Where is the hope in atheism?

[DogmaHunter]

If you tell me, you’ve been kidnapped by aliens who all look like Jessica Alba, my response would be, to evaluate it according to my pre-existing beliefs, about you, Aliens and Jessica Alba, and any other evidence that you are able to provide.

It is not simply “No”, for all I know you could well be telling me the truth. Granted it’s a pretty weird scenario, but it’s certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

Have you been kidnapped by Aliens that look like Jessica Alba?

Be serious. Not for a second would you seriously consider such a claim. You'ld shake your head in disbelief even before I mention that they all looked like Jessica Alba.
You'ld require extra-ordinary evidence before you'ld even consider taking it seriously.

This is all really confusing and I'm not at all sure how this is supposed to apply to metaphysical beliefs. Other than perhaps you are suggesting that people that believe in God do so for 'bad' reasons, which is kinda just offensive, not that I'm particularly offended by it personally.

It matters not what exactly is being believed, be it "metaphysical" or otherwise.
If someone accepts a claim as correct, then surely *something*, irrational or otherwise, has convinced that person that said claim is correct, right?

And as a matter of fact, yes, I do think that theistic beliefs (refering to the supernatural/metaphysical/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it bits) are believed on bad reasons. In some cases, very bad reasons.

If that offends you or anyone else, then so be it. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm sure there are things that I consider true which might be believe on bad reasons as well.
All of us get irrational at times. We're all fallible humans with brains that are very prone to deception, after all....

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. It's insisting that the only proper answer is "I don't know" that is the claim. You are making claims about which answers are proper and which are not.

That's not a claim.
It's just an acknowledgement of ignorance.

"what caused X?"
"y did!!!" = a claim
"i don't know" = not a claim, instead just an acknowledgement of ignorance.

Yes. Every time you imply that a theist cannot say "I don't know," you are implying that theism is not compatible with agnosticism.

On that particular issue, perhaps.
It's one or the other after all...

When you ask a theist about the origins of the universe, and that theist responds with "god did it" instead of "i don't know",.....

Eh, the problem is quite clearly answers that you don't like.

I indeed don't like made up answers.

I disagree with this

Yeah well, that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing atheism to "presuppose". Theism is the stuff that gets presupposed. Atheism is the label used for the position where the theistic things aren't presupposed...

I presuppose less as a theist than I did as an atheist.

That makes exactly zero sense to me.
You need to believe a bunch of stuff in order to qualify as a "theist". That's what differentiates a theist from an atheist: the theist needs to believe a bunch of stuff. The atheist does not.

Theism is defined by holding to a set of beliefs.
Atheism is defined by NOT holding to that set of beliefs.

I wonder why this is so hard to comprehend.

There is no fundamental mistake on my part. I do not care if you call this particular position of yours atheism or agnosticism--both rely upon similar presuppositions concerning the correct way of approaching the problem. You treat the questions that theism raises like a puzzle to be solved through scientific exploration, not like a mystery to be lived. There's a whole worldview underlying that approach, and it's one I don't share.

The "worldview", if you wish to call it that, which underlines my approach, is the same as that which underlines my approach to any and all other questions concerning reality.

Unlike you, I don't make up "special" criteria for unfalsifiable god beliefs.

I'm just not interested in what you're selling

I'm not selling anything. Theists are the ones that are trying to sell something (god beliefs). As an atheist, I'm just not buying what theists are selling. As an atheist, I'm not selling anything.

I find it all deeply nihilistic

I'm not a nihilist and neither is atheism the same as nihilism.

My point has always been that this "blank slate" situation is a fantasy. Everything is always contextual, so you're never going to get information in the absense of additional context that would push you in one direction or another. If the information adds up in such a way that you're waiting for additional factors, that is not a default position. It's just another potential stance.

I am not saying that belief is a default. I'm denying the possibility of any default whatsoever, except ignorance.

So, if I claim that I was just kidnapped by a bunch of aliens that all looked like Jessica Alba, and offer no evidence except my testimony, what would your default response be?

 

[apogee]

With valuetypes in C#, you can declare them as nullable if you need them to be.
If they aren't nullable, then they get a default value upon declaration.

bool? aBooleanProp; => default value is NULL
bool aBooleanProp; => default value is false.

No idea where you are going with this. Well, no... I get the idea, I just don't think it's applicable to the points being discussed.

These are rather arbitrary "rules" inherent to programming languages.

