Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Frozenwolf150]

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

RayG

Because the ignorance of humanity is the last refuge of a desperate God.

 

[bruto]

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.

True enough, just as a thing that does not exist has no attributes, a true lack of faith such as infants possess, at least in that critical seven seconds of song, also has no attributes and cannot be said to "be" anything at all.

Nonetheless, if one arrives at a lack of faith because one is convinced that its object does not exist, one's knowledge of the object is the same as that of one who never considered the question in the first place. If gods are the subject of the conversation, an infant for whom the word "faith" is not even applicable, and a 90 year old theologian who concludes that faith has no subject, are both atheists. If you have no faith, then you have none, whether or not you had the chance.

 

[Navigator]

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.

So what is the thing that you know does not exist? God?

 

[Aridas]

So what is the thing that you know does not exist? God?

...You are seriously having issues with reading comprehension, yet again, and trying to push your biases and beliefs in where they're not applicable, yet again. Given what bruto said, it doesn't matter what the thing is, just that it doesn't actually exist.

Even if he were to give you that he thinks that "God," which you obstinately refuse to use in a manner that's less indicative of one specific god, doesn't exist and you argued against that, like you seem like you really, really want to... that would be quite irrelevant to the general point that he was making. It would have nothing to do with whether or not "God" actually is non-existent, given the arguments that you've employed so far. It would have nothing to do with whether the statement was accurate with regards to non-existent things.

Given that it's, at best, nothing more than a distraction that does not address what he said in any honest manner and thus is nothing more than you trying to change the subject to one where you think that you can score some point and likely, convince yourself that the other person's wrong by invoking fallacious reasoning as is usually the case with people who employ tactics like that, I'd suggest you simply stop trying to pursue that line of argument, show that I'm actually wrong about the validity of it, or accept the title "Dishonest Debater."

 

[Tassman]

What is the thing that you know does not exist?

You've typically twisted what bruto said. He didn't indicate anything in particular that didn't exist. He is saying that if something (anything) doesn't exist there is no possible way one can know it. In short, one cannot have knowledge of the non-existent.

 

[Tassman]

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.

“Ignorance” implies a lack of knowledge which can be remedied by instruction or experience. But there is there is no way to “remedy” the non-belief in gods because there is no good evidence that they exist. One can’t know the non-existent; to call this “ignorance” is a misuse of the word.

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.

No. Not what I want to see but what I actually see and it has nothing to do with my belief structures and everything to do with your own obscurantism.

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

That is not 'back to front'.

You are typically misrepresenting the argument. You posited the POSSIBILITY (let’s not forget your perpetual escape clause) that consciousness predates the physical universe. THIS is what’s back-to-front. All the available evidence indicates that consciousness arose as a consequence of natural selection; there is no credible evidence that consciousness predates the universe.

We have evidence that we exist. We and other biological critters on this planet are consciousness.

Yes.

We do not know the extent of consciousness beyond what can be observed and received as evidence.

Correct. But nor do we have reason to believe that consciousness exists "beyond what can be observed and received as evidence" at least in principle.

We can see by the evidence that consciousness is directly involved in the process of the unfolding universe.

Typically vague and misleading! We can see by the evidence that consciousness is a consequence of the “unfolding universe NOT that it preceded 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.

We can conclude a great deal about consciousness from the data we presently hold as evidence. And in ALL of it consciousness depends upon the physical substrate provided by the material universe to exist; without it it ceases to exist. There is no reason whatsoever to think that consciousness in other parts of the universe is any different in this regard. To posit that it's "POSSIBLE" is mere conjecture unsupported by evidence.

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.

They are not “speaking from a position of ignorance”. They are speaking on the basis of available evidence - in marked contrast to anyone speculating about the improbable “POSSIBILITY” of consciousness preexisting “the unfolding universe” for which there is no evidence.

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.

You may not “embrace beliefs based on insufficient data