Where is the hope in atheism?

[apogee]

I personally see the value in believing in things for reasons, rather than just granting their existence from the outset.

I disbelieve this.

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree with the 'rational' part, but yeah there sure is a lot of it. Still comparatively very little, though, in regard to the sheer amount of stuff written about gods.

How is that even relevant at all? As for not being rational, if you don't consider the writings of someone like Leibniz to be inherently rationally oriented, there is a serious flaw in your definition of rationalism.

Ah, nope. Not gonna spend however many untold hours it will take to go over every single theistic concept I have ever encountered and explain in turn why I find each one of them incoherent or otherwise unconvincing. If you have a specific ontological or epistemological case you'd care to focus on and defend in your own words, you can name it.

If you merely find theism to be "otherwise unconvincing," then you're talking about how compelling you yourself find theistic reasoning to be, and that's perfectly acceptable. An accusation of incoherence, on the other hand, is pretty serious. If you're not willing to explain why you find theism to be incoherent, perhaps you should not wander around making baseless assertions. I certainly don't have any obligation to write out a treatise defending theism for someone who can't even be bothered to specify what problems they have with it.

I never said anything about 'good' or 'bad' reasons. Just reasons. Reasons are why people believe things, not out of 'default'.

The default position isn't really disbelief, though. That makes no sense psychologically. People don't deny the existence of the external world until they can identify a reason to accept it. If you're going to be a solipsist, that's a position you end up at later.

It's not random. It's a point of illustration, that gods aren't special. They are just one thing in the enormous category of things not believed in by me.

It's completely random. At no point in this conversation has the topic of whether God is to be put in a special category come up at all, so leprechauns are totally out of left field here. You seem to just be running on autopilot with all the atheistic rhetoric at this point.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How is that even relevant at all?

Because of what I said from the outset - comparatively, very few theists have even tried.

As for not being rational, if you don't consider the writings of someone like Leibniz to be inherently rationally oriented, there is a serious flaw in your definition of rationalism.

'Rationally oriented' and 'rational' - that is, able to hold up against scrutiny - aren't the same thing. Young earth creationists can be rationally oriented. I'm not convinced of their arguments, either.

If you merely find theism to be "otherwise unconvincing," then you're talking about how compelling you yourself find theistic reasoning to be, and that's perfectly acceptable. An accusation of incoherence, on the other hand, is pretty serious. If you're not willing to explain why you find theism to be incoherent, perhaps you should not wander around making baseless assertions. I certainly don't have any obligation to write out a treatise defending theism for someone who can't even be bothered to specify what problems they have with it.

My problems with it are ontological and epistemological vacuousness, incoherence, and a complete lack of convincing evidence. In that order.

I'd be happy to explain any or all of those with regard to any of the immensely diverse concepts of 'theism' there are, if you want to name one specifically. But if you can't be bothered, neither can I.

The default position isn't really disbelief, though.

What word do you use for 'the mental state of being unconvinced of something'?

I use the word disbelief. I think it accurately represents the state we find ourselves in hundreds of times on a daily basis.

People don't deny the existence of the external world until they can identify a reason to accept it.

I agree. But neither do they believe it from the outset, whether they are babies or adults in existential crisis. That's why I say the default position is or ought to be disbelief, and not outright denial. 'I am unconvinced of X' is not the same as 'I am positively convinced X is wrong/nonexistent/etc'.

I will say that they can work in tandem, though, with regard to the same subject. As I type this, I do not know where my keys are. I have some ideas of where I usually leave them, but until I see them, I remain unconvinced that they are definitely in any one specific place. I do positively deny outright, though, that they are in Narnia.

It's completely random. At no point in this conversation has the topic of whether God is to be put in a special category come up at all

If you say that that atheism isn't a default position, while accepting that disbelief in leprechauns is a default position, then you are putting gods in a special category.

 

[apogee]

My problems with it are ontological and epistemological vacuousness, incoherence, and a complete lack of convincing evidence.

I (seriously) disbelieve this.

 

[Silmarien]

Because of what I said from the outset - comparatively, very few theists have even tried.

So what? Comparatively, very few people have ph.Ds in the natural sciences compared to the number of people who appreciate the sciences.

'Rationally oriented' and 'rational' - that is, able to hold up against scrutiny - aren't the same thing. Young earth creationists can be rationally oriented. I'm not convinced of their arguments, either.

Yes, fundamentalists are very rational. Frighteningly so, as it so happens. Needing to rationalize everything is not always a good thing.

