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]

[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.

It isn't MY evidence but the evidence of science explaining how things work. The 'claim' of the materialist basis is massively backed up. Things work through natural physical processes. The libraries are full of it. The burden of proof is on you (or any theist) to show evidence for a god in that evidence or anywhere else. Until you understand where the burden of proof lies, you are never going to escape illogicality.

Never mind you are in good company. No theist has ever been able to accept that the burden of proving a god (never mind which one) is on them.

It isn't even about converting to materialism. I don't care what you believe. I just want you to accept that you really have no valid evidence (or logic) and your god - belief is really Faith -based. Indeed your mode of argument shows that you cannot escape the Faith -based mindset, because you project that onto 'materialism'.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #281]
viewtopic.php?p=1061753#p1061753

It isn't MY evidence but the evidence of science explaining how things work.

Evidence belongs to us all, as we accept it.

The 'claim' of the materialist basis is massively backed up. Things work through natural physical processes. The libraries are full of it.

If that was all you are claiming, then I have not been arguing otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you (or any theist) to show evidence for a god in that evidence or anywhere else.

I make no claim that a mind behind our reality is a 'god' and tend to veer away from doing so because of the confusion it most obviously causes.

Please refer to it in the same manner as I do, that at least in doing so, we can begin on the same page.

Else, we are stuck in the process of defining and that is not the best way in which we can proceed beyond that, for we will surely be playing around in quagmire/ off a track that leads to a dead-end.

Until you understand where the burden of proof lies, you are never going to escape illogicality.

I do understand and have been saying as much. The question is, do either of us have the proof that our opinions should be countered as more than just opinions?

It is your opinion is it not, that there is no requirement for MIND to exist, for MATTER to exist, correct?

Or is this more about this being an absolute fact? The way you present the statements based on this, tends toward you believing it is a fact, and this is why I think it fair to ask that you present the evidence.

No theist has ever been able to accept that the burden of proving a god (never mind which one) is on them.

Speaking for myself, my 'claim' is that I understand the logic of there having to be a mind behind our reality - in that a mind/minds created said reality for the purpose of experiencing said reality.

Whether that mind/those minds can be said to be a God/Gods is another thing entirely...we are best to cross each bridge as it presents.

I don't care what you believe. I just want you to accept that you really have no valid evidence (or logic) and your god - belief is really Faith -based. Indeed your mode of argument shows that you cannot escape the Faith -based mindset, because you project that onto 'materialism'.

I am not projecting I am mirroring. Remember, it was you who degenerated into criticizing me [the person] rather than the argument I [the person] am presenting.

Furthermore, you have already being asked once already to present your evidence for your claim that what I have argued is faith-based, and have yet to present such evidence.
[On those grounds I feel it pertinent to ask you to front up or shut up, because your "saying so" otherwise falls into the realm of the ad hominem fallacy, and I lack the stupidity to be drawn into such conflict, as such tactic does not work either with me, or in the context of a debate setting]

My own understanding of my view re faith and my arguments re MIND can be read in a recent comment I made to another forum member, here;

[Realworldjack]

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)?

Let us look carefully at the wording here,

Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.

So why would one want to be sure to stay clear of claiming a certain belief? It seems obvious. You see, this is a tactic in order to shed oneself of the "burden of proof". The problem with this would be, the Christian has no "burden of proof" as long as they are simply explaining what they believe, along with why they believe as they do, without making any sort of absolute claims which they cannot demonstrate to be fact.

Therefore, I fail to see where the atheists who take this sort of stance is under the impression that they have some sort of advantage over the Christian who is not making claims which cannot be demonstrated to be facts? In the end, the atheists who take this stance, along with the Christian who makes no certain claims which they cannot demonstrate to be fact, are in the same boat. The Christian is simply explaining what they believe, along with why they believe as they do, while the atheist is simply explaining their "lack of belief", with neither owning the burden.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #281]
viewtopic.php?p=1061753#p1061753

It isn't MY evidence but the evidence of science explaining how things work.

Evidence belongs to us all, as we accept it.

The 'claim' of the materialist basis is massively backed up. Things work through natural physical processes. The libraries are full of it.

