Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[bruto]

If atheism was simply a 'simple state' it would not be correct to use it as self identifier in relation to ones personal beliefs/opinions.

The simple state of a new born human being is one of ignorance. This state does not last very long because data is everywhere and human brains love data.

I do not completely understand the phrase you used... "if atheism is true."

Is it in relation to it being 'the default position' ?

What is there to understand? Atheism is true if there is no god. It is false if there is a god, or at least if there is a knowable or involved god.

If an infant's ignorance happens to be ignorance of something that does not exist, then both the person ignorant of the nonexistent and the person asserting that the nonexistent does not exist stand in the same relation to the thing that does not exist, because one cannot know a thing that does not exist. The fact that some people become atheists or acknowledge atheism after a long and complex search does not mean that the resulting state is not simple, or equivalent to a simple one. It may take me a long time and a lot of running around to determine that a box is empty. But the emptiness has no added quality for my effort.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

All I am doing is drawing from introductory philosophical thinking.

It doesn't help your case when you admit you're just making stuff up.

Feel free to wear the rose tinted glasses of atheism. I'm not asking you to remove them, but I'm not interested in trying them out either.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Do I sense a certain unwillingness to reexamine your own beliefs for flaws or faulty reasoning?

 

[Brian-M]

Atheism is true if there is no god. It is false if there is a god, or at least if there is a knowable or involved god.

The soft or weak atheist position (what Wikipedia describes as negative atheism) is true regardless of whether or not a god exists, because it's a position of a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in a lack of God.

 

[Tassman]

Sure I understand your position Tassman. It is one shared by many calling themselves atheists. It is a position rather than the default position of atheism, as far as I can tell.

One is not born with the knowledge of gods; such notions have to be learnt’. Therefore atheism is the default position.

Some people look at a galaxy and see what looks like "a confused mess" - an I appreciate that for you as an individual to be in my position it would have that effect upon you.
However, I am not you. The 'mess' is just what ignorance often sees first - sometimes it is called 'chaos'.
I don't see a mess. But I understand the reasons why people do see a mess.

I see a mess. Anyone who describes himself as appearing to be an atheist but is not AND been mistaken as being an atheist because I am not a theist can only be described as idiosyncratic.

'It doesn't have to' is neither here nor there. It is something for consciousness to investigate and I did not say science claims to know all there is to know or that the method itself is not a work in progress.
Why did you mention that?

How do you propose that "consciousness" do the investigation without recourse to science? It is through science we investigate the natural universe so presumably you are referring to something ‘other’ than the natural universe. But, whilst claiming repeatedly that there is “more” you have not provided evidence of it except your repetition that "it’s possible”.

What? It is not saying anything of the sort.

Well what else is: “Death is the certain advent which promotes subjective rule as more a priority over objective reality and is observed as a physical end……etc, etc, etc” supposed to mean other than we all die?

ALL evidence indicates that the mind/soul is dependent on the brain and that the brain is dependent upon the body and that when the body perishes the “mind/soul” perishes with it. There is NO serious evidence that suggests otherwise.

Because I am consciousness.
You complain 'there is no evidence' but what of that? What evidence would you expect there to be Tassman?

So are chimpanzees conscious. What’s you point?

The Cognitive sciences which embrace philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics and anthropology are the best means of understanding the nature of consciousness. Considerable progress has been made already but none of it suggests that consciousness predates the universe as you continually posit. ALL evidence indicates that ‘consciousnesses’ evolved via natural selection.

How so?

By throwing a “possible preexisting consciousness” into the mix you have removed your argument from the “physical universe” you claimed you were remaining in.

Because I don't have to entertain every conceivable possibility even if I could.
I am interested in consciousness more than the forms it takes.

Why entertain any “possibilities” when there is no credible evidence to support them?

Nothing. I am neutral in regard to them.

But you agree that the possibility of 'fairies' existing OR tsig’s revered ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ existing is just as likely as the possibility of 'pre-existence consciousness' existing, right? If not why not!

 

[punshhh]

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.

Atheism as demonstrated on this forum includes a veiled claim/assertion that deities do not exist, its everywhere.
When I press the point all I get is the null hypotheses, a rationalisation which cannot even be applied to the issue, due to its reliance on practical utility in the human world.

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.

Perhaps a practical or pragmatic approach, fine. It is a position mute on the issue of the existence of deities though.

