Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[Albion]

I begin to suspect definitions are not your forte since nothing in the definition of atheism requires on to take a position.

If you are an atheist, you have taken a position. And you must not have much of a counter argument if you think it's clever to resort to insults like the above jab.

 

[Belk]

If you are an atheist, you have taken a position. And you must not have much of a counter argument if you think it's clever to resort to insults like the above jab.

No. It is possible to be an atheists without taking a position. As was shown a child with no knowledge of a deity is an atheist. It is not a jab but an observation based on the fact that twice in this thread you appear to have been incorrect on a definition.

 

[Non sequitur]

If you are an atheist, you have taken a position. And you must not have much of a counter argument if you think it's clever to resort to insults like the above jab.

Most people use the term with some sort of positive claim or assertion; an affirmative viewpoint.

If you are saying any comment or thought is a "position taken" I'd ask, what does no position look like?

 

[Albion]

Most people use the term with some sort of positive claim or assertion; an affirmative viewpoint.

If you are saying any comment or thought is a "position taken" I'd ask, what does no position look like?

Look like?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Most people use the term with some sort of positive claim or assertion; an affirmative viewpoint.

If you are saying any comment or thought is a "position taken" I'd ask, what does no position look like?

"No position" might look a lot like "all positions", or at least certain ones. An atheist's position must come from scientific evidence. Any historical accounts of supernatural phenomena have to be explained by science. No evidence? No God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Were we discussing "conscious" choices? I thought it was free will/choice.

How is something unconscious, which we can't control, fall under free will? The whole point I am making is that how we perceive the world isn't something we voluntarily choose and can change just because we want it to change.

 

[Non sequitur]

Look like?

Yes. What does something that is no position look like?

Or are you arguing semantics and I need to use another word?

 

[Non sequitur]

"No position" might look a lot like "all positions", or at least certain ones. An atheist's position must come from scientific evidence. Any historical accounts of supernatural phenomena have to be explained by science. No evidence? No God.

That seems problematic if "no position" looks like "all positions", as I don't see how one can determine the difference.

An atheist "position" mustn't have to come from scientific evidence.

 

[Belk]

"No position" might look a lot like "all positions", or at least certain ones. An atheist's position must come from scientific evidence. Any historical accounts of supernatural phenomena have to be explained by science. No evidence? No God.

Why must it?

 

[Albion]

Yes. What does something that is no position look like?

I don't know. Undecided, perhaps? How does an idea "look?" I'm being told by talquin that to be undecided about god makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. I think that's a novel use of the terms, that's all.

An atheist is one who is without God.

I don't want to make this be about semantics, but if there is one, you don't get to be "without God" just because you've decided you don't want anything to do with him. You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist--but he's still running the world the atheist lives in.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist

No, it isn't.

Not believing in the existence of a God (or gods) is what makes someone an atheist. Rejecting, defying, and ignoring sound far too much like activities that at least require belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I don't know. Undecided, perhaps? How does an idea "look?" I'm being told by talquin that to be undecided about god makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. I think that's a novel use of the terms, that's all.

Current use, from my understanding.

I don't want to make this be about semantics, but if there is one, you don't get to be "without God" just because you've decided you don't want anything to do with him. You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist--but he's still running the world the atheist lives in.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[Albion]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

...which would seem to show that atheism describes a POV that's been chosen.

 

[Belk]

...which would seem to show that atheism describes a POV that's been chosen.

How does your lack of evidence show atheism as a chosen position?

 

[TillICollapse]

No, it isn't.

Not believing in the existence of a God (or gods) is what makes someone an atheist. Rejecting, defying, and ignoring sound far too much like activities that at least require belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

One of the issues I have with the single, individual atheist, is similar to an issue I have with the believer ... their definition of "god".

A believer can claim to believe in a "god", and an atheist can claim to lack belief in a "god", yet what do they mean when they say "god" ? For each person, it is seemingly unique to them, and presumes a standard and accepted definition of the word "god" which is in no way standard or accepted amongst society.

