Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[anonymous person]

Wouldn’t you say that this “properly basic belief” idea can be used to justify belief in anything?

Yes

And at that point, wouldn’t that mean the elimination of any chance of rational discussion between people that hold opposing properly basic beliefs?

No, for in such an instance, they both would attempt to show that the other person's view is defeasible, and then present a defeater for their opponents properly basic belief.

Remember, the concept of proper basicality speaks to where a particular belief fits into a person's structure of beliefs, not to whether the belief is defeasible, or even whether it's true or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Still in denial. Your ‘not collecting stamps’ is a bit of a last ditcher; you can deny that your lack of omniscience doesn’t imply the necessity of faith, but it simply does. Your ‘acceptance’ that whether or not God can be known is unknowable is an expression of your faith that God is unnecessary for you to exist

For crying out loud....

It does not take faith to not believe unverifiable claims.
It takes faith to do the opposite.


You wouldn't say that you are using "faith" when disbelieving the claims of scientology, bigfoot, alien abductions, fairies, santa, etc, right?

None of these claims can be proven false. None of their negations (ie: alien abductions do not happen, bigfoot is not real,...) can be demonstrated or even supported either.

The subject matter is the positive claim: a god DOES exist.
And there is no rational justification for accepting that claim.

Therefor, the rational position is to not accept that claim as true / accurate.
One does not require any faith to do that.
One requires faith to do the opposite.

This is why theists need to appeal to faith while atheist's don't, when it comes to god-claims.

 

[Tom 1]

For crying out loud....

It does not take faith to not believe unverifiable claims.
It takes faith to do the opposite.


You wouldn't say that you are using "faith" when disbelieving the claims of scientology, bigfoot, alien abductions, fairies, santa, etc, right?

None of these claims can be proven false. None of their negations (ie: alien abductions do not happen, bigfoot is not real,...) can be demonstrated or even supported either.

The subject matter is the positive claim: a god DOES exist.
And there is no rational justification for accepting that claim.

Therefor, the rational position is to not accept that claim as true / accurate.
One does not require any faith to do that.
One requires faith to do the opposite.

This is why theists need to appeal to faith while atheist's don't, when it comes to god-claims.

Haha to state the obvious, it's obvious that we think about what 'faith' means very differently. Personally, I am simply curious about this. Take me, for example, over time I have developed an understanding of my faith that makes it both true & reasonable in my mind. This has involved a process of study, experience,talking to other people and so on, some of it is tangible, some of it isn't. Why I started with the belief that there was a God to look for I simply can't explain. I mean to me, it is just self-evident. So, yes, that is a positive claim that I would make, that God does exist.
What I see as the positive faith claim of an atheist (if that isn't the right term to fit how you see this please correct) is that it is simply unnecessary for there to be a God. I really can't see how this can be seen as anything but a positive claim; a person who thinks either there is no God, or there can't be a God, or it can't be known that there is a God, is walking around all day, thinking, working, writing on forums etc with the positive belief that it is not necessary for God to exist for any of that to happen. Whether that person actually thinks about this or not makes no difference to this being an underlying assumption.

By rational, I am assuming you mean things that can be proved or disproved using scientific methods, things that rely on you using observation and testing in some form? Or things that can be fit into a logical argument that you find convincing, or some combination of the 2?

Full disclosure - as above this is just a matter of curiosity to me, i.e. why a person would believe the above and on what they are relying to support the belief that God is not necessary, so please do feel free to completely ignore any of this if you don't have the same curiosity. There are some assumptions I make. One assumption is that a person who thinks in that way believes the evidence of their senses. If you want to, I'd be interested in your response to this 2 part thought experiment (I can't remember whose original idea it was):

1) Provide conclusive proof to counter the proposition that you are not, in fact DogmaHunter (insert real name), but are, in fact, a disembodied brain suspended in a vat, and all sensory input of any kind is being supplied to you by an elaborate virtual reality program, capable of reproducing all sensation as if biologically real, a la matrix. This program has been consistent to date but the operators of the program reserve the right to change the fundamental rules of how it operates at any point.

