This is some thing I wish more people would realize.
You sincerely don't understand how lack of belief differs from disbelief? You with the self-professed advanced degree in philosophy? Really?
I don't buy it, Unseen.
Sure I understand it.
Lack of belief is a wishy-washy position that doesn't qualify as atheism. Atheism is either an affirmative belief that there is no God or a disbelief based on the evidence, which means a belief that the evidence for God is simply not there. There's no such thing as a conclusion being drawn that doesn't result in a belief of some sort.
Every conclusion drawn results in a belief, or why bother?
One may lack belief without drawing a conclusion. Look at the preceding transcript and you'll see numerous examples which demonstrate this is true.
People who lack belief are people who can't claim to be atheists. They simply are on the road to drawing a conclusion, and when they do they'll believe God exists or they'll believe he doesn't.
It's not bizarre. It's not difficult to understand. It's just you, pretending to be obtuse and protesting my writing style, because you're too proud to admit you learned something.
If I'd "learned something" I would have changed my mind.
(A)s a simple statement we can say that we believe there is no god but then it gives a religious person the argumentative space to create a false equivalency argument.
As long as we point out that the difference between us is between a belief with some basis (ours, even if our belief is based on the lack of evidence, which also results in a belief) and a baseless leap of faith, we've refuted their argument. This is better than insisting on a position which is both counterintuitive, confusing, and false that believing in no god(s) is a position one maintains but does not believe. That's no way to win an argument.
We will always feel like we lose the argument with people that don't, won't or can't use words in honest ways even though we are correct and they are not. I avoid the word just to give believers one less word trickery/word play option. I also will just make positive belief claims such as I usually trust in humans and science etc.
It's got to be more effective to actually make them aware that there are grounded beliefs and baseless beliefs. But seriously, if someone has abandoned facts and logic from the get go, there's little hope of changing their minds anyway.
I doubt most conversions to atheism happen as the result of an argumentative dialog. Those who become atheists will arrive at the conclusion on their own (as many of us have) without being pushed in that direction. I doubt if many of us here would claim to have switched to atheism because someone beat them in an argument.
There is the unfortunate stereotype that atheists just believe in negatives and not positives. I like focusing on positive statements since it is a better way to persuade someone else than focusing on the negation of ideas or concepts.
As long as you stress that our beliefs are not faith-held, but are the result of giving facts (or the absence of facts) due consideration, we'll be okay. We're not going to convert people who eschew logic anyway. In that regard, it may even be pointless to argue with them.
If I'm speaking with a fellow atheist I can just use words how they are meant in the dictionary sense because they will hopefully and most likely not be a jerk that has an ulterior motive (or honestly believed in simulacrum) to use words dishonestly.
Hence why I said earlier, that I avoid using the word belief with "believers" but have no problem using it with people of reason. These are just my thoughts on this matter. Take care.
Denying that we atheists believe God doesn't exist is so counterintuitive and ridiculous (look at the sophistry required to support it) that they probably take it as a confirmation that we can only maintain our view by logically standing on our heads.
Imagine I produce an envelope and tell you God is inside it. You can believe it, disbelieve it, or reserve judgement until you open the envelope. You may hold any of the three positions, even if the envelope is never opened. If you disbelieve God is in the envelope because you don't believe God is a possible or factual being, you are an atheist by belief. If you reserve judgment, you're basically an agnostic whose mind could conceivably be changed, even if you think it's extremely unlikely the required evidence is possible and can't even imagine what it would be (probably an undeniable miracle).
Setting agnosticism aside and considering atheist, it's still 'incongruous, inaccurate, or dishonest' to both draw a conclusion and then maintain that you don't believe it.
Schrodinger's envelope. God both exists and does not exist in the envelope... until it's opened :)
I have always thought it absurd to insist that you have concluded that God doesn't exist, but that you don't believe that conclusion. Not all beliefs are based on faith. To conclude that there is no God SHOULD result in a disbelief in God and a disbelief is just a belief stated negatively.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between concluding that God doesn't exist and disbelieving in God.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk 13 minutes ago.
Started by Belle Rose in Society. Last reply by Pope Beanie 2 hours ago.
Started by Belle Rose in Politics. Last reply by Noel 7 hours ago.
Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 17 hours ago.
Started by Viktor Oskin in Theistic Arguments and Debate Help. Last reply by Andrew Brown on Sunday.
Sunday School February 19th 2017
Sunday School February 12th 2017
Sunday School February 5th 2017
Posted by Brad Snowder on February 18, 2017 at 5:45pm
Posted by Noon Alif on February 16, 2017 at 9:54am
© 2017 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.