Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[tsig]

For any god(s) that theists care to trot out.




This null hypothesis (that god(s) do not exist) isn't based on personal belief.

The hardest thing for theists to understand is that atheists don't believe in some sort of rival to god. God* is so central to them that they cannot conceive it's lack.

*Spirit, Eternal Essence, a Creating Intelligence, what have you.

 

[Navigator]

The hardest thing for theists to understand is that atheists don't believe in some sort of rival to god. God* is so central to them that they cannot conceive it's lack.

*Spirit, Eternal Essence, a Creating Intelligence, what have you.

Conceiving its lack is not the mind of the atheist. It is the mind of that which is able to understand the lack as a concept, but the concept itself is not to be believed in as fact. Some who self identify as 'atheist' make the mistake of assuming that to be an atheist they must assume that the lack is actual.

Or.

I am describing individuals who have moved beyond the embattled boarders of theism and atheism altogether and appreciate what is to be found there.

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.

Theism is the first tentative step away from ignorance and slightly more applicable for actually learning anything greatly useful in relation to consciousness.

As far as being an arguing device against ignorance, theism is not very useful. It is too busy focusing on all too humanly ignorant ideas of god than anything more practical, and like ignorance, cannot be trusted.

 

[Dissolution]

Conceiving its lack is not the mind of the atheist. It is the mind of that which is able to understand the lack as a concept, but the concept itself is not to be believed in as fact. Some who self identify as 'atheist' make the mistake of assuming that to be an atheist they must assume that the lack is actual.

Or.

I am describing individuals who have moved beyond the embattled boarders of theism and atheism altogether and appreciate what is to be found there.

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.

Theism is the first tentative step away from ignorance and slightly more applicable for actually learning anything greatly useful in relation to consciousness.

As far as being an arguing device against ignorance, theism is not very useful. It is too busy focusing on all too humanly ignorant ideas of god than anything more practical, and like ignorance, cannot be trusted.

Word salad.

 

[tsig]

Conceiving its lack is not the mind of the atheist. It is the mind of that which is able to understand the lack as a concept, but the concept itself is not to be believed in as fact. Some who self identify as 'atheist' make the mistake of assuming that to be an atheist they must assume that the lack is actual.

Or.

I am describing individuals who have moved beyond the embattled boarders of theism and atheism altogether and appreciate what is to be found there.

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.

Theism is the first tentative step away from ignorance and slightly more applicable for actually learning anything greatly useful in relation to consciousness.

As far as being an arguing device against ignorance, theism is not very useful. It is too busy focusing on all too humanly ignorant ideas of god than anything more practical, and like ignorance, cannot be trusted.

Obviously none of those who have moved beyond are posting here so where may we find the words of those who have arrived at the Elysian Fields.

 

[Navigator]

Obviously none of those who have moved beyond are posting here so where may we find the words of those who have arrived at the Elysian Fields.

It may be a relatively new idea which like all ideas, will take a while to germinate and reach a popular consensus.

At least you are not arguing against my other points.

 

[Navigator]

As to the question:

'Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?'

It seems to be based on neither logic or faith but on ignorance, especially if one believes that it is the 'default setting' of a human individual.

 

[Navigator]

Word salad.

Interesting.


"Word salad"
This could be a metaphor for "I cannot permit my brain to think like that."

 

[fuelair]

Atheism is based on the complete and total lack of evidence that there are any gods and the lack of any texts of any religions (holy books) that are internally consistant. The fact that the world is as it has always been (re: catastrophes and other such) by itself should demonstrate this to anyone with functional brain cells.

 

[fuelair]

As a sidebar, the evidential fact that the Earth and those on it will be dead long before the Universe is kind of tops it all off - the cherry on the whipped cream on the piece of cake.

 

[gentlehorse]

As to the question:

'Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?'

It seems to be based on neither logic or faith but on ignorance, especially if one believes that it is the 'default setting' of a human individual.

