atheism as lack of belief.

[Percivale]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

 

[Percivale]

I should clarify that atheism and theism are both umbrella beliefs, not specific ones. One can be a theist and believe in any religion or none, and an atheist can have a wide variety of philosophies of life, as well as liking any religion's activities or being anti -religion.

 

[Belk]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

I have to question your percentages idea. Do you think atheists sit around all day doing probability calculations? I am an atheist because I have yet to find any evidence that I find convincing for Gods and so I do not believe as you do. Theism is the belief in gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That is what the words mean.

 

[Davian]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist.

How so? Are you expecting this "atheist" of yours to provide a robust definition of what they mean by "God" and to provide the detailed calculations and data by which they reached their probability conclusion?

Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Have you not been informed that these terms are not mutually exclusive?

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

If you define "theism" as "believes in things imaginary", then yes.

You are a theist, are you not?

 

[Davian]

I should clarify that atheism and theism are both umbrella beliefs, not specific ones. One can be a theist and believe in any religion or none, and an atheist can have a wide variety of philosophies of life, as well as liking any religion's activities or being anti -religion.

Try this: not collecting stamps is a belief. People that do not collect stamps can have a wide variety of philosophies of life, as well as liking any religion's activities or being anti-religion.

No, it does not look like your statement works.

 

[Paradoxum]

Atheism isn't a belief itself. It isn't the claim that there is no God.

A-theism= not-theist.

'Agnostic/ gnostic' is about knowledge claims, not belief.

If you think the Greek gods were aliens, I wouldn't say that would make you theist.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

All you have to do to pin an atheist down on what it is they believe is ask them what their worldview (an ordered set of propositions that one believes, especially propositions about life’s most important questions) is.

Some of the questions a worldview addresses are:

Origin - where did we come from?
Meaning - why are we here?
Morality - why do we do what we do?
Destiny - where are we going?

Just ask them. Never assume that the person you are talking to is this or that. Always ask them and then ask them to give evidence for their views. They will not hesitate doing the same to you, which is good.

What they tell you can give you an idea of where they stand if they try to avoid stating their position and shouldering their burden of proof.


And you will be surprised when, after having asked these questions, you find that not a few will say things like, "well, I don't know, but one day science will tell us..."

If they tell you this, and then in the next breath want to denigrate you for being a man of faith, point out the fact that they too are exercising faith in making the aforementioned claim.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist.

I would say only that it can't be determined from that statement whether that person is an atheist or not. I would ask that individual if she believes in the existence of a deity regardless of any probabilities. If the answer is "no", then she is an atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

And you will be surprised when, after having asked these questions, you find that not a few will say things like, "well, I don't know, but one day science will tell us..."

If they tell you this, and then in the next breath want to denigrate you for being a man of faith, point out the fact that they too are exercising faith in making the aforementioned claim.

It doesn't take any faith to believe that science may answer certain questions that one would fully expect science to be able to answer. One can know this by understanding what science is, and what its track record is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you will be surprised when, after having asked these questions, you find that not a few will say things like, "well, I don't know, but one day science will tell us..."

Let's not equivocate on 'faith' here. I hope that one day science will produce a satisfactory answer to questions that currently seem intractable. This is not a baseless hope either, given science's remarkable track record. No exercise of faith, in the religious sense, is necessary.

If they tell you this, and then in the next breath want to denigrate you for being a man of faith, point out the fact that they too are exercising faith in making the aforementioned claim.

Who is denigrating you for being a man of faith? If you acknowledge that your belief is taken on faith, then take ownership of it, and stop pretending that it is something other than faith; stop pretending that others are somehow intellectually obligated to believe as well.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It doesn't take any faith to believe that science may answer certain questions that one would fully expect science to be able to answer.

I agree with you. It doesn't take faith to say that science might tell us such and such in the future. Stating what is logically possible doesn't require faith.