My point was simply that there are no values in those variables (at first)

But you make my point better than I do myself, by demonstrating that variables are then populated according to "rather arbitrary "rules" inherent to programming languages."

I mean, what can I add to this... Other than maybe " thanks".

 

[apogee]

Be serious. Not for a second would you seriously consider such a claim. You'ld shake your head in disbelief even before I mention that they all looked like Jessica Alba.
You'ld require extra-ordinary evidence before you'ld even consider taking it seriously.

I am serious. I really would consider such a claim, have you ever encountered the Fermi paradox? I'm not claiming anything about aliens, other than that their existence as by no means implausible, extra-ordinary but not implausible.

Ordinariness does not determine veracity, this merely implies that you are easier to deceive than me, all I have to do is feed you a series of ordinary propositions, and you will have no reason to question them because they are unremarkable.

I would include an element of subjectivity in my analysis, who is to say they look like Jessica Alba? Perhaps I would think they more closely resembled Kirsten Dunst.

It matters not what exactly is being believed, be it "metaphysical" or otherwise.
If someone accepts a claim as correct, then surely *something*, irrational or otherwise, has convinced that person that said claim is correct, right?

surely.

And as a matter of fact, yes, I do think that theistic beliefs (refering to the supernatural/metaphysical/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it bits) are believed on bad reasons. In some cases, very bad reasons.

so 'bad reasons' or 'very bad reasons' do you have any 'good reasons' for this belief, or do you not require them?

All of us get irrational at times. We're all fallible humans with brains that are very prone to deception, after all....

Undeniably.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point was simply that there are no values in those variables (at first)

Ok.

Let's drive the point home.
Consider this method:
(had to put it in a picture, because the formatting messes up when posted)

note: the "if (result)" line will not actually compile in VS, because if expressions can't handle nullable bools, but it's the pseudo-logic that counts off course.

Will it return true or false?
How about that, ey?

But you make my point better than I do myself, by demonstrating that variables are then populated according to "rather arbitrary "rules" inherent to programming languages."

I mean, what can I add to this... Other than maybe " thanks".

That goes for programming languages, which is not the same as default positions of belief/acceptance of bare claims. So the analogy simply isn't valid imo.

HOWEVER, even if I would consider this analogy valid - it doesn't support your point, but mine instead....

They are arbitrary rules, in the sense that the language authors could simply choose to use other defaults. However, their choice is not arbitrary in the sense of random. There are logical reasons as to why they chose these values and not others.

And lo and behold, the default value of a boolean is FALSE. As in, not TRUE.
So, barring any additional computation and without explicit initialization, a boolean run through an expression will never yield "true".

Even if the boolean is nullable, then it's default value still would be the equivalent of not TRUE.

But as said, I don't consider this a valid analogy.

In real life, accepting a claim as true, without sufficient reason to accept it as true, is not sensible. This is why the default (as in: a bare claim, with no supporting evidence) is to not accept a claim as true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am serious. I really would consider such a claim, have you ever encountered the Fermi paradox? I'm not claiming anything about aliens, other than that their existence as by no means implausible, extra-ordinary but not implausible.

Ordinariness does not determine veracity, this merely implies that you are easier to deceive than me, all I have to do is feed you a series of ordinary propositions, and you will have no reason to question them because they are unremarkable.

I would include an element of subjectivity in my analysis, who is to say they look like Jessica Alba? Perhaps I would think they more closely resembled Kirsten Dunst.

Myeah, sorry, I'm not buying it.
I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence by believing that you would actually take claims of alien abduction seriously, especially if all you have to go on is my bare claim.

so 'bad reasons' or 'very bad reasons' do you have any 'good reasons' for this belief, or do you not require them?

I do have them. The reason for why I believe that, is simply the responses I get from theists when I ask them why they believe what they believe.

The answers I eventually get are mostly centered around rather common logical fallacies and alike: arguments from ignorance, emotional appeals, arguments from incredulity, arguments from popularity, magical thinking, hearsay, ....

I'ld say that faulty reasoning, is a pretty bad reason to believe something, wouldn't you agree?

 

[apogee]

Ok.

Let's drive the point home.
Consider this method:
(had to put it in a picture, because the formatting messes up when posted)

View attachment 226328

note: the "if (result)" line will not actually compile in VS, because if expressions can't handle nullable bools, but it's the pseudo-logic that counts off course.

Will it return true or false?
How about that, ey?