Some might agree with you. Consider the following definitions.

gnostic: one with knowledge of a deity

agnostic: one without knowledge of a deity

theist: one with belief in a deity

atheist: one without belief in a deity

If one were to say that he was without knowledge of a deity, then he could be considered to be ignorant. He would also be agnostic as defined above.

If he went on to say that, because he has no knowledge of a deity he cannot say that a deity exists, and that therefore he is without belief in a deity, then he would be an atheist.

In a simplified case such as this, one could say that atheism is based in ignorance. Of course, not everyone will agree with the definitions above, and not all paths to atheism follow the same lines of thought.

For instance, others might argue that they are extremely well-read as far as literature regarding deities is concerned. They might dismiss the notion that deities exist based on the fact that there is overwhelming evidence in support of the notion that deities are fictitious entities, coupled with the fact that there is no compelling evidence that they exist. These folks might not agree that atheism is based in ignorance. So it may not be as simple as outlined above.

BTW: Ignorance is not a bad thing, unless you're pretending to have knowledge that you don't actually have. IMO, of course--

 

[bruto]

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.

That is true only if there is something that can be known. If I were born on a remote island and never heard of Santa Claus or Tinkerbelle the fairy, it's true I would be ignorant of them, but hearing of them would not bring me closer to any truth.

Belief in something that does not exist does not decrease one's ignorance. Belief in something that does exist does not necessarily. A blind guess that turns out to be right is still ignorant.

 

[Tassman]

Conceiving its lack is not the mind of the atheist. It is the mind of that which is able to understand the lack as a concept, but the concept itself is not to be believed in as fact. Some who self identify as 'atheist' make the mistake of assuming that to be an atheist they must assume that the lack is actual.

Or.

I am describing individuals who have moved beyond the embattled boarders of theism and atheism altogether and appreciate what is to be found there.

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.
Theism is the first tentative step away from ignorance and slightly more applicable for actually learning anything greatly useful in relation to consciousness.

As far as being an arguing device against ignorance, theism is not very useful. It is too busy focusing on all too humanly ignorant ideas of god than anything more practical, and like ignorance, cannot be trusted.

No. Atheism is the default setting until such time as substantiated evidence of the existence of deities is produced. Same applies to the many other products of human imagination such as unicorns, wizards, hobbits and elves. It is not “ignorance” to reject fantasy as real. OTOH: It is gullibility to accept it without credible evidence.

Word salad.

Indeed! A common feature of ill-informed bluster!

 

[tsig]

No. Atheism is the default setting until such time as substantiated evidence of the existence of deities is produced. Same applies to the many other products of human imagination such as unicorns, wizards, hobbits and elves. It is not “ignorance” to reject fantasy as real. OTOH: It is gullibility to accept it without credible evidence.



Indeed! A common feature of ill-informed bluster!

And then we get the message we were all expecting:

"Atheists are stupid".

 

[Navigator]

No. Atheism is the default setting until such time as substantiated evidence of the existence of deities is produced. Same applies to the many other products of human imagination such as unicorns, wizards, hobbits and elves. It is not “ignorance” to reject fantasy as real. OTOH: It is gullibility to accept it without credible evidence.

Accept what?

 

[Tassman]

Accept what?

I already said.

Accept the existence of deities, unicorns, wizards, hobbits and elves and other fanciful products of human imagination without substantiated evidence. And no, I’m not denying that such things are possible, just that without credible evidence, they are improbable.

 

[punshhh]

Wrong, the burden always lies with the one making the positive claim, because there are an infinite number of things X that might exist. Some of my X may outright contradict your X, as is the case with the gods of various religions. See the problem yet?

Yes I see it, the problem is in the human mind, which by the way invented the concept of infinity. However we are not discussing realities shaped by or determined by the human mind. But rather realities that may or may not be the case outside the human mind, or in other words the reality of existence.

Philosophy can tell us that due to our obvious limitations, we cannot determine the reality beyond what we can detect physically or rationally deduce. Also that the degree to which we are ignorant of that reality cannot be determined.