The one who says that science will one day tell us everything about the universe is not only stating a mere logical possibility, but they go one step further and make a claim to knowledge. The claim is supported by the appeal to its track record and the presupposition is that science will continue being an effective means of acquiring knowledge the way it has been in the past. But this is taken on faith. One must believe quite a few things that simply cannot be proven in order to hold this view. One thing that such a person believes is that the world will continue to be rationally intelligible as it has in the past. This is a philosophical assumption that science depends upon and is not subject to being verified scientifically for to do so would be to argue in a circle. One would be using science to prove science.

So the one who makes the claim to know that science will one day answer all of our questions cannot at the same time denigrate a man of faith, for he is a man of faith in the sense that he believes in something, trusts in something that he cannot prove empirically.

Just like the man of science has reasons for placing his faith in science, so to do I have reasons for placing faith in God. God, just like the scientific method, has a proven track record of being reliable. Therefore when I use faith in the way I have, I use it to signify a belief based on evidence and reason that cannot be empirically verified.

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree with you. It doesn't take faith to say that science might tell us such and such in the future. Stating what is logically possible doesn't require faith.

The one who says that science will one day tell us everything about the universe is not only stating a mere logical possibility, but they go one step further and make a claim to knowledge.

Who makes such a claim? I think it would be foolish for someone to claim that one day science will tell us everything there is to know about the Universe when science doesn't make such a claim.

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree with you. It doesn't take faith to say that science might tell us such and such in the future. Stating what is logically possible doesn't require faith.

The one who says that science will one day tell us everything about the universe is not only stating a mere logical possibility, but they go one step further and make a claim to knowledge. The claim is supported by the appeal to its track record and the presupposition is that science will continue being an effective means of acquiring knowledge the way it has been in the past. But this is taken on faith.

Who makes such a claim?

One must believe quite a few things that simply cannot be proven in order to hold this view. One thing that such a person believes is that the world will continue to be rationally intelligible as it has in the past. This is a philosophical assumption that science depends upon and is not subject to being verified scientifically for to do so would be to argue in a circle. One would be using science to prove science.

So the one who makes the claim to know that science will one day answer all of our questions cannot at the same time denigrate a man of faith, for he is a man of faith in the sense that he believes in something, trusts in something that he cannot prove empirically.

Again, who makes such a claim? I accept that science may not satisfy all of our questions, and that perhaps there are some questions that will remain intractable.

Just like the man of science has reasons for placing his faith in science, so to do I have reasons for placing faith in God. God, just like the scientific method, has a proven track record of being reliable. Therefore when I use faith in the way I have, I use it to signify a belief based on evidence and reason that cannot be empirically verified.

You're equivocating on the word 'faith'. A man of science, to continue using your terms, has 'faith' in science, in the sense that he is reasonably confident that it works, given its track record. Faith, in the religious sense however, demands continued belief regardless of the track record or there lack of.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I hope that one day science will produce a satisfactory answer to questions that currently seem intractable.

So do I. The question of cancer for example. I hope that one day scientists will discover a cure for it.

This is not a baseless hope either, given science's remarkable track record. No exercise of faith, in the religious sense, is necessary.

I think scientists could indeed one day come up with a cure for cancer and I base this on the fact that many diseases we once had no cure for, are treatable as a result of progresses made in certain areas of science.

My appeal to the achievements of science in the past as a basis for my hope for the future assumes some things though, and these assumptions must simply be believed without being proven.

This is all I am arguing.

When I say I have faith in God, I am not saying I have a blind, unreasonable, irrational faith. Nor am I a strict fideist.

When I say I have faith in God, I use the word faith in the sense of trust. God is trustworthy based on the fact that He has never failed me, lied to me, hurt me, lead me astray, etc. etc.

When I say I have faith in science or that a scientist has faith, I use it in the sense of trust. We have good reasons to trust that science can give us knowledge of our world because it has a track record of doing so.

So I am not equivocating here.

Who is denigrating you for being a man of faith?

My statement to Percivale took the form of a conditional as is indicated by the use of the word "if". I accused no one here of denigrating me for being a man of faith.

If you acknowledge that your belief is taken on faith, then take ownership of it, and stop pretending that it is something other than faith; stop pretending that others are somehow intellectually obligated to believe as well.

I am not obligated to use the word "faith" in the sense of blind, unreasonable, unsubstantiated, irrational belief.

