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)?

[Bust Nak]

Does he even have an opinion regarding the existence of God though?

Sure, his response indicates as much...

Looks to me like he is withholding his opinion, not expressing it.

Moreover, like most of the atheists on this forum, Miles is clearly an intelligent guy who has spent years here thoughtfully engaging in discussions about the existence of God and related topics. He no doubt thinks that he has good reasons for choosing not to accept the proposition that God exists. Those actions necessarily entail him forming opinions.

Opinion, sure, about god in general, but you seemed to have missed the very important point: about God rather than on whether he exists or not. That's how we can maintain having beliefs while disbelieving in God, Miles was talking about his lack belief in his existence.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #239]

So either get to supporting the claim with evidence, or admit that it is really simply materialist opinion re the science.

It was done above.

No it was not, and I showed why.
You are confusing the confirmation bias and subsequent materialist rejection of the idea of a mind behind physical processes which have been scientifically validated, with 'supporting evidence'.

It is a common enough mistake. A materialist claims "no god is necessary", one asks for supporting evidence and the reply is along the lines that "this is the way we materialists view the science and subsequently validate our position".

So what?

Even that there is great understanding of how physical and biological processes work, that does not logically invalidate a mind behind the process.

The evidence for material processes does not confirm or deny lack of mind input and is not necessary to include in any peer -review.
How the material interacts, is the evidence for the material existing. It is not evidence that there is NO mind behind said interaction, as you mistakenly assume.

To add opinion either way - that there is or is not a mind behind it all - is simply due to the way the evidence is interpreted.

Materialists interpret it one way and theists the other. All is opinion.

The statement "No God Required" is opinion. Science has shown no such thing.

No science has produced evidence to support the materialist opinion that there is no mind behind creation.

What would scientists be looking for anyway?

What you have argued is opinion.

And you still haven't provided support for those claims you made. Reading your responses it is clear to me that those will remain unsupported. While they do, I am happy to consider them to be just opinions.

[historia]

Plus, you and I already agreed (see post #165) that every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists.

Yes, you, a theist has an opinion concerning "every atheist" on this forum. Not surprisingly "every atheist" doesn't agree with the straw man you have created.

Again, you seem to be having a hard time understanding what constitutes a straw man argument.

The proximate question we are debating here is whether all atheists have a belief regarding the proposition that God exists. My argument is that they do, others here are arguing that they don't.

Me expressing an opinion about the nature of the beliefs of atheists on this forum is not a straw man argument. If I somehow misrepresented Miles' or Bust Nak's argument regarding that question, then that would be a straw man argument.

It's more than a strawman; it's a symptom of the theists belief that their god -claim is the default and all the burden of proof falls on the non -believer.

Have I argued that believing that God exists is the "default" and that the burden of proof lies with non-believers?

[historia]

Moreover, like most of the atheists on this forum, Miles is clearly an intelligent guy who has spent years here thoughtfully engaging in discussions about the existence of God and related topics. He no doubt thinks that he has good reasons for choosing not to accept the proposition that God exists. Those actions necessarily entail him forming opinions.

Opinion, sure, about god in general, but you seemed to have missed the very important point: about God rather than on whether he exists or not.

Based on his comments above, Miles has clearly chosen not to accept the proposition that God exists -- he even gave us a reason for "arriving" at that decision, "a lack of convincing evidence" (post #209). He has also apparently chosen not to accept the opposite proposition that God does not exist.

Making choices requires you to have opinions, so clearly Miles has an opinion regarding the proposition that God exists. He also has a clearly articulated stance regarding that proposition, which again (see post #233) is part and parcel to having a belief.

He just doesn't think of his opinion or stance as constituting a belief about the proposition that God exists, apparently because he has conflated belief with certitude, and also maybe because he hasn't given full consideration to a more rigorous, academic analysis of beliefs.

[Miles]

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.

The problem I see here is that you are (literally) conflating belief with certainty.

Not "certainty," but "a sense of certainty"

sense
/sens/
....noun
.......1. . . . .
.......2. a feeling that something is the case.
..........."she had the sense of being a political outsider"
Source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #239]

So either get to supporting the claim with evidence, or admit that it is really simply materialist opinion re the science.

It was done above.

No it was not, and I showed why.
You are confusing the confirmation bias and subsequent materialist rejection of the idea of a mind behind physical processes which have been scientifically validated, with 'supporting evidence'.

It is a common enough mistake. A materialist claims "no god is necessary", one asks for supporting evidence and the reply is along the lines that "this is the way we materialists view the science and subsequently validate our position".

So what?

Even that there is great understanding of how physical and biological processes work, that does not logically invalidate a mind behind the process.

The evidence for material processes does not confirm or deny lack of mind input and is not necessary to include in any peer -review.
How the material interacts, is the evidence for the material existing. It is not evidence that there is NO mind behind said interaction, as you mistakenly assume.

To add opinion either way - that there is or is not a mind behind it all - is simply due to the way the evidence is interpreted.

Materialists interpret it one way and theists the other. All is opinion.

The statement "No God Required" is opinion. Science has shown no such thing.