 

[punshhh]

Yep, as an atheist I am indeed making the positive claim that there is no god or something very like it out there. I am making that claim based on the complete absence of any evidence for such a god AND the clear evidence that many people believe in many gods. The secondary form takes that latter point that at best there are a lot of gods out there but most contradict immediately since their followers claim the are either the only one OR the only cohesive group of them. As that is clearly and absolutely impossible then there must logically be no gods, just people who for some reason claim there are - out of ignorance, insanity, a need to believe in something greater/to blame their failings on, or for a backup power behind the ways they want others to act. I am perfectly happy to change if any real evidence arrives...
Keep me posted.

Evidence, I doubt sufficient evidence could be provided even if it were true. Yes I agree about your other point. Human frailty is something we have to live with. We are all subject to it, including "scientists" and skeptics.

At the end of the day we/humanity are in the dark in regard of our existence, any purposes to it, or how it is maintained/sustained. We are little better off to address the issue, than the aphid sitting on my IPad is able to comment on the utility of the object it is sitting on.

 

[Navigator]

One is not born with the knowledge of gods; such notions have to be learnt’. Therefore atheism is the default position.

One is not born with knowledge. Therefore your particular understanding of atheism is that as a default position it is a position of ignorance.

I see a mess. Anyone who describes himself as appearing to be an atheist but is not AND been mistaken as being an atheist because I am not a theist can only be described as idiosyncratic.

You see whatever you want to see.

How do you propose that "consciousness" do the investigation without recourse to science? It is through science we investigate the natural universe so presumably you are referring to something ‘other’ than the natural universe. But, whilst claiming repeatedly that there is “more” you have not provided evidence of it except your repetition that "it’s possible”.

Which of course it is. You are incorrect regarding science and consciousness. Without consciousness investigative science would not exist.

ALL evidence indicates that the mind/soul is dependent on the brain and that the brain is dependent upon the body and that when the body perishes the “mind/soul” perishes with it. There is NO serious evidence that suggests otherwise.

It is a good thing not to take things too seriously then.

The Cognitive sciences which embrace philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics and anthropology are the best means of understanding the nature of consciousness. Considerable progress has been made already but none of it suggests that consciousness predates the universe as you continually posit. ALL evidence indicates that ‘consciousnesses’ evolved via natural selection.

Does all evidence indicate that there is no continuation of consciousness in some way which science is unable at present time to determine through any kind of known examination?

By throwing a “possible preexisting consciousness” into the mix you have removed your argument from the “physical universe” you claimed you were remaining in.

How is this the case?

Why entertain any “possibilities” when there is no credible evidence to support them?

Why not?

But you agree that the possibility of 'fairies' existing OR tsig’s revered ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ existing is just as likely as the possibility of 'pre-existence consciousness' existing, right? If not why not!

I prefer to focus on the idea of the possibility of pre existence consciousness rather than any particular form it may or may not be involved within.

 

[Navigator]

What is there to understand? Atheism is true if there is no god. It is false if there is a god, or at least if there is a knowable or involved god.

If an infant's ignorance happens to be ignorance of something that does not exist, then both the person ignorant of the nonexistent and the person asserting that the nonexistent does not exist stand in the same relation to the thing that does not exist, because one cannot know a thing that does not exist.

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

ETA

When you use the word 'know' are you meaning the word 'believe'?

 

[tsig]

Atheism as demonstrated on this forum includes a veiled claim/assertion that deities do not exist, its everywhere.
When I press the point all I get is the null hypotheses, a rationalisation which cannot even be applied to the issue, due to its reliance on practical utility in the human world.Perhaps a practical or pragmatic approach, fine. It is a position mute on the issue of the existence of deities though.

The human world is where I live, do you have another address?

A. God exists.

B. Prove it.


Which one is making a claim?

 

[tsig]

What is there to understand? Atheism is true if there is no god. It is false if there is a god, or at least if there is a knowable or involved god.

If an infant's ignorance happens to be ignorance of something that does not exist, then both the person ignorant of the nonexistent and the person asserting that the nonexistent does not exist stand in the same relation to the thing that does not exist, because one cannot know a thing that does not exist. The fact that some people become atheists or acknowledge atheism after a long and complex search does not mean that the resulting state is not simple, or equivalent to a simple one. It may take me a long time and a lot of running around to determine that a box is empty. But the emptiness has no added quality for my effort.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What is there to understand? Atheism is true if there is no god. It is false if there is a god, or at least if there is a knowable or involved god.