"Rational" does not necessarily mean holding up against scrutiny. It refers to thinking or arguing in a logical, reasoned manner. The fact that you do not agree with something does not make it irrational.

My problems with it are ontological and epistemological vacuousness, incoherence, and a complete lack of convincing evidence. In that order.

I'd be happy to explain any or all of those with regard to any of the immensely diverse concepts of 'theism' there are, if you want to name one specifically. But if you can't be bothered, neither can I.

Eh, I'm pretty open about my classical theism. It's basically some combination of Plotinus, Aquinas, and Vedanta Hinduism. Of those, Aquinas is probably the most well known.

What word do you use for 'the mental state of being unconvinced of something'?

Not a default position.

I agree. But neither do they believe it from the outset. That's why I say the default position is or ought to be disbelief, and not outright denial. 'I am unconvinced of X' is not the same as 'I am positively convinced X is wrong/nonexistent/etc'.

This is insane. Psychologically insane, epistemologically insane, pure and simply insanity. If our default position on the reliability of sensory data was a suspension of judgment, there would be no way to ever escape from that, no trial and error by which we could determine the reliability of sensory experience independently of the senses.

Incidentally, we would also be extinct. Eaten by lions millions of years ago as we would have no instincts for survival. Our minds are not blank slates to be written over with properly defended beliefs.

If you say that that atheism isn't a default position, while accepting that disbelief in leprechauns is a default position, then you are putting gods in a special category.

Disbelief in leprechauns wouldn't have been a default position in medieval Ireland.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So what? Comparatively, very few people have ph.Ds in the natural sciences compared to the number of people who appreciate the sciences.

I agree.

Yes, fundamentalists are very rational. Frighteningly so, as it so happens. Needing to rationalize everything is not always a good thing.

"Rational" does not necessarily mean holding up against scrutiny. It refers to thinking or arguing in a logical, reasoned manner. The fact that you do not agree with something does not make it irrational.

Didn't say it was.

Eh, I'm pretty open about my classical theism. It's basically some combination of Plotinus, Aquinas, and Vedanta Hinduism. Of those, Aquinas is probably the most well known.

Ok. I find all of his arguments thoroughly unconvincing.

Not a default position.

So...you default to belief then? Your state of mind is one of being automatically convinced?

About that bridge I was going to sell you. PM me for the details.

This is insane. Psychologically insane, epistemologically insane, pure and simply insanity. If our default position on the reliability of sensory data was a suspension of judgment, there would be no way to ever escape from that, no trial and error by which we could determine the reliability of sensory experience independently of the senses.

Incidentally, we would also be extinct. Eaten by lions millions of years ago as we would have no instincts for survival. Our minds are not blank slates to be written over with properly defended beliefs.

Sorry...who was talking about survival instincts? I sure wasn't, because they are categorically distinct from the type of beliefs I was talking about. Actually, I don't think it's meaningful to call them 'beliefs' at all.

Disbelief in leprechauns wouldn't have been a default position in medieval Ireland.

You said yourself, they would have had cultural reasons for believing in leprechauns. If they have reasons for believing, then those reasons are necessarily logically prior to the belief. Therefor, belief is not and can not be the default. It is a position arrived at.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I (seriously) disbelieve this.

I take it you know my reasons for my atheism better than me, then. When did you first discover your magical psychic powers?

 

[Silmarien]

Ok. I find all of his arguments thoroughly unconvincing.

Weren't you going to explain why you find it ontologically and epistemologically vacuous, incoherent, and completely lacking in convincing evidence? You wanted me to name a specific concept of theism so that you could presumably clarify your accusation of incoherence, and now you have nothing more substantial to say than that you find it "thoroughly unconvincing"?

I'm not really interested in the question of whether or not theism is rationally compelling. For me it is, for you it isn't. End of story. If you're going to call it incoherent, however, I'd like to know why.

So...you default to belief then? Your state of mind is one of being automatically convinced?

No. I don't think there are any default positions at all.

Sorry...who was talking about survival instincts? I sure wasn't, because they are categorically distinct from the type of beliefs I was talking about. Actually, I don't think it's meaningful to call them 'beliefs' at all.

Sure, it is. There are solipsists and idealists out there who don't believe there's any reason to admit that the external world exists. Whoops, eaten by lions, so obviously their type of disbelief could never have been the default position for the species as a whole.