2) Explain what you think about this idea, identifying all of your reactions to it e.g. rational, emotional, assumption based and so on.

 

[Hawkins]

For crying out loud....

It does not take faith to not believe unverifiable claims.
It takes faith to do the opposite.


You wouldn't say that you are using "faith" when disbelieving the claims of scientology, bigfoot, alien abductions, fairies, santa, etc, right?

None of these claims can be proven false. None of their negations (ie: alien abductions do not happen, bigfoot is not real,...) can be demonstrated or even supported either.

The subject matter is the positive claim: a god DOES exist.
And there is no rational justification for accepting that claim.

Therefor, the rational position is to not accept that claim as true / accurate.
One does not require any faith to do that.
One requires faith to do the opposite.

This is why theists need to appeal to faith while atheist's don't, when it comes to god-claims.

Justification is the credibility of those who said so for other to believe with faith.

You don't need evidence to believe that black holes exist. It's so because our scientists are a group of credible humans such that everyone can get to such a truth without evidence but faith!

This is how this reality works.

Bigfoot has no credible human witnessing. That's the difference, from the black holes. Ah, don't tell me that you have acquired the evidence of black holes unless you are one of the cosmo scientists

 

[Chriliman]

For crying out loud....

It does not take faith to not believe unverifiable claims.

I'd agree if the claims were actually unverifiable for all time, but that's the thing, we don't know if the claims are unverifiable for all time because we're not omniscient. Therefore, considering them unverifiable for all time does take faith. On the flip side, considering them possibly verifiable at some point in time also takes faith.

If you say "I don't know and don't care to know" then you can claim faithlessness as it pertains to any given subject, whether it be the existence of God or Big foot.

You wouldn't say that you are using "faith" when disbelieving the claims of scientology, bigfoot, alien abductions, fairies, santa, etc, right?

Again, since these things can't be proven false, it does take an element of faith to believe they're actually false given the lack of omniscience and the limited evidence available.

 

[HitchSlap]

...properly basic, that is, assumed and taken for granted to be true.

That's the problem with metaphysical beliefs, without checking them against reality, they can seem "properly basic."

 

[Hawkins]

That's the problem with metaphysical beliefs, without checking them against reality, they can seem "properly basic."

Your problem is however you think that humans understanding everything in this reality while they don't!

On the other hand, religions are almost about advocates about the next reality! Do you have a better to reconcile with the next reality? You don't!!!

 

[HitchSlap]

Your problem is however you think that humans understanding everything in this reality while they don't!

No so fast there, straw-man Sam, I never claimed that humans understand everything. Don't be ridiculous.

On the other hand, religions are almost about advocates about the next reality!

Weren't you just accusing me of claiming to know everything? LOL

Do you have a better to reconcile with the next reality? You don't!!!

You just admitted humans don't know everything. This is how religions scam people, as they prey on the fact we don't know everything, yet claim they do.

 

[Hawkins]

No so fast there, straw-man Sam, I never claimed that humans understand everything. Don't be ridiculous.


Weren't you just accusing me of claiming to know everything? LOL

You just admitted humans don't know everything. This is how religions scam people, as they prey on the fact we don't know everything, yet claim they do.

That remains your own false speculation. Religion is all about belief, not "know"! Like I clearly said that it's an advocate. It's you who are ridiculous in skipping the word.

You only show your hatred between the lines with a false accusation.

 

[HitchSlap]

That remains your own false speculation. Religion is all about belief, not "know"! Like I clearly said that it's an advocate. It's you who are ridiculous in skipping the word.

You only show your hatred between the lines with a false accusation.

I try to proportion my beliefs to the evidence as best I understand it.

 

[Hawkins]

I try to proportion my beliefs to the evidence as best I understand it.