As such any speculation as to what may or may not exist beyond these limits is irrelevant to the reality that would be found there.

Now in the light of this realisation any atheist asserting that X is not out there, is making a positive claim.

 

[John Jones]

Conceiving its lack is not the mind of the atheist. It is the mind of that which is able to understand the lack as a concept, but the concept itself is not to be believed in as fact. Some who self identify as 'atheist' make the mistake of assuming that to be an atheist they must assume that the lack is actual.

Or.

I am describing individuals who have moved beyond the embattled boarders of theism and atheism altogether and appreciate what is to be found there.

If 'atheism is the default setting' then ignorance is atheism.

Theism is the first tentative step away from ignorance and slightly more applicable for actually learning anything greatly useful in relation to consciousness.

As far as being an arguing device against ignorance, theism is not very useful. It is too busy focusing on all too humanly ignorant ideas of god than anything more practical, and like ignorance, cannot be trusted.

This reads like something produced by the postmodernism generator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator

 

[Tassman]

Yes I see it, the problem is in the human mind, which by the way invented the concept of infinity. However we are not discussing realities shaped by or determined by the human mind. But rather realities that may or may not be the case outside the human mind, or in other words the reality of existence.

Philosophy can tell us that due to our obvious limitations, we cannot determine the reality beyond what we can detect physically or rationally deduce. Also that the degree to which we are ignorant of that reality cannot be determined.

As such any speculation as to what may or may not exist beyond these limits is irrelevant to the reality that would be found there.

Certainly! Science tells you this. So why speculate that there might be more when we have no means to determine whether or not there is more?

Now in the light of this realisation any atheist asserting that X is not out there, is making a positive claim.

NO! It is you, not me, who is suggesting without credible evidence that reality might consist of more than just the material universe. Thus, as the one making the positive claim the burden of proof rests with you. It is not up to me to prove something that “might” exist doesn't in fact exist.

 

[punshhh]

Certainly! Science tells you this. So why speculate that there might be more when we have no means to determine whether or not there is more?

Because "science" has not as yet explained existence, it has only described what we can detect with the evolutionary attributes we have inherited.

Furthermore philosophy suggests that there is no reason to presume that what we can detect is all there is.

NO! It is you, not me, who is suggesting without credible evidence that reality might consist of more than just the material universe.

I have evidence, namely the lack of a current explanation of the existence of our known existence, in terms of its origin and mechanism by which it is maintained(and before you explain the current scientific explanation, which I am aware of. I mean the explanation of the fact of existence itself).

Thus, as the one making the positive claim the burden of proof rests with you. It is not up to me to prove something that “might” exist doesn't in fact exist.

I am not making a positive claim. I make an observation that something exists and conclude that something else might exist, that things exist, on this basis.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Yes I see it, the problem is in the human mind, which by the way invented the concept of infinity. However we are not discussing realities shaped by or determined by the human mind. But rather realities that may or may not be the case outside the human mind, or in other words the reality of existence.

Philosophy can tell us that due to our obvious limitations, we cannot determine the reality beyond what we can detect physically or rationally deduce. Also that the degree to which we are ignorant of that reality cannot be determined.

As such any speculation as to what may or may not exist beyond these limits is irrelevant to the reality that would be found there.

Now in the light of this realisation any atheist asserting that X is not out there, is making a positive claim.

Not really. In a strict, pedantic sense, it would be more correct to say that no convincing evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate the existence of any deities, so the null hypothesis stands. But if you're insisting on that level of precision, you should also be railing against people who confidently say that astrology is a sham, or unicorns aren't real. You should also insist that every sentence in school science lessons should begin "According to current scientific theory..." or even better, "According to my understanding of current scientific theory..." You're holding atheism to an inconsistent and unworkable standard of precision, one that I confidently predict you don't live up to yourself.

Strong atheism is no more than a reasonable inference based on the available information, stated in exactly the same way as many other technically unsupportable everyday inferences. I'm far more concerned about people who see the same absence of evidence, but nevertheless keep looking because you never know.