If that was all you are claiming, then I have not been arguing otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you (or any theist) to show evidence for a god in that evidence or anywhere else.

I make no claim that a mind behind our reality is a 'god' and tend to veer away from doing so because of the confusion it most obviously causes.

Please refer to it in the same manner as I do, that at least in doing so, we can begin on the same page.

Else, we are stuck in the process of defining and that is not the best way in which we can proceed beyond that, for we will surely be playing around in quagmire/ off a track that leads to a dead-end.

Until you understand where the burden of proof lies, you are never going to escape illogicality.

I do understand and have been saying as much. The question is, do either of us have the proof that our opinions should be countered as more than just opinions?

It is your opinion is it not, that there is no requirement for MIND to exist, for MATTER to exist, correct?

Or is this more about this being an absolute fact? The way you present the statements based on this, tends toward you believing it is a fact, and this is why I think it fair to ask that you present the evidence.

No theist has ever been able to accept that the burden of proving a god (never mind which one) is on them.

Speaking for myself, my 'claim' is that I understand the logic of there having to be a mind behind our reality - in that a mind/minds created said reality for the purpose of experiencing said reality.

Whether that mind/those minds can be said to be a God/Gods is another thing entirely...we are best to cross each bridge as it presents.

I don't care what you believe. I just want you to accept that you really have no valid evidence (or logic) and your god - belief is really Faith -based. Indeed your mode of argument shows that you cannot escape the Faith -based mindset, because you project that onto 'materialism'.

I am not projecting I am mirroring. Remember, it was you who degenerated into criticizing me [the person] rather than the argument I [the person] am presenting.

Furthermore, you have already being asked once already to present your evidence for your claim that what I have argued is faith-based, and have yet to present such evidence.
[On those grounds I feel it pertinent to ask you to front up or shut up, because your "saying so" otherwise falls into the realm of the ad hominem fallacy, and I lack the stupidity to be drawn into such conflict, as such tactic does not work either with me, or in the context of a debate setting]

You are making terribly heavy weather of this.

Of course evidence 'belongs' to us all. It is science that provides the validated explanations. What point were you trying to make?

I said The 'claim' of the materialist basis is massively backed up. Things work through natural physical processes. The libraries are full of it.

You replied. If that was all you are claiming, then I have not been arguing otherwise.

Good; progress. The basis of the material (natural physical process) is agreed. The burden of proof is on you to show anything else.
It doesn't matter whether you call it a cosmic mind, First cause, 'god' or God. We all know what we are talking about here. An intelligent Creator of everything though not necessarily related to any religion. That's been agreed and there is no need to get into definitions, and it does not provide an escape for you nor an opportunity for you to claim that I am misrepresenting you. It just makes you look crafty, especially as you try to force some term that YOU prefer onto me.

I don't know whether you are being crafty here, or you don't get it.

"The question is, do either of us have the proof that our opinions should be countered as more than just opinions?

It is your opinion is it not, that there is no requirement for MIND to exist, for MATTER to exist, correct?"

The 'proof' is already agreed by you above - the evidence that natural and physical processes are established. Now the burden of proof is on you to support a claim to Something More, an intelligent creator, 'god' or whatever term you prefer. My opinion for Mind over Matter is irrelevant. I actually don't see it as necessary for a planning intelligence (if that's what you mean by Mind - since one could call ordered physical process, Mind or even 'God', as Einstein and Hawking did.) before we get matter/energy, but my opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is your case for a Cosmic mind, in the sense of a forward -planning creative cosmic intelligence, rather than just natural physical processes. Over to you.

You then again ask me to present the evidence when you've already agreed that it exists. This is the problem. You cannot accept the material evidence as the default theory with the burden of proof on you to show a Cosmic Mind.

"Speaking for myself, my 'claim' is that I understand the logic of there having to be a mind behind our reality - in that a mind/minds created said reality for the purpose of experiencing said reality." That's a nice little hypothesis, and not a logical impossibility, though one still has to explain where such a mind (or minds) would come from (which you could do if you aren't arguing for a religious god - could be extraterrestrials). But what you have to do to get anywhere beyond an irrelevant undisproved possibility or a Faith - claim is to present some valid evidence. Ball is still in your court.