For example, I have friends who claim to be atheist, yet believe in ghosts that they have seen and experienced. I have had friends in the past who would say those ghosts were "gods". Those same atheist friends will then say that they still don't believe in "gods", even though something they witness and experience and DO believe in, is what someone else will call "gods". Thus showing that they already have a conceived expectation of what a "god" should be, even though they claim to lack belief in such a thing, and refuse to accept that term as an application to something else because of that expectation.

Which brings me to my point and question: Rejecting, defying, and ignoring do sound like activities that involve belief to me as well. Does having expectations of what a "god" should be, and rejecting others definition of "god" when they fail to meet those expectations involve belief as well ? I'll refer to my previous example to better illustrate the question:

John claims to be an atheist. He claims to lack belief in gods. He does however believe in ghosts, because he claims to have seen and experienced them, though he cannot explain what they are, he doesn't claim they are "gods". Luke believes in ghosts as well, but believes they are "gods". John rejects the idea they are gods, even though Luke calls them that. His reasoning is that they do not fit the definition of what he would consider a "god". Does that mean that John actually does believe in "gods" in some fashion, since he already has expectations of what they should be, and rejects others definitions because they fail to meet his expectations ? Because to me that sounds like active disbelief, not a lack of having belief in the first place. And if that's the case, how does one know when an atheist is being intellectually honest and actually lacks belief, verses actively disbelieving, rejecting, ignoring, etc ?

 

[Davian]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

...which would seem to show that atheism describes a POV that's been chosen.

I see your tacit agreement that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim, but atheism is not a POV.

You do raise the question: why should claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true be believed?

 

[Albion]

I see your tacit agreement that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim, but atheism is not a POV.

I will have to disagree with both of those propositions.

You do raise the question: why should claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true be believed?

I don't believe that I did raise that question. It's the "other side" that has insisted that having no opinion about God whatsoever is properly termed "atheism."

However, I see that you and Belk have both seized on this line from a few posts back:

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

I wasn't the one who wrote that. Perhaps I should have commented on it at greater length, but I thought the "you" in it referred to any person who fit the description you provided of someone who was "without God." It appeared that you were saying that HE couldn't demonstrate how he was without God (which of course would be impossible if there is a God).

 

[Davian]

I will have to disagree with both of those propositions.

And I disagree with my bank manager about the million dollars I would like to see in my account, but he does not seem to care.

I don't believe that I did raise that question.

You did, with your tacit admission in post #219 that you could not demonstrate "[God]'s still running the world the atheist lives in."

It's the "other side" that has insisted that having no opinion about God whatsoever is properly termed "atheism."

I would not phrase it like that, but if the theist is unable to coherently define what they mean by "God", I certainly would not put that burden on those that lack beliefs. How are they to know what a god is, coherently enough to say that they don't exist? Impossible. Atheism is a lack of belief.

However, I see that you and Belk have both seized on this line from a few posts back:

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

I wasn't the one who wrote that. Perhaps I should have commented on it at greater length, but I thought the "you" in it referred to any person who fit the description you provided of someone who was "without God." It appeared that you were saying that HE couldn't demonstrate how he was without God (which of course would be impossible if there is a God).

Here is that line in context:

Albion: "...he's still running the world the atheist lives in."

Davian: "Just not in any way that you can demonstrate."

 

[Albion]

And I disagree with my bank manager about the million dollars I would like to see in my account, but he does not seem to care.

Do you take it as a personal affront that anyone disagrees with your thinking on this matter? Does that hold with any and all other issues, too?

I've already explained my position and why it is what it is. And I'm holding to it, even if you continue to tell yourself that I actually agree (or 'tacitly admit' something ) with you.

 

[Non sequitur]

I don't know. Undecided, perhaps? How does an idea "look?" I'm being told by talquin that to be undecided about god makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. I think that's a novel use of the terms, that's all.

Being undecided would be more akin to agnostic; you don't know/can't know, so you are undecided.

An atheist wouldn't be undecided about gods, as they would be lacking belief in positive claims (there is no indecision).

I don't want to make this be about semantics, but if there is one, you don't get to be "without God" just because you've decided you don't want anything to do with him. You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist--but he's still running the world the atheist lives in.

If one isn't aware of a thing, and hasn't seen sufficient evidence for such a thing, you can't say they are rejecting, defying or ignoring that thing; it's very existence doesn't dictate that it's apparent and an active choice must be made about it.