I will not allow someone to misrepresent my position without informing them that it is indeed a misrepresentation. I am sure you feel the same way.

I am not a Christian that will tell you to take my claims on blind faith. I will not tell you to just accept what I say as truth without giving you some reasons and evidence for my claims.

Some may. I do not because we are encouraged by the apostles to be ready to give an answer. I seek to order my life according to God's standard and God is the One who first said: "Come let us reason together....". Look at Paul's life. Look at Peter's life. Paul demonstrated to people that Jesus was the Messiah. He didn't expect for people to just take his word for it, trust me. You have to remember who his audience was! I believe God made our minds to be used to glorify Him. He gave us the ability to reason, to think, to rationalize and to do all sorts of cool things.

 

[True Scotsman]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

The A in atheist means not. The word means not a theist. This says nothing about whether the person just doesn't buy any of the claims of gods or that a god is impossible. I fall into the latter category. Yes this would give me the burden of proof since I am making the claim that no god exists. I accept that burden. All I need do is present a valid and sound argument to meet that burden. If someone is not convinced or refuses to acknowledge that argument then that is not my problem. I've met my burden of proof.

Most atheists say that they're not sure if there is a god or not but they don't hold a belief. they take a middle of the road approach in my opinion. That's fine, I would never try to tell someone that they must absolutely claim that there is no god in order to call themselves atheist. The fact that they don't believe makes them atheist, not agnostic. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism to belief.

As an Objectivist, I know that there is no reason to take this middle of the road attitude. I know that the concept of gods is a contradiction of every valid principle of a rational metaphysics so I need not speculate that God might be hiding in some corner of the Universe or in another dimension. I know that gods exist in the Human imagination only and not in reality.

As to your last question, I guess it would depend on the definition of "God".

 

[Smidlee]

Atheism is not the lack of belief but the belief in anything and everything but God.

 

[bhsmte]

And you will be surprised when, after having asked these questions, you find that not a few will say things like, "well, I don't know, but one day science will tell us..."

If they tell you this, and then in the next breath want to denigrate you for being a man of faith, point out the fact that they too are exercising faith in making the aforementioned claim.

You just summed up one of the major differences between atheists and many people of faith.

Atheists, typically don't have an issue admitting; "they don't know" and they will hope to learn the answers when the evidence is available. Many theists, really can't bring themselves to say; "I don't know", because this creates a psychological issue of their faith not providing an answer, so they must create one.

Lastly, I never denigrate anyone for having a faith belief or even question their faith, UNLESS:

-they claim to be morally superior because of their faith
-they claim to have objective evidence to prove their faith
-they claim I am being led by evil, I know God exists but reject him or have not tried hard enough to find God
-they misrepresent well evidenced science, or simply deny well evidenced realities about the universe.

If any of the above happens, it is open season on challenging the other person. If the person of faith can stay away from the above, I would never question their faith or tell them they are wrong to believe what they do.

The problem is, very few on this site, can stay away from violating one of my points above.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheism is not the lack of belief but the belief in anything and everything but God.

Good one.

Atheists then believe in everything except a God?

That clears everything up I guess.

 

[True Scotsman]

Atheism is not the lack of belief but the belief in anything and everything but God.

This is patently absurd. The lack of belief in god entails no other beliefs. I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, pots of gold at the end of the rainbow or teacups orbiting Jupiter. Clearly atheists don't believe in "anything and everything" except for gods. How could you possibly defend such a statement.

 

[bhsmte]

Just like the man of science has reasons for placing his faith in science, so to do I have reasons for placing faith in God. God, just like the scientific method, has a proven track record of being reliable. Therefore when I use faith in the way I have, I use it to signify a belief based on evidence and reason that cannot be empirically verified

This is where I believe people misuse the term; "faith".

I don't believe one needs to have faith in; science or anything else with a proven track record, which includes objective evidence to support the track record.

Science can get things wrong, but when they do, it has a shelf life, because it is only a matter of time, before it is corrected.

So, I have "confidence" and "trust" in science, because of the proven track record and no "faith" is required.