Seriously, what is a belief? Can we separate one from the web of other things we hold to be true about the world and judge it in isolation? Nope. All we have is a network of more and more foundational beliefs, turtles all the way down. There are some people out there, like those eliminative materialists you think are epistemologically coherent, would deny that any beliefs even exist at all, so you really shouldn't assume that everyone is going to have the same approach to the concept of belief that you do.

You said yourself, they would have had cultural reasons for believing in leprechauns. If they have reasons for believing, then those reasons are necessarily logically prior to the belief. Therefor, belief is not and can not be the default. It is a position arrived at.

The reasons may be logically prior but they're certainly not chronologically prior. Nobody is going to say that they do not believe in leprechauns and then suddenly come to the realization that their culture affirms the existence of leprechauns and therefore they have a justification for belief.

You're being more Platonic about this than I am, and I identify as a Platonist! As far as I'm concerned, there's no realm of ideas out there towards which our default stance is disbelief until we've been given cause to accept them.

 

[apogee]

I take it you know my reasons for my atheism better than me, then. When did you first discover your magical psychic powers?

To state the 'default' position?

 

[Par5]

The title of this thread is meaningless to me. What atheists be hoping for?

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

I would say to you that you thinking life and existence are futile is the very reason you feel you want to kill yourself which in turn says that you are unwell and need to seek professional help. Unlike you I am not unwell, do not think life is futile and have no desire to commit suicide. Having the kind of thoughts that include committing suicide, are thoughts in the mind of someone who is deeply disturbed, so my advice to you would be to seek professional help and I am sure it would not only be atheists who would give you that advice.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Seriously, what is a belief?

An affirmation that a particular claim comports with reality.

The reasons may be logically prior but they're certainly not chronologically prior.

They're both in this case. If you are born into a culture in which belief in leprechauns is part of the existing zeitgeist, then those reasons were in place prior to your apprehension of them.

You're being more Platonic about this than I am, and I identify as a Platonist! As far as I'm concerned, there's no realm of ideas out there towards which our default stance is disbelief until we've been given cause to accept them.

I don't claim there is a realm of ideas, either. Don't know where you got that from.

What I claim is that people believe things for reasons, that reasons are necessarily logically prior to beliefs, and as such belief is not and can not be the default position. Disbelief is.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

To state the 'default' position?

Doesn't require magical psychic powers. Reading my mind does.

So when did you get yours?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The title of this thread is meaningless to me. What atheists be hoping for?

I would say to you that you thinking life and existence are futile is the very reason you feel you want to kill yourself which in turn says that you are unwell and need to seek professional help. Unlike you I am not unwell, do not think life is futile and have no desire to commit suicide. Having the kind of thoughts that include committing suicide, are thoughts in the mind of someone who is deeply disturbed, so my advice to you would be to seek professional help and I am sure it would not only be atheists who would give you that advice.

I said this quite a few pages ago, but it bears repeating. Speaking as someone who volunteers and fundraises for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention...

People are suicidal for a lot of different reasons, and no one is immune. People of all faiths, and no faith, suffer. There is nothing particular about an atheist's suffering. My reply would be same regardless - in all cases, seek counseling. In more severe cases, consider medication and possibly inpatient care. And in any case, know that you are loved and valued, and not alone in this.


[Rest in Peace LMD, JS and SB]

 

[Silmarien]

They're both in this case. If you are born into a culture in which belief in leprechauns is part of the existing zeitgeist, then those reasons were in place prior to your apprehension of them.

Alright. So when, precisely, does a person in said culture initially disbelieve in leprechauns? When were they so free of their surrounding culture that their first reaction was a suspension of belief? Unless you are taking the concept of "lack of belief" literally enough that you recognize that this only applies to people who have never come across the idea in question at all, this distinction makes no sense.

What I claim is that people believe things for reasons, that reasons are necessarily logically prior to beliefs, and as such belief is not and can not be the default position. Disbelief is.

No, it isn't. If you have never seen or heard of the ocean, you do not disbelieve in its existence. You simply have no knowledge of it. To say that someone disbelieves in an ocean they have no knowledge of to get weirdly Platonic about the idea of an ocean.

If your parents tell you what an ocean is, no normal child's reaction is going to be to suspend belief. Your reason for believing in the ocean is identical to your reason for knowing about the ocean at all: your parents told you about it. There is no moment at which disbelief is the default position here. Ignorance was, and then belief.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Alright. So when, precisely, does a person in said culture initially disbelieve in leprechauns?

However long they are alive before they're convinced, I suppose.