I won't comment much on the remainder of your post other than to reiterate that now you have agreed the scientific basis of the material (natural physical processes). You have to present the evidence for a Cosmic Mind, First cause, 'god' or whatever term you prefer, or you have nothing. To say that this 'mirrors' my position when you have already agreed that I have material evidence and we have seen nothing from you other a story about a mind that wants to experience, just shows haw much of a faith -based theistic mental tangle you are in.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

we have seen nothing from you other a story about a mind that wants to experience, just shows haw much of a faith -based theistic mental tangle you are in.

Since I have asked you twice now to desist with the ad hominem fallacy and warned you that I am not about to be sucked by that tactic, and you continue to comment on my person rather than my argument, I have no interest in continuing along those lines with you.
When you want to actually debate, You have been invited to do so [in this post]

Also in regard to your misunderstanding about my position re supposed 'faith-based' accusation you have made [but not backed up] go to this post.

[David the apologist]

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.

Seeing as there's more than one argument for the existence of God - premises that imply His existence turn up in multiple disciplines - I'd say that we have plenty of corroborative evidence, albeit still the indirect kind.

But enough indirect evidence is just as good as direct confirmation.

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 Judaism and Christianity came along and said, "no, the natural world is natural, even though God created and sustains it."

A thousand years later, science confirmed half of this prediction, thereby falsifying most forms of paganism and animism.

Occasionally, science seemed to indicate that what previously looked natural didn't actually look natural. God was often "stuck in" as an interim answer, but that never shut down continued inquiry. Sometimes, science closed the gaps. Sometimes it didn't.

That's what actually happened, and that's where we find ourselves today.

[alexxcJRO]

Seeing as there's more than one argument for the existence of God - premises that imply His existence turn up in multiple disciplines - I'd say that we have plenty of corroborative evidence, albeit still the indirect kind.

But enough indirect evidence is just as good as direct confirmation.

There is nothing compelling about unsound arguments which is basically playing with words or about 2000 years old bogus anonymous testimonial evidence(first ones being written decades after the supposed event).
The argument from contrariety: notes that the contrary claims of competing religions are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. The testimonial "evidence" for the truth of any one religion contradicts the testimonial "evidence" for the truth of another religion.
The testimonial evidence for the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba is such example.

http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_miracles

One European child gets indoctrinated with Chirstian beliefs using the Bible. That Jesus died for our sins and after death and final judgment one get either a ticket to Heaven or Lake of Fire/Hell.
One other Indian child gets indoctrinated with Hinfu beliefs using the Rig Veda. That reincarnation its real and after death one gets to live again.
Both children get to adulthood being religious and believing both are justified in their beliefs and that their religion is true.
The problem that this image raises is that their beliefs are not justified for hypothesis from Christian dogma and Hindu dogma cannot both be true at the same time because they are mutually exclusive. One being true presupposes the other is false.

Real empirical evidence shows intercessory prayer does not work.
"Efficacy of prayer
A child praying before lunch in the United States, during the Great Depression in 1936
"The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

Religious belief usually entails indoctrination, unjustified belief, ignorance of the real world, other people religions and science.
You have nothing substantial.

Then Judaism and Christianity came along and said, "no, the natural world is natural, even though God created and sustains it."

A thousand years later, science confirmed half of this prediction, thereby falsifying most forms of paganism and animism.

Occasionally, science seemed to indicate that what previously looked natural didn't actually look natural. God was often "stuck in" as an interim answer, but that never shut down continued inquiry. Sometimes, science closed the gaps. Sometimes it didn't.

That's what actually happened, and that's where we find ourselves today.

Metaphorical interpretations of the Bible is not what Judaism and Christianity said. You interpret it to say whatever you want. Twist words meaning to escape the problems.
Subjective biased ponderings are not reality but contortions of ancient text to fit a narrative to reality just like Zecharia Sitchin does with his interpretation of Mesopotamian texts in attempt to fit his narrative about Nibiru.
YEC and believers of inerrancy interpret that Judaism and Christianity said: Natural world is far more magical akin to magical world of ancient Egyptians.
Bible if full of magical stories(magical construction of a huge boat by one man ignorant ancient goat herder Noah, magical global flood, magical story of Adam and Eve(original sin and corruption of the universe), Samson or Moses or Jona or Babylon story or Egyptians plague, talking donkey) and magical creatures(dragons, giants, nephilims).
Ancient Egyptions believed God resided in their perceived boundary of the natural world: the sky-the atmosphere, the sun.
So they filled their gap with GOD-RA. Ra was moving the sun across the sky.
You are doing the same thing putting GOD-YAWWEH in your perceived boundary of the natural world: the outside of the universe.
Both the Egyptians and you have a gap in knowledge how life came to be therefore RA or Yahweh.
No difference.
Special pleading yourself out of the issue is not going to work.