That's because you are brainwashed to think that everything in the past can be evidenced. While that's not the case of this reality, which apparently you failed to have a good grasp.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's because you are brainwashed

Well, I used to be, but I'm no longer a Christian.

to think that everything in the past can be evidenced.

Of course everything in the past cannot be evidenced, including walking on water and resurrections. I'm glad we both agree here, straw-man Sam.

While that's not the case of this reality, which apparently you failed to have a good grasp.

Says the guy who believes in talking snakes and donkeys.

 

[Hawkins]

Says the guy who believes in talking snakes and donkeys.

Mostly it's because it's out of your human knowledge. You can't tell that a donkey can't talk. It can if there's a spirit inside!

Your line of reasoning here is that, "because it is beyond human comprehension such that it cannot be true". This is a fallacious line of reasoning!

This situation is more likely that there's a spirit inside the donkey. Such that it can see the angels in the spiritual realm but Balaam didn't see them. Whatever the spirit speaks in the spiritual realm will be heard as the native language of Balaam. That's how the spiritual realm works (as a speculation from my own experience).

 

[HitchSlap]

Mostly it's because it's out of your human knowledge. You can't tell that a donkey can't talk. It can if there's a spirit inside!

Your line of reasoning here is that, "because it is beyond human comprehension such that it cannot be true". This is a fallacious line of reasoning!

This situation is more likely that there's a spirit inside the donkey. Such that it can see the angels in the spiritual realm but Balaam didn't see them. Whatever the spirit speaks in the spiritual realm will be heard as the native language of Balaam. That's how the spiritual realm works (as a speculation from my own experience).

I get the feeling I'm being Poe'd. Well done.

Take care.

 

[anonymous person]

That's the problem with metaphysical beliefs, without checking them against reality, they can seem "properly basic."

I made a mistake in that portion you quoted. Proper basicality is not a concept that deals with the truthfulness of a belief, but rather, with where a particular belief fits into a person's noetic structure.

 

[HitchSlap]

I made a mistake in that portion you quoted. Proper basicality is not a concept that deals with the truthfulness of a belief, but rather, with where a particular belief fits into a person's noetic structure.

"Proper basicality" has no utility in philosophy - it's nonsensical term. Surrounding yourself with like minded people does not the truth make. As I said earlier, you have to have a way to check your "properly basic" beliefs with reality.

 

[anonymous person]

"Proper basicality" has no utility in philosophy - it's nonsensical term. Surrounding yourself with like minded people does not the truth make. As I said earlier, you have to have a way to check your "properly basic" beliefs with reality.

I am not aware of anyone in any philosophy department anywhere in the world having defended the notion that concepts such as proper basicality are useless and nonsensical. As I stated earlier, many beliefs of ours, you included, are properly basic.

It is trivial to point out that we should want to have evidence for the veracity of these beliefs, for I would imagine we all would want to have true beliefs which are evidenced.

What you did was you mistook my post as me making an attempt to demonstrate to people that my belief in God corresponds with reality, but that is not at all what I was doing.

I simply gave one reason why I believed in God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Justification is the credibility of those who said so for other to believe with faith.

I literally do not understand that sentence.

You don't need evidence to believe that black holes exist.

Actually, I do. And we have such evidence. And lot's of it.

It's so because our scientists are a group of credible humans such that everyone can get to such a truth without evidence but faith!

False. Not a single scientist is ever simply "trusted" on his word, NO MATTER his credentials. Which is why peer review is such an important part of the scientific method. Because what scientists say / claim / believe is never simply accepted at face value.

Scientists are expected, nay - required, to support and demonstrate their claims and ideas with actual data, experiments, results.

This is how this reality works.

It might be how your reality works, where you (apparantly) just swallow up whatever figures of perceived authority tell you.

Bigfoot has no credible human witnessing.

And why aren't they credible, in your opinion?
And what about alien abductees? Do you realise that these people actually pass lie detector tests? They really really really believe that they have been abducted, no doubt about it.

So, do you accept the claims of alien abductees?
Why not?