To the rest of your post, I would say ignorance is a form of disbelief, at least as it is relevant to this discussion. In fact, I dare say it's a very solid reason to not believe something, when you have no conscious apprehension of it in the first place.

Or not. You might think ignorance is categorically distinct. In which case, you still agree that belief is not the default, and we'd still be partway to agreement on that.

 

[Silmarien]

However long they are alive before they're convinced, I suppose.

To the rest of your post, I would say ignorance is a form of disbelief, at least as it is relevant to this discussion. In fact, I dare say it's a very solid reason to not believe something, when you have no conscious apprehension of it in the first place.

Or not. You might think ignorance is categorically distinct. In which case, you still agree that belief is not the default, and we'd still be partway to agreement on that.

Yes, I'd say it's categorically distinct. It doesn't make much sense to say that not knowing something is a reason to not believe it, unless you think that someone could somehow believe something they do not know about. Knowledge is a prerequisite for both belief and disbelief. Otherwise we can all be said to disbelieve in an infinite number of concepts that have never been dreamed up at all, and then we're well into a magical realm of pre-existing ideas.

I'm fine with calling ignorance the default position, though.

 

[apogee]

Doesn't require magical psychic powers. Reading my mind does.

I don't disbelieve this. Although I don't believe it either.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, I'd say it's categorically distinct. It doesn't make much sense to say that not knowing something is a reason to not believe it

It makes plenty of sense to me to say I don't believe in things for which I have no conscious apprehension. I dare say, I have no choice in the matter. I can't believe in them.

I can see calling it either way, though. We're just talking about concepts we either have no apprehension of, or concepts we do, and what labels we apply to those. I'm not married to any of it.

I'm fine with calling ignorance the default position, though.

I'm fine with calling ignorance the default position with regard to concepts we have no conscious apprehension of.

That doesn't affect my position with regard to concepts we do have conscious apprehension of. And in any case, belief is not the default.

 

[Silmarien]

It makes plenty of sense to me to say I don't believe in things for which I have no conscious apprehension. I dare say, I have no choice in the matter. I can't believe in them.

I can see calling it either way, though. We're just talking about concepts we either have no apprehension of, or concepts we do, and what labels we apply to those. I'm not married to any of it.

We're also talking about concepts that do not yet exist, so if you think your stance towards non-existent ideas is disbelief, welcome to Platonism. Next up will have to be the infinite divine mind necessary to ground all these pre-existing ideas of yours.

I'm fine with calling ignorance the default position with regard to concepts we have no conscious apprehension of.

That doesn't affect my position with regard to concepts we do have conscious apprehension of.

Your position is just psychologically wrong. The default position of a young enough child is not going to be disbelief--tell them something and they will automatically believe it. Obviously we do not magically form beliefs for no reason whatsoever, but if our "reason" for belief basically boils down to "that's how our brains work," then it's pretty vacuous to insist that absent reasons, disbelief is the default position.

I don't know why we're even having this argument at all. I'm no apologist; I've never asked you to justify your atheism, so I'm not sure why you keep on insisting to me that it has some sort of magical "default position" status.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We're also talking about concepts that do not yet exist

Who's 'we'? I wasn't.

Your position is just psychologically wrong. The default position of a young enough child is not going to be disbelief--tell them something and they will automatically believe it.

No. They will believe, provided reasons. They are very simple reasons, sometimes they are even unspoken, but they are there. I never believed 'automatically' as a child. Neither do any of the kids I work with.

Anecdotes don't really get us anywhere, though. So I will point out, if you have to tell them about it, then they could not have been believing it prior to your telling. So again, we agree that belief isn't the default.

Obviously we do not magically form beliefs for no reason whatsoever

So kids don't believe automatically. I am glad that we agree.

I don't know why we're even having this argument at all.

I don't either. You agree that belief is not the default position. You agree that ignorance is the default position with regard to concepts we have no conscious apprehension of.

But for some reason, you do not agree that disbelief is the default position with regard to concepts we do have conscious apprehension of. So I have to ask again - when can I sell you this bridge?

I'm no apologist; I've never asked you to justify your atheism, so I'm not sure why you keep on insisting to me that it has some sort of magical "default position" status.

I never did such a thing. In fact, I said from the very outset that there is nothing special at all about atheism. My disbelief in gods comes from exactly the same place as my disbelief in leprechauns, ghosts, unicorns and any other concept for which I have no sufficient reason to believe, from the 'supernatural' to the utterly mundane. There is nothing 'magical' about that. I do it numerous times, every day. So do you. So does everyone.