If an infant's ignorance happens to be ignorance of something that does not exist, then both the person ignorant of the nonexistent and the person asserting that the nonexistent does not exist stand in the same relation to the thing that does not exist, because one cannot know a thing that does not exist.

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

ETA

When you use the word 'know' are you meaning the word 'believe'?

First you edited his post without any indication you had done so then you completely changed the meaning of the hilited portion.

If you hold your integrity low everyone else will too.

 

[Tassman]

One is not born with knowledge. Therefore your particular understanding of atheism is that as a default position it is a position of ignorance.

Indeed! ALL knowledge, including that of gods, is learnt therefore the default position regarding gods is atheism.

You see whatever you want to see.

I see contradictions pretending to be an open-minded spirit of inquiry.

Which of course it is. You are incorrect regarding science and consciousness. Without consciousness investigative science would not exist.

You have it back-to-front. Without natural selection consciousness (and ultimately science) would not exist. We have evidence that consciousness evolved to varying degrees in many living creatures. But there is NO evidence that consciousness predates the natural world, which appears to be your position.

It is a good thing not to take things too seriously then.

Um?

Does all evidence indicate that there is no continuation of consciousness in some way which science is unable at present time to determine through any kind of known examination?

YES! ALL evidence indicates that consciousness depends on the brain to exist. The brain does not survive the death of the body. Therefore consciousness does not survive the death of the body.

How is this the case?

Because it is contradictory to refer to “possible preexisting non-material consciousness” on the one hand but claim you are "remaining in the physical universe” on the other hand.

Why not?

Because with no credible evidence to support your “possibility” you may as well just call your notion ‘science-fiction’, write a book and get rich. L Ron Hubbard did.

I prefer to focus on the idea of the possibility of pre existence consciousness rather than any particular form it may or may not be involved within.

Actually, the possibility of Invisible Pink Unicorns is more picturesque than the possibility of preexisting consciousness, but both are improbable – with all due respect to tsig.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Atheism as demonstrated on this forum includes a veiled claim/assertion that deities do not exist, its everywhere.
When I press the point all I get is the null hypotheses, a rationalisation which cannot even be applied to the issue, due to its reliance on practical utility in the human world.

How clever of you to know what other people are thinking. And yes, the null hypothesis can be applied, in exactly the same way as you apply it if someone starts talking about their invisible dragon. Present some evidence, then we'll talk.

Perhaps a practical or pragmatic approach, fine. It is a position mute on the issue of the existence of deities though.

Uh? Atheism says nothing about whether deities exist? I feel like we're speaking different languages.

 

[Brian-M]

Uh? Atheism says nothing about whether deities exist? I feel like we're speaking different languages.

Almost. You're each using different definitions of atheism.

Soft/Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in God(s)
Hard/Strong Atheism: Belief in lack of God(s)

He's using the word "atheism" to refer to the soft or weak atheist position while you're using it to refer to the strong or hard atheist position.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Almost. You're each using different definitions of atheism.

Soft/Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in God(s)
Hard/Strong Atheism: Belief in lack of God(s)

He's using the word "atheism" to refer to the soft or weak atheist position while you're using it to refer to the strong or hard atheist position.

I considered that, although I'm not really wedded to either, but both are statements about (or rather, positions on) the existence or non-existence of God(s). No belief or lack of it affects reality - this is trivial - and either of those positions would constitute an opinion on the nature of reality, as revealed by the available evidence.

A soft/weak atheist believes that there is insufficient evidence of any deities. The hard/strong atheist merely draws the natural conclusion that based on the available evidence, there is (in the words of the bus ad) probably no God. An assessment of the state of the evidence is clearly taking a position on the matter, which isn't significantly changed by the addition of an inferred conclusion.

 

[bruto]

The soft or weak atheist position (what Wikipedia describes as negative atheism) is true regardless of whether or not a god exists, because it's a position of a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in a lack of God.

I suppose in a sense the belief is true even if the thing believed in is false, just as one can be a "true" crackpot. What I meant was that the belief is true if there is no god, and that it is true no matter how it is arrived at.

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

ETA

When you use the word 'know' are you meaning the word 'believe'?