No science has produced evidence to support the materialist opinion that there is no mind behind creation.

What would scientists be looking for anyway?

What you have argued is opinion.

And you still haven't provided support for those claims you made. Reading your responses it is clear to me that those will remain unsupported. While they do, I am happy to consider them to be just opinions.

Again, you are arguing from the premise that a god (cosmic mind) exists unless disproven. Similarly science doesn't have to disprove a god in physical processes - it is the believer who has to prove the god, show the god in natural processes and they are the ones who have to know what to look for for. And you surely know they way believers have tried to do it - various ID arguments. Do date, they have all failed to show the hand or foot of a Mind involved in the processes and until they do the case for a cosmic mind fails, let alone the Belief in one.

It is irrelevant that one cannot prove there is no such thing as a god, creator or mind behind everything, but the logic is that there is no reason to believe in one until there is decent evidence for it. This is the way logic and use of evidence works and is not Opinion.

It is not for atheism to disprove a cosmic mind, it is not the business of the skeptic/materialis or non believer to look forthe evidence or to know what to look for. The Believer has the job of doing that as they are the ones that believe in it. Until you understand this all the posts and arguments you make are either denialist or futile.

It's true that skepticism is under a huge cultural deadweight of God as a Given, let alone 'atheism bad - Godfaith good'. And we will just have to battle on with that. But as far as the logic and evidence goes, it's done and dusted, whether the theism is religious or not.

I'm still curious by the way as to why, if you don't do religion, as such, it is so desperately important for you to make a case for a cosmic mind and to invert the rules of logic and the way the scientific interpretation of data works and to dismiss that as 'opinion',since I can't see why it matters, anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

Plus, you and I already agreed (see post #165) that every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists.

Yes, you, a theist has an opinion concerning "every atheist" on this forum. Not surprisingly "every atheist" doesn't agree with the straw man you have created.

Again, you seem to be having a hard time understanding what constitutes a straw man argument.

The proximate question we are debating here is whether all atheists have a belief regarding the proposition that God exists. My argument is that they do, others here are arguing that they don't.

Me expressing an opinion about the nature of the beliefs of atheists on this forum is not a straw man argument. If I somehow misrepresented Miles' or Bust Nak's argument regarding that question, then that would be a straw man argument.

It's more than a strawman; it's a symptom of the theists belief that their god -claim is the default and all the burden of proof falls on the non -believer.

Have I argued that believing that God exists is the "default" and that the burden of proof lies with non-believers?

I really don't know, or can't remember. I was responding to that cartoon of a 'strawman' and expressing my view that this persistent misrepresentation of the non -theist or atheist's position can be tracked down to the basic Faith -based position of theism that a god (name and define your own) exists as the default theory until 100% disproves by atheists, science or atheist scientists. And even then if they refuse compelling evidence, they still think they have won the debate. Because what's at stake is not the argument, but their Faith.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I think that atheist non -belief in a 'god' (or god -claim) is not a Belief, but a reservation of belief, pending proof. But atheists do have beliefs about the arguments that underpin such a belief -position, such as I/D has not been scientifically validated or First cause arguments fail logically. I think it is reasonable to say that rationalists have Beliefs about these propositions. I don't know whether that clarifies the matter at all.

[Bust Nak]

He just doesn't think of his opinion or stance as constituting a belief about the proposition that God exists, apparently because he has conflated belief with certitude, and also maybe because he hasn't given full consideration to a more rigorous, academic analysis of beliefs.

No, he said his lack belief in God existence does not constituting a belief about the proposition that God exists. How certain one has to be on a proposition to constitute a belief is a separate issue.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #246]

Again, you are arguing from the premise that a god (cosmic mind) exists unless disproven.

No.

I have always argued from the premise that a Cosmic Mind may well exist and that I am best to maintain that opinion until convincing evidence presents, either way.

You made the assumption and were asked to support your statement that I have faith in a Cosmic Mind.
You were also asked to support your statement that the material universe, is "known to work without a Cosmic Mind".

Many posts later, and you still haven't provided said support.

I will therefore continue to view your statements as materialist opinions opposing the opinions of theists with unsubstantiated broadcast.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #246]

Again, you are arguing from the premise that a god (cosmic mind) exists unless disproven.

No.

I have always argued from the premise that a Cosmic Mind may well exist and that I am best to maintain that opinion until convincing evidence presents, either way.

You made the assumption and were asked to support your statement that I have faith in a Cosmic Mind.
You were also asked to support your statement that the material universe, is "known to work without a Cosmic Mind".

Many posts later, and you still haven't provided said support.

I will therefore continue to view your statements as materialist opinions opposing the opinions of theists with unsubstantiated broadcast.

I can only repeat, that a cosmic Mind may or may not exist, but the evidence for it is lacking and that logically mandates non -belief (or not crediting the persuasive credibility, at least) until persuasive evidence is presented, and that burden of proof falls on the advocate, not the burden of disproof on the doubter.

The material world exists and (until evidence of the involvement of a Cosmic Mind is demonstrated) defaults to a world and universe of natural processes. That is all that 'materialism'needs a the logical and evidential default -hypothesis.