Q: How do you know in a thousand years later, science will not confirm life, universe came to be by natural causes thereby falsifying God created life and the universe? How do you know that you will not be in the same shoes as the rest of ancient religious people?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

we have seen nothing from you other a story about a mind that wants to experience, just shows haw much of a faith -based theistic mental tangle you are in.

Since I have asked you twice now to desist with the ad hominem fallacy and warned you that I am not about to be sucked by that tactic, and you continue to comment on my person rather than my argument, I have no interest in continuing along those lines with you.
When you want to actually debate, You have been invited to do so [in this post]

Also in regard to your misunderstanding about my position re supposed 'faith-based' accusation you have made [but not backed up] go to this post.

I'm so terribly intimidated. Willty, lad, why are 'agnostics' so bitter towards atheists? I'm not attacking you but what's wrong with your argument. Your case, not you is what I'm going after.

You agreed the scientific basis of how things (you know what this means) work. The scientific database is materialist by default. No God (cosmic mind or whatever) anywhere. Thus the burden of proof is squarely on the Cosmic mind/First Cause or Creator -god to put forward the evidence for it or accept that it's no more than a possible undisproven or a Faith -claim.

Pointing out that dickering about the terms or words is just red -herring stuff is not Personals but clearing irrelevant clutter out of the way to focus on the point. Theists (religious or not) are making the 'God' claim. They have to prove it. They have to do this with various kinds of I/D (anything from DNA codes to universal constants) and so far it is either debunked or an unknown. It does not make a case for a God, Cosmic mind or Kalamitous Creator. Anything else just hurts your case, as does getting all 3rd apologetic (start a row) about it.

Reminder -Apologetics of the 3 kinds-
1. argue on the evidence
2. dicker about the thinking (terms, semantics, philosophy)
3. provoke a row so as to have an excuse to Flounce:

example of a Flounce. "I have no interest in continuing along those lines with you...When you want to actually debate..." You walk away telling yourself you won. Typical theist ploy.

[TRANSPONDER]

You directed me to a previous post. While this is an oh so familiar Theist ploy to restart the whole discussion from the start I will have a look and this is what it was:
[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #13]
Surely one would need faith, trust, in whatever basis they had for claiming to know?
That is a common enough presumption which depends upon both ones idea of "What God Is" and what conditions are attached to that idea.

My own understanding of "God" = "Mind Behind Creation" and in that there are no known conditions attached to motivation of said Mind. Thus there is no requirement for faith-based beliefs to be attached to the idea of "God" nor is there a necessity to trust said mind, because trust itself requires conditions which effectively create layers superimposed upon what is known re creation/nature.

It is what it is and there is neither requirement to trust it or to distrust it, as far as I can tell. The "Problem of Evil" is therefore not really a problem of nature so much as a problem humans have created through faulty perception of nature as an attempt to explain death and suffering and the like - thus trust has to be formed where in reality, it is not required

Totally irrelevant to the discussion which Topic is what's wrong with atheism

Succinct answer - nothing, until a decent case is made for a god, and the various meanings are well known from a generic invisible creator of everything to the tribal god of Judaism repainted pink with blue eyes and dressed up as a Christian.

Nothing in your quoted post mattered much. Faith is in claiming that a Creative cosmic mind credibly exists, without any decent evidence. Like the guy with the Pillows, if you had it you'd have presented it by now. The conditions about this cosmic mind's thoughts are simply unknown and speculative and therefore, irrelevant.