I didn't say I know anything. I am only saying just what I said, which is that you cannot know something that does not exist. You seem to be making the fundamental distinction between what a person who never thought of a nonexistent god knows about god, and what a person who has come to believe there is no god knows about god. I contend there is no difference in the end. If there is an empty box in my garage, and a person does not look in the garage and is unaware of the box, he knows exactly as much about the contents of the box - that is to say nothing - as someone who has gone into the garage, opened it, and found that it contains nothing. The latter person knows more about the box, may deduce why it has no contents, may know many other things, and may be in a better position to make declarations about those, but the box is still empty. Nothing is nothing. Parsing it is pedantry.

 

[Navigator]

Indeed! ALL knowledge, including that of gods, is learnt therefore the default position regarding gods is atheism.

The position of atheism therefore is one of ignorance. Ignorance is the default position of an individual new born human being.

Atheism itself is the specific focus upon theism as something that is in opposition to theism, mostly to do with theist positions regarding gods.

This subject was recently explored in this forum and through that it became apparent that atheism is not altogether understood in any way which is agreed upon by those calling themselves atheists.

Rather than wander down that path - which essentially finds itself going in circles with no clearer definition made available, I set it aside as non essential data in relation to anything else, apart from perhaps, theism.

I see contradictions pretending to be an open-minded spirit of inquiry.

Because that is what you want to see due to your belief structures. The 'contradictions' have not even been presented as evidence. What you 'see' is not evident.

You have it back-to-front. Without natural selection consciousness (and ultimately science) would not exist.

I said: "You are incorrect regarding science and consciousness. Without consciousness investigative science would not exist."

That is not 'back to front'.

We have evidence that consciousness evolved to varying degrees in many living creatures. But there is NO evidence that consciousness predates the natural world, which appears to be your position.

We have evidence that we exist. We and other biological critters on this planet are consciousness.
We do not know the extent of consciousness beyond what can be observed and received as evidence.
We can see by the evidence that consciousness is directly involved in the process of the unfolding universe.
We do not know if there is other consciousness in the universe because there is no evidence. We could not even say as to what extent such consciousness might be enabled because we do not know a lot about the requirements.
We observe from a relatively ignorant position and cannot logically make belief systems out of the data we presently hold as evidence.
We do not even know what is behind the big bang, and even if one day we are able to, what we might find may be another rabbit hole to explore (and lose ourselves in) and it is because of the vast amount of missing data we cannot make positive statements as to what pre existing positions are - in this case about consciousness - when we only have bits of data, and that data is only related to our position on this planet.

Anyone who thus takes the obvious evidence (which I personally am not even refuting) and claims that from this it can be assumed that consciousness did not pre exist, is speaking from a position of ignorance. It is understandable in terms of relativity, but something I personally wouldn't allow to dictate beliefs.
Beliefs are illogical. I understand why individuals think they need them, but they are still illogical.

Be that as it is, I resist any urge to embrace beliefs based on insufficient data as well as I resist those who propagate dogmatic argument to prop up their beliefs.

Be they self identified as theist or atheist, makes no difference to me.

Um?

Let me clarify. When it comes to dogmatism, it is the state of a mind which has formed beliefs base on inconclusive data and takes those beliefs seriously.

YES! ALL evidence indicates that consciousness depends on the brain to exist. The brain does not survive the death of the body. Therefore consciousness does not survive the death of the body.

That is the basis of your belief.

The fault in your assumption may be that the word ALL is being confused for being everything there is to know about consciousness.
What you are better to say is that the small amount of data we have about human consciousness concludes that without the human brain consciousness is not evident and that from this evidence it cannot be concluded that consciousness therefore does not continue after the death of the brain, but it of course looks like that from the particular perspective we observe it from.

On the idea of consciousness pre existing the big bang, such observation of human brains and ALL the evidence procured from those observations cannot in any way conclude anything.

That is a whole other story and one which is most certainly hidden from the investigative eye of present human scientific method.

It is not known if consciousness pre existed, had something to do with the formation of the universe and is presently involved in the exploration of that creation through various forms, including of course, the human form.

It is an idea which interests me.

Because it is contradictory to refer to “possible preexisting non-material consciousness” on the one hand but claim you are "remaining in the physical universe” on the other hand.

In what way is the contradiction apparent to you?

If you are suggesting that one need to have the mind firmly in the realm of the physical universe (all things post big bang) or otherwise one is being contradictory, how will this help scientific method?

What is 'non material consciousness' and why are you assuming or suggesting the pre physical universe was 'non material'?