That goes for programming languages, which is not the same as default positions of belief/acceptance of bare claims. So the analogy simply isn't valid imo.

HOWEVER, even if I would consider this analogy valid - it doesn't support your point, but mine instead....

They are arbitrary rules, in the sense that the language authors could simply choose to use other defaults. However, their choice is not arbitrary in the sense of random. There are logical reasons as to why they chose these values and not others.

And lo and behold, the default value of a boolean is FALSE. As in, not TRUE.
So, barring any additional computation and without explicit initialization, a boolean run through an expression will never yield "true".

Even if the boolean is nullable, then it's default value still would be the equivalent of not TRUE.

But as said, I don't consider this a valid analogy.

In real life, accepting a claim as true, without sufficient reason to accept it as true, is not sensible. This is why the default (as in: a bare claim, with no supporting evidence) is to not accept a claim as true.

I'm not sure what you think you are driving home here.

Am I supposed to be impressed that you can write some redundant piece of code that demonstrates a fact about this programming language that we both already know (it uses strong data typing).

Do you understand why it uses strong data typing? It certainly isn't because 0 is preferable to 1. It's because 0 or 1 are preferable to #*@; or null, because such values cause problems when you are evaluating expressions that expect 1's and 0's

I mostly deal with databases, where it really matters whether medical test results are populated by positive, negative or null.

False negative cytology results have far graver consequences than false positive ones, and if the result is simply not recorded then people need to be informed of this fact.

It's fairly likely that no one else here knows(or cares) what either of us is gibbering on about, which genuinely does make it a bad analogy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not sure what you think you are driving home here.

That the default value of a true/false situation, is never "true".

Am I supposed to be impressed that you can write some redundant piece of code that demonstrates a fact about this programming language that we both already know (it uses strong data typing).

You're the one that brought it up to make a point concerning default values, not me. I actually even consider it an invalid analogy. But, as explained, if I accept it as a proper analogy - it actually supports my point and not yours. That point being that the default is not "true". It is "false" or "null".

FYI: just to make clear, I am off course aware how ridiculously absurd and redundant that code sample was. I did that hoping that non-programmers could sort of understand what was going on.

Do you understand why it uses strong data typing? It certainly isn't because 0 is preferable to 1. It's because 0 or 1 are preferable to #*@; or null, because such values cause problems when you are evaluating expressions that expect 1's and 0's

You lost me, in terms of value of analogy.
It seems rather straightforward that default values (actual values - NULL is not really a value, endless debating on programming forums notwithstanding ) can only be done in context of the type mentioned.

I mostly deal with databases, where it really matters whether medical test results are populated by positive, negative or null.

Me too. Our software product is for medical as well. Indeed, when it comes to diagnostic int values for example, "0" is a measurement as well. That's why they are nullable.

False negative cytology results have far graver consequences than false positive ones, and if the result is simply not recorded then people need to be informed of this fact.

It's fairly likely that no one else here knows what either of us is gibbering on about, which genuinely does make it a bad analogy.

I must say, I lol'ed at that one. Indeed. At this point, several will be scratching their head.


In any case, can we at least agree that, right out the gates, the default answer to a question like "Do you believe X is true?" will not be "yes"?

I surely hope we can.
The idea that the "right out of the gates default answer" is "yes", seems completely absurd to me.

 

[apogee]

Myeah, sorry, I'm not buying it.

That's fine, I'm ambivalent.

I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence by believing that you would actually take claims of alien abduction seriously, especially if all you have to go on is my bare claim.

I'm pretty sure you would be fine with insulting my intelligence, insult away. Although, if you are telling me that I would be a fool to take you seriously, I can only take your word for it.

I do have them. The reason for why I believe that, is simply the responses I get from theists when I ask them why they believe what they believe.

The answers I eventually get are mostly centered around rather common logical fallacies and alike: arguments from ignorance, emotional appeals, arguments from incredulity, arguments from popularity, magical thinking, hearsay, ....

I can only take your word for it.

I'ld say that faulty reasoning, is a pretty bad reason to believe something, wouldn't you agree?

erm...yes...I think I would.

 

[apogee]

That the default value of a true/false situation, is never "true".

Did you miss the bit where I said there is no default?

You're the one that brought it up to make a point concerning default values, not me.

I was hoping to use it as a point of common understanding...rather than anything else.

I actually even consider it an invalid analogy. But, as explained, if I accept it as a proper analogy - it actually supports my point and not yours. That point being that the default is not "true". It is "false" or "null".