That's the difference, from the black holes

Nope. The difference is, that the claims about black holes are actually supported with objective independend evidence. Which means that one doesn't have to "just believe" whatever scientists say.

Black holes are actually a fine example of how evidence works.
The existance of black holes was predicted by Einstein's relativity. Einstein hated the idea. He actually wrote papers attempting to disprove their existance. He didn't like the idea one bit. Everyone was sceptical. Until the evidence piled on and on and on, until it could no longer be doubted and denied.

Next came Hawkings, who calculated that black holes aren't completely "black" and that they emit radiation. In 1974, he presented his findings at the end of a conference near Oxford. The chairman replied to Hawking "sorry man, but this is complete rubbish".
He was met with total disbelief.

Again, until the evidence piled on and on and on. And today, it is universally accepted that black holes emit radiation.

That's how it works in science. Your claims aren't accepted by default just because your name is Einstein or Hawking or because you have 1 or a bunch of phd's. None of it matters in getting an idea accepted as accurate. What matters is the idea itself and the evidence in support of it.

Ah, don't tell me that you have acquired the evidence of black holes unless you are one of the cosmo scientists

I don't need to be one of them, to understand how the scientific process works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd agree if the claims were actually unverifiable for all time, but that's the thing, we don't know if the claims are unverifiable for all time because we're not omniscient.

The question is if they are verifiable today.
To say that they were verifiable before, is just another claim.

Therefore, considering them unverifiable for all time does take faith.

I'm not making any such claims.
I'm just looking at the claims presented and asking the question how they can be verified.
If they answer is "they can't", then why would I acceppt them as accurate?

On the flip side, considering them possibly verifiable at some point in time also takes faith.

That would depend on the nature of the claim again....
Consider the frontier of physics.

Suppose there is some hypothesis that makes testable predictions, but to do those test one would require a particle accelerator with a certain amount of power and let's suppose that such a powerfull accelerator does not currently exist.

All it would take then, is to create a bigger and more powerfull accelerator. One of which the power meets the requirements for doing those tests.

In that case, it does not take "faith" to assume it will be testable in the future.
We KNOW it will be testable, when we create a more powerfull accelerator.

If you say "I don't know and don't care to know" then you can claim faithlessness as it pertains to any given subject, whether it be the existence of God or Big foot.

False. That's just indifference.
We aren't talking about being indifferent to a claim.
We are talking about how to justify belief in claims. And about when people appeal to "faith" to accept a claim.

Not accepting a claim, does not require faith. Ever.

Again, since these things can't be proven false

Just like the supernatural...

, it does take an element of faith to believe they're actually false

Not accepting them as true IS NOT THE SAME as accepting them as false or accepting the opposite claims as true.

- alien abductions happen
- alien abductions DO NOT happen

==> those are two different claims. And one is under no obligation to accept one of them as accurate. It's perfectly fine to reject both claims on the basis of not having sufficient evidence to do otherwise.

I'm sure you heared about the gumball analogy?
There's a jar with an unknown number of gumballs in it.

Someone comes up and claims "there is an even number of gumballs in the jar".
You don't accept that claim by reasoning "the number of gumballs is unknown, therefore you can not know or support the idea that there is an even number..."

And that does not mean that you believe or accept that there is an uneven number of balls in the jar!!!

given the lack of omniscience and the limited evidence available.

Only existence can be demonstrated.
The only evidence that can "exist" for the non-existance of something, is an absence of evidence for its existance.

But that doesn't demonstrate non-existance AT ALL.
Because it could simply be the case that you haven't found that evidence in support of existance yet. How could you know that? You couldn't....

Therefor, claims of certain things existing, have a burden of proof.
And claims of certain things NOT existing, are meaningless and infinite in number.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your problem is however you think that humans understanding everything in this reality while they don't!

On the other hand, religions are almost about advocates about the next reality! Do you have a better to reconcile with the next reality? You don't!!!

what "next reality"?
What are you talking about?