Because with no credible evidence to support your “possibility” you may as well just call your notion ‘science-fiction’, write a book and get rich. L Ron Hubbard did.

Ron Hubbard started a religion. What has religion got to do with the idea of pre existing consciousness, other than to build beliefs around the idea?

Actually, the possibility of Invisible Pink Unicorns is more picturesque than the possibility of preexisting consciousness, but both are improbable – with all due respect to tsig.

Those are your beliefs which are also apparently dogmatic in nature. The idea is "more picturesque" because it requires form and brains love form.
pre existing consciousness is conceptual absent of any particular form. In pondering upon the notion, I see no logic in making the idea picturesque.

The only notion which might be 'form-like' that I consider possible is that the pre-existing consciousness was uniform. One self aware being.

Of course, as I have mentioned numerous times on this forum, anything to do with pre-existing consciousness (as an idea which is possible) in relation to this universe and its existence can only be spoken of in metaphor and would be practically impossible to fully grasp from our present position within the universe.

 

[Navigator]

I didn't say I know anything. I am only saying just what I said, which is that you cannot know something that does not exist. You seem to be making the fundamental distinction between what a person who never thought of a nonexistent god knows about god, and what a person who has come to believe there is no god knows about god. I contend there is no difference in the end. If there is an empty box in my garage, and a person does not look in the garage and is unaware of the box, he knows exactly as much about the contents of the box - that is to say nothing - as someone who has gone into the garage, opened it, and found that it contains nothing. The latter person knows more about the box, may deduce why it has no contents, may know many other things, and may be in a better position to make declarations about those, but the box is still empty. Nothing is nothing. Parsing it is pedantry.

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

ETA

When you use the word 'know' are you meaning the word 'believe'?

What is this box you are using as metaphor? What are you relating it to exactly?

 

[bruto]

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

ETA

When you use the word 'know' are you meaning the word 'believe'?

What is this box you are using as metaphor? What are you relating it to exactly?

ONce again, you are misreading in the same way you have so far insisted on misreading. I do not say I know or do not know anything. I am saying simply that if a thing does not exist you can not know it, because there is nothing to know. I am not assessing the quality of belief or the lack of belief, the merits of anything. I am simply saying what I am saying, not what you wish I would say. I am not speaking of belief. I am not saying whether the person who claims there is no god is right or wrong. I am only saying that one, obvious thing: that if a thing does not exist it has no qualities that can be known. If atheism of the pure sort (i.e. the belief that there is no god) is correct, then the great wisdom, search, expense and involvement of the person who arrives at that conclusion ends up the same as never having thought of it at all. The person may be wiser, more articulate, and any number of other qualities that are admirable or condemnable depending on your standpoint, but what that person knows about god will be exactly the same as what a newborn person knows about god, because there is absolutely, completely, and perfectly, nothing to know about a thing that does not exist. If you arrive at atheism after a long search, you have arrived back at the condition of an infant with respect to that one thing, though not with respect to anything else. If you are an atheist you presume that no god exists, and since things that do not exist cannot have attributes, you cannot know anything about the thing that does not exist. I am not stating whether this is so, nor even whether it would be possible for a person to know it is so. I am merely stating what would be the condition if it were so. Nothing is nothing, whether you know it or not.

Now if you want to go on arguing that I'm talking about something else, go ahead. And if you want to try to assert that nothing is something, go right ahead. But all I'm trying to say is that nothing is nothing. It is the same nothing, whether you know it, believe it, or never thought a moment about it.

I am simply saying what I say, and disputing your claim that atheism cannot be both the default state of a newborn and the result of thought. IF no god exists, it cannot be otherwise than the same, because the subject (God) is devoid of content.

 

[Brian-M]

I suppose in a sense the belief is true even if the thing believed in is false, just as one can be a "true" crackpot. What I meant was that the belief is true if there is no god, and that it is true no matter how it is arrived at.

My point was that the soft/weak atheist position is a lack of belief, and therefore cannot be wrong.

If it turns out that there isn't a God then it wasn't wrong because there was no belief that a God existed.
If it turns out that there is a God, then it wasn't wrong because there was no belief that a God didn't exist.

Either way, it's not wrong.

ETA: Of course, either way it's not right either. Right and wrong don't apply. It's a neutral position.

 

[RayG]

At the end of the day we/humanity are in the dark in regard of our existence, any purposes to it, or how it is maintained/sustained.

So if we don't know, why do some assert a god is the cause?

RayG