Like I've said, there is no default, there never was, there never will be.

You lost me, in terms of value of analogy.
It seems rather straightforward that default values (actual values - NULL is not really a value, endless debating on programming forums notwithstanding ) can only be done in context of the type mentioned.

Clearly NULL is the absence of a value...that's its definition....which is why I use the word.

Me too. Our software product is for medical as well. Indeed, when it comes to diagnostic int values for example, "0" is a measurement as well. That's why they are nullable.

I'm interested, what is the product? 0 is a valid measurement, not to be mistaken with NULL, which is the absence of one.

I must say, I lol'ed at that one. Indeed. At this point, several will be scratching their head.

no doubt.

In any case, can we at least agree that, right out the gates, the default answer to a question like "Do you believe X is true?" will not be "yes"?

I surely hope we can.
The idea that the "right out of the gates default answer" is "yes", seems completely absurd to me.

I've never disputed this....there IS no default.

 

[apogee]

Did i mention that "there is no default"? I can't quite recall.

 

[bhsmte]

That's not a claim.
It's just an acknowledgement of ignorance.

"what caused X?"
"y did!!!" = a claim
"i don't know" = not a claim, instead just an acknowledgement of ignorance.



On that particular issue, perhaps.
It's one or the other after all...

When you ask a theist about the origins of the universe, and that theist responds with "god did it" instead of "i don't know",.....



I indeed don't like made up answers.



Yeah well, that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing atheism to "presuppose". Theism is the stuff that gets presupposed. Atheism is the label used for the position where the theistic things aren't presupposed...



That makes exactly zero sense to me.
You need to believe a bunch of stuff in order to qualify as a "theist". That's what differentiates a theist from an atheist: the theist needs to believe a bunch of stuff. The atheist does not.

Theism is defined by holding to a set of beliefs.
Atheism is defined by NOT holding to that set of beliefs.

I wonder why this is so hard to comprehend.



The "worldview", if you wish to call it that, which underlines my approach, is the same as that which underlines my approach to any and all other questions concerning reality.

Unlike you, I don't make up "special" criteria for unfalsifiable god beliefs.



I'm not selling anything. Theists are the ones that are trying to sell something (god beliefs). As an atheist, I'm just not buying what theists are selling. As an atheist, I'm not selling anything.



I'm not a nihilist and neither is atheism the same as nihilism.




So, if I claim that I was just kidnapped by a bunch of aliens that all looked like Jessica Alba, and offer no evidence except my testimony, what would your default response be?

The part in bold above, is typical for many theists and IMO, an attempt to redefine atheism and really a crude defense mechanism.

 

[Silmarien]

That's not a claim.
It's just an acknowledgement of ignorance.

"what caused X?"
"y did!!!" = a claim
"i don't know" = not a claim, instead just an acknowledgement of ignorance.

Yes, it is a claim. "The only proper answer is X" is always going to be a claim, no matter what value X has here.

On that particular issue, perhaps.
It's one or the other after all...

When you ask a theist about the origins of the universe, and that theist responds with "god did it" instead of "i don't know",.....

It's hilarious how you flip out whenever you suspect people are putting words in your mouth and then say ridiculous things like this. A theist could absolutely say, "I do not know, but I believe that God did it." This is called agnostic theism. It exists. I am simultaneously a strong agnostic and a theist, so accept it.

Yeah well, that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing atheism to "presuppose". Theism is the stuff that gets presupposed. Atheism is the label used for the position where the theistic things aren't presupposed...

That's not a fact. It's a claim, and one I disagree with. Good luck proving it.

That makes exactly zero sense to me.
You need to believe a bunch of stuff in order to qualify as a "theist". That's what differentiates a theist from an atheist: the theist needs to believe a bunch of stuff. The atheist does not.

Theism is defined by holding to a set of beliefs.
Atheism is defined by NOT holding to that set of beliefs.

I wonder why this is so hard to comprehend.

Because it's not true. There were ideas that I was irrationally hostile towards as an atheist and no longer am. I do not necessarily hold to a set of beliefs as you insist I must.

Just because you refuse to examine your own atheism doesn't mean there aren't psychological and epistemological factors underlying it. This is not necessarily a bad thing--it's just normal. If you are going to dogmatically hold to the idea that you have no beliefs, there's really not much I can say to you.