I'd guess you were either trying to drag the discussion onto your (irrelevant) terms or just red herring the whole discussion. All I needed was acceptance (which you damn' near did which is why you are getting shirty) that the evidence is that no 'god' has been supported by the evidence and it remains an unvalidated theory and is thus (without the Bible) academic. But irreligious Theists seem to think that it is so damn' important that people treat this cosmic brain as believable. Why? It isn't even attached to any particular religion. We really ought to be on the same page here and I don't know why we aren't and why you are getting so outraged over it.

[David the apologist]

Seeing as there's more than one argument for the existence of God - premises that imply His existence turn up in multiple disciplines - I'd say that we have plenty of corroborative evidence, albeit still the indirect kind.

But enough indirect evidence is just as good as direct confirmation.

There is nothing compelling about unsound arguments which is basically playing with words

Whether the arguments are "unsound" or "basically playing with words" is precisely what I am disputing. You can't just assert that it's the case, that's begging the question.

or about 2000 years old bogus anonymous testimonial evidence(first ones being written decades after the supposed event).

Again, whether they are truly "bogus" or "anonymous" is precisely what I intend to dispute, and have done on other occasions. No more begged questions, please.

The argument from contrariety: notes that the contrary claims of competing religions are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. The testimonial "evidence" for the truth of any one religion contradicts the testimonial "evidence" for the truth of another religion.
The testimonial evidence for the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba is such example.

http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

I'm not particularly concerned. If He decides to work miracles through some Indian guru, that's His decision. C.S. Lewis said much the same about Vespasian.

Of course, for all I know, Sai Baba's miracle claims don't defy all cultural expectations in his immediate environment, and aren't used to fundamentally redefine key religious notions. In which case, it would be far easier to dismiss them as mere fabrications than it would be to dismiss the Christian miracle of the Resurrection.

Real empirical evidence shows intercessory prayer does not work.

And? The point of prayer is to recognize one's own reliance on God, not to convince Him to do this or that particular thing.

Religious belief usually entails indoctrination, unjustified belief, ignorance of the real world, other people religions and science.
You have nothing substantial.

So you claim.

Then Judaism and Christianity came along and said, "no, the natural world is natural, even though God created and sustains it."

A thousand years later, science confirmed half of this prediction, thereby falsifying most forms of paganism and animism.

Occasionally, science seemed to indicate that what previously looked natural didn't actually look natural. God was often "stuck in" as an interim answer, but that never shut down continued inquiry. Sometimes, science closed the gaps. Sometimes it didn't.

That's what actually happened, and that's where we find ourselves today.

Metaphorical interpretations of the Bible is not what Judaism and Christianity said. You interpret it to say whatever you want. Twist words meaning to escape the problems.
Subjective biased ponderings are not reality but contortions of ancient text to fit a narrative to reality just like Zecharia Sitchin does with his interpretation of Mesopotamian texts in attempt to fit his narrative about Nibiru.
YEC and believers of inerrancy interpret that Judaism and Christianity said: Natural world is far more magical akin to magical world of ancient Egyptians.
Bible if full of magical stories(magical construction of a huge boat by one man ignorant ancient goat herder Noah, magical global flood, magical story of Adam and Eve(original sin and corruption of the universe), Samson or Moses or Jona or Babylon story or Egyptians plague, talking donkey) and magical creatures(dragons, giants, nephilims).
Ancient Egyptions believed God resided in their perceived boundary of the natural world: the sky-the atmosphere, the sun.
So they filled their gap with GOD-RA. Ra was moving the sun across the sky.
You are doing the same thing putting GOD-YAWWEH in your perceived boundary of the natural world: the outside of the universe.
Both the Egyptians and you have a gap in knowledge how life came to be therefore RA or Yahweh.
No difference.

Lot of words. No disputing my central points:

1. It was the "de-mythicization" of the natural world by the monotheistic religions that made science possible.

2. Science has confirmed that "de-mythicization" was a Good Idea (TM).

3. Science has created gaps in our knowledge that weren't there before.

4. Science has not closed all of the gaps it has created.

Q: How do you know in a thousand years later, science will not confirm life, universe came to be by natural causes thereby falsifying God created life and the universe? How do you know that you will not be in the same shoes as the rest of ancient religious people?

Short answer? We know enough about the natural world to place limits on what it's capable of. And those limits are pretty strict.