Atheists, What's the point?

[Davian]

For starters..

Implying that you have more, but are holding back?

the idea that Atheism is the default position.

This has been addressed by others, but I will ask: what do you think it should be? Christianity? Ancient Babylonianism?

 

[keith99]

Implying that you have more, but are holding back?

This has been addressed by others, but I will ask: what do you think it should be? Christianity? Ancient Babylonianism?

Seems to me agnosticism is the default position.

If you don't know saying you don't know seems to make more sense than either defaulting to yes or no.

 

[Davian]

Seems to me agnosticism is the default position.

If you don't know saying you don't know seems to make more sense than either defaulting to yes or no.

Agnosticism would be a postion on what can be known, and atheism is a postion on what you (don't) believe.

As for the default position on what can be known, I would put a vote in for ignosticism; prior to taking a postion on what can be known about a subject, let's clarify or define what we are talking about.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Seems to me agnosticism is the default position.

If you don't know saying you don't know seems to make more sense than either defaulting to yes or no.

Agnoticism does not address the question at hand.

The question is if you believe a God exists, not if you know a God exists.

If you hold a positive belief that a God exists, then you are a Theist. If you do not hold a positive belief that God exists, then you are an Atheist.

It's a binary proposition, you either have a belief, or you are without belief.

Agnosticism (or gnosticism) deals with what you know. If you claim to know a God does or does not exist, you are Gnostic. If you claim to not know for sure whether a God exists, then you are agnostic.

Therefore you can be a:

Gnostic Theist: You believe in God's existence, and claim to know for sure he exists
Agnostic Theist: You believe in God's existence, but do not claim to know for sure
Agnostic Atheist: You do not believe a God exists, but you don't claim to know for certain
Gnostic Atheist: You do not believe a God exists, and you claim to know that no Gods exist.

Most Atheists fall under the Agnostic category, as you can not disprove the existence of a God.

However, that is why Atheism is the default position. It is irrational to hold a belief in something when you do not have evidence to support that belief.

 

[32k]

This has been addressed by others, but I will ask: what do you think it should be? Christianity? Ancient Babylonianism?

I've already stated that unawareness is what it is.

 

[Davian]

I've already stated that unawareness is what it is.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I've already stated that unawareness is what it is.

We agree, which is why we are Atheists.

 

[32k]

We agree, which is why we are Atheists.

You claim unawareness even after being introduced to a concept?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You claim unawareness even after being introduced to a concept?

No, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that the proposed God exists.

Therefore I am unaware of the existence of any Gods. As such, I have no rational justification for believing such a being exists.

Being aware of the concept is irrelevant.... however technically someone who is unaware of a God concept also is an Atheist, as they also do not hold a belief that God exists.

I don't see how being aware of the concept by itself would give you justification for believing that concept. You must have some kind of evidence to go on in order to accept it as true.

For example, let me introduce you to the concept that my middle name is Robert. Do you believe that my middle name is Robert just because you are aware that it could be? Or do you withhold belief until you see some form of identification (evidence) that demonstrates what my actual middle name is?

 

[32k]

No, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that the proposed God exists.

Therefore I am unaware of the existence of any Gods. As such, I have no rational justification for believing such a being exists.

So in other words your justification is lack of evidence form the opposing parties?

 

[32k]

For example, let me introduce you to the concept that my middle name is Robert. Do you believe that my middle name is Robert just because you are aware that it could be? Or do you withhold belief until you see some form of identification (evidence) that demonstrates what my actual middle name is?

The latter, withholding belief. But in withholding belief I invariably make a judgment not to believe.

EDIT: I would also add that my state of being in unbelief would be evidenced by my actions/choice not to believe until proper 'evidence' were given.

 

[Davian]

The latter, withholding belief. But in withholding belief I invariably make a judgment not to believe.

EDIT: I would also add that my state of being in unbelief would be evidenced by my actions/choice not to believe until proper 'evidence' were given.

Is (religious) belief a choice? Yes or no?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So in other words your justification is lack of evidence form the opposing parties?

Well yes, if someone makes a claim but is not able to provide sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim.... Then why would I believe it?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The latter, withholding belief. But in withholding belief I invariably make a judgment not to believe.

EDIT: I would also add that my state of being in unbelief would be evidenced by my actions/choice not to believe until proper 'evidence' were given.

That is correct, however just because you withhold belief, that does not mean you are of the opinion that my middle name is not Robert. You simply have no belief that my middle name is Robert until shown evidence.

That is the exact position taken by atheists in regard to god claims. We do not have to assert god does not exist, we simply lack belief in the claim until shown evidence that supports it. That is why it's the proper default position.

 

[Tiberius]

We do not have to assert god does not exist, we simply lack belief in the claim until shown evidence that supports it.

+1. This describes me perfectly.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well yes, if someone makes a claim but is not able to provide sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim.... Then why would I believe it?

If the claim comes in the form of an explanation from a live pool of options to explain a set of data, then the claim that best explains the set of data is itself the sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim. At the very least, it must be seen as being tenable.

What I find troublesome with your claim is that you say you have not been presented with sufficient evidence to justify believing in God. Now this needs to be expounded upon. Do you mean there is not enough evidence to believe that God exists? If so, what do you mean by "God", and what would qualify as sufficient evidence to you?

It is also important to note that believing in God's existence, and believing in God are two different things. The first is more intellectual, the second is more volitional.

 

[Elioenai26]

+1. This describes me perfectly.

I will ask you as well. What do you mean when you say "God"? Also, what would qualify as sufficient evidence for you to believe in God's existence?

 

[Davian]

I will ask you as well. What do you mean when you say "God"? Also, what would qualify as sufficient evidence for you to believe in God's existence?

Have you not previously, and repeatedly, said, "it does not work this way"? Special pleading, and all that?

 

[Elioenai26]

Have you not previously, and repeatedly, said, "it does not work this way"? Special pleading, and all that?

I was not talking to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If the claim comes in the form of an explanation from a live pool of options to explain a set of data, then the claim that best explains the set of data is itself the sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim. At the very least, it must be seen as being tenable.

That's not correct. In regards to God, most theists claim to know that their God exists. Therefore, they should be able to clearly demonstrate how they came to this knowledge.

Since God has no compelling evidence to justify belief, I don't even see why that explanation is considered tenable. That's not to say it's impossible, but without any supporting evidence, we can't consider it to be a serious option. And besides, God doesn't have any explanatory power.

What I find troublesome with your claim is that you say you have not been presented with sufficient evidence to justify believing in God. Now this needs to be expounded upon. Do you mean there is not enough evidence to believe that God exists? If so, what do you mean by "God", and what would qualify as sufficient evidence to you?

I leave the definition of God up to the Theist who is presenting the case. To date, I have not seen any God claim stand up to criticism.

As for sufficient evidence, whatever could be used to demonstrate the validity of their claims would suffice. What that would be, I don't know. If I knew of such evidence, then I would be a theist. However, since the person making the claim should have evidence to support the claim, I am assuming they possess the evidence in question. It's not my fault if they don't.

It is also important to note that believing in God's existence, and believing in God are two different things. The first is more intellectual, the second is more volitional.

What's the point of believing in God if you don't believe God exists? What exactly would you be believing in?