and ways of thinking. Because you have no evidence, you have to try to reverse who has to provide it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #279]

Because you have no evidence, you have to try to reverse who has to provide it.

Lets pretend that you are correct here.

Show me your evidence and I shall convert to materialism on account of that.