The "worldview", if you wish to call it that, which underlines my approach, is the same as that which underlines my approach to any and all other questions concerning reality.

Unlike you, I don't make up "special" criteria for unfalsifiable god beliefs.

Is this yet more hypocrisy from you? I can't use the word "atheism" in any way that you do not approve of without risking putting words in your mouth, and yet you can turn around and tell me I'm making up "special criteria"? The rational thing to do would be to find out precisely what someone believes and why before passing judgment on it.

I'm not selling anything. Theists are the ones that are trying to sell something (god beliefs). As an atheist, I'm just not buying what theists are selling. As an atheist, I'm not selling anything.

Then why are you here? Surely you have something better to do with you time than hang around discussing apologetics.

I'm not a nihilist and neither is atheism the same as nihilism.

It's not my problem if not all atheists are willing to think out the ramifications of their beliefs. I'm calling it like I see it, and I see nihilism.

So, if I claim that I was just kidnapped by a bunch of aliens that all looked like Jessica Alba, and offer no evidence except my testimony, what would your default response be?

There would be no default response. It would depend upon the context of the conversation and my own underlying beliefs. If I believed that alien abductions occurred, and perhaps had even experienced one myself, I would be more likely to accept your account than if I did not.

 

[Silmarien]

The part in bold above, is typical for many theists and IMO, an attempt to redefine atheism and really a crude defense mechanism.

Seriously, enough already. We can disagree with your assessment of atheism without being motivated by some psychological need to believe. Stop reducing every argument to a matter of defense mechanisms. I do not find atheism threatening in the least.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then why are you here? Surely you have something better to do with you time than hang around discussing apologetics.

Just an observation, but from my time here I usually see this response from theists that have discovered they're losing the argument...

It's not my problem if not all atheists are willing to think out the ramifications of their beliefs. I'm calling it like I see it, and I see nihilism.

I'm an atheist that has thought out the ramifications of my beliefs, and I'm not a nihilist, although you may be defining "nihilist" in a non standard way.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not my problem if not all atheists are willing to think out the ramifications of their beliefs. I'm calling it like I see it, and I see nihilism.

I'm an agnostic atheist, why should I be a nihilist too?

 

[bhsmte]

Seriously, enough already. We can disagree with your assessment of atheism without being motivated by some psychological need to believe. Stop reducing every argument to a matter of defense mechanisms. I do not find atheism threatening in the least.

You give your opinion and I give mine.

In other words, I am calling it, like I see it.

 

[Silmarien]

Just an observation, but from my time here I usually see this response from theists that have discovered they're losing the argument...

Not at all. If my point weren't literally, "You have a position," you might be right, but I really am curious as to why any atheist who thinks they do not have one is arguing apologetics. If you're not selling a particular point of view, what incentive do you have to even argue at all?

It is a little bit weird the degree to which some people kick up dirt over their non-positions.

I'm an atheist that has thought out the ramifications of my beliefs, and I'm not a nihilist, although you may be defining "nihilist" in a non standard way.

How are you defining nihilism? Any system of values seems to collapse if you push hard enough, as does the concept of meaning. A nihilist can still consider these things useful fictions, but objectively speaking, everything does just become a complicated light show. "It's real subjectively" is a bit of an oxymoron. Someone might as well say that God is subjectively real to them.

Then there's also epistemological nihilism, which should follow from atheism as well unless you're taking on faith that your cognitive abilities match up to reality. (A theist really needs to take this on faith as well, but it's more consistent with the larger worldview.)

Aristotelian naturalists can get around some of the problems, but that doesn't seem to be a very common position in the atheistic camp.

I'm an agnostic atheist, why should I be a nihilist too?

How do you ground any value judgment? Where does your concept of meaning come from?

 

[apogee]

 

[Moral Orel]

How do you ground any value judgment? Where does your concept of meaning come from?

None of that should matter. You keep saying that nihilism must follow from atheism, so you should be able to explain how that is so without arguing about my personal value systems. If you need to argue about how I choose what to value, we can do that, but we won't be talking about nihilism anymore. All you'll be doing is arguing that my value system is bad or illusory or what-have-you. You certainly wouldn't be showing that atheism should lead to nihilism.

It would be a bit like a YEC thinking that if he can disprove evolution, then automatically YECism is true. You would need to walk back your claim to something more along the lines of "Every atheist I've met chooses his values in a bad way", or something to that effect. Or better yet, show how theism avoids nihilism in a way that only theism can do.