To atheists...

[Jet Black]

Try this: you hold no ontological beliefs.

Nor should you. Ontology is stunningly pointless.

oh I dunno. I think basic axioms like "I am" can't go to far amiss. or is that not quite ontology? It is a word that I am not incredibly familiar with in terms of use.

 

[MartinM]

oh I dunno. I think basic axioms like "I am" can't go to far amiss. or is that not quite ontology?

No, that's epistemology. You're a physicist, right? Let's try it this way:

In quantum mechanics, we have a description of how some aspect of reality functions, according to observation. That's epistemology. We also have several interpretations which purport to explain the nature of the reality that underlies our descriptive framework. That's ontology. While these ontological models may be useful to get an intuitive grasp on how the description operates, they don't tell us anything about reality. They only become useful, from an objective point of view, when they start making testable predictions. But then it ceases to be an ontological issue, and becomes an epistemic one.

Ontology is essentially the study of those aspects of reality which are independent of how we study them. Epistemology is the opposite. Unfortunately, like everything else in philosophy, these words have numerous different definitions.

 

[Gramps]

Hey,
I am just curious as to what the beliefs of any atheists out there are in regard to creation; how humans and their surroundings came to be created. I am going to try not to respond to any suggestions; I am just curious as to what the different theories are between atheists. Personally I believe in what the Bible says but I'd like to hear what others believe. It doesn't have to be long-winded - i just stated my belief in one sentence - but feel free to explain what and why in detail if you are so inclined.

~chip

Since Atheism is the lack of Theism, therfore an atheist can not have certain beliefes, as you put it.

 

[MartinM]

Banned after two posts? Impressive...

 

[Michali]

Banned after two posts? Impressive...

Thats what I'm sayin. What did he do I wonder? I just saw some guy called warhawk666 who was banned after one post. Pretty obvious why.

 

[lucaspa]

But just for you I'll rephrase it: I don't have any beliefs about subjective facts.

Try again. George W. Bush's leadership of the country is a subjective fact. I'm betting that you have a belief about his leadership.

Do you have a significant other? Friends? If so, then you have subjective facts about their relationship to you. You believe that such a relationship exists.

 

[lucaspa]

Since Atheism is the lack of Theism, therfore an atheist can not have certain beliefes, as you put it.

Nice attempt to change definitions. Atheism is the belief that deity(ies) does not exist.

You didn't read my response to Chip. Atheists do indeed have to have certain beliefs:

Edwards "Apart from before the big bang I assume natural laws are the cause of our present universe." is telling. Notice the hidden statement of faith in this sentence: that "natural laws" operate without deity.

That's the essential belief of atheism. And an essential difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. TEs believe that an intelligent entity is necessary for those "natural laws" to function.

So, both theistic (Christian) evolutionists and atheists accept the material processes discovered by science. The difference is that atheists believe those material processes -- natural laws -- operate on their own while Christians believe that God is necessary for them to work.

 

[Jet Black]

Ontology is essentially the study of those aspects of reality which are independent of how we study them. Epistemology is the opposite. Unfortunately, like everything else in philosophy, these words have numerous different definitions.

gotcha... I really should get one of these philosophy book things. it's an area I am sadly lacking in

 

[Nathan David]

Try again. George W. Bush's leadership of the country is a subjective fact. I'm betting that you have a belief about his leadership.

Do you have a significant other? Friends? If so, then you have subjective facts about their relationship to you. You believe that such a relationship exists.

My mistake; I meant to say I don't have beliefs about objective facts.

I have an opinion about GW Bush's leadership (hey, that's a great excuse to plug my 'blog!), but I wouldn't say I have a belief.

My "beliefs" that my relationships with friends, girlfriends, etc. exist are based on evidence. I would classify them more as understandings, and as understandings that could be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

oh I dunno. I think basic axioms like "I am" can't go to far amiss. or is that not quite ontology? It is a word that I am not incredibly familiar with in terms of use.

That's at the border.

"1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents"

So, saying "I exist" is partly ontological because it is stating one kind of 'existent" -- you.

It's also a starting point for epistemology because you can't know anything if you don't exist.

Ontology is generally thought of as describing what is ultimate reality. Not just the reality studied by science but all those things science can't touch: beauty, truth, honor, deities, etc.

Now, Nathan as an agnostic could well have no ontological beliefs. After all, that's what an agnostic is: someone suspending judgement until sufficient data is available.

My argument was the statement that he has no beliefs whatsoever. We all end up making judgements without sufficient data to do so or in the presence of only personal experience (not intersubjective). All those are "beliefs".

 

[Nathan David]

If you're going to define beliefs that way, then I guess I have beliefs. For example I "believe" that excessive focus on semantics is not useful, so I'll stop arguing with you!

 

[Jet Black]

My "beliefs" that my relationships with girlfriends.

you have more than one? tut tut, norty atheist!

 

[lucaspa]

My mistake; I meant to say I don't have beliefs about objective facts.

I have an opinion about GW Bush's leadership (hey, that's a great excuse to plug my 'blog!), but I wouldn't say I have a belief.

It's pretty much the same thing. An opinion is simply a lightly held belief. Or maybe yours isn't lightly held.

My "beliefs" that my relationships with friends, girlfriends, etc. exist are based on evidence. I would classify them more as understandings, and as understandings that could be wrong.

But the evidence is personal and not intersubjective. In fact, for girlfriends if the evidence were intersubjective then you would reject it!

"Understandings" based solely on personal experience are also beliefs. After all, theists who understand deity based on the evidence of their personal experience are said to "believe", aren't they?

Belief is not a nasty word. The problem comes when we mistake our beliefs for facts.

 

[Michali]

I believe that there is nothing wrong with going ahead and believing someting. And if it is thought to be proven false, simply make the choice whether to disbelieve it or not. -I actually just posted this for 50 blessings, my current signature could be freindly to God-haters. I gotta change it.

 

[Michali]

Hmmm. Maybe the site programmed it wrong. I must need 51 blessing.

 

[ashibaka]

[grumbles about needing Blessings to change your signature]

 

[Philosoft]

Nice attempt to change definitions. Atheism is the belief that deity(ies) does not exist.

How about you let the atheists describe themselves?

Edwards "Apart from before the big bang I assume natural laws are the cause of our present universe." is telling. Notice the hidden statement of faith in this sentence: that "natural laws" operate without deity.

Natural laws are objective, deity isn't. Why does it take faith to refrain from explaining observations with speculations? Do I have faith that my computer operates without deity?

That's the essential belief of atheism. And an essential difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. TEs believe that an intelligent entity is necessary for those "natural laws" to function.

How does atheism entail a belief about evolution?

So, both theistic (Christian) evolutionists and atheists accept the material processes discovered by science. The difference is that atheists believe those material processes -- natural laws -- operate on their own while Christians believe that God is necessary for them to work.

Atheists are under no obligation to explain natural laws. They can form beliefs if they wish, but it's certainly possible to accept the observations and consequences consistent with natural laws without attempting to explain why they work.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

I've got a thing for irish beer, personally - guiness is great stuff.

Oh, I mean - I never drink beer... :shifty eyes:

 

[Revenant]

What caused the big bang? I dont know, there are a few competeing hypothesis.

I didn't know there were any hypotheses regarding what caused the big bang. What are they?

 

[Jet Black]

I didn't know there were any hypotheses regarding what caused the big bang. What are they?

Lucaspa's thread on first causes

I like the look of ekpyrotic personally, since that sems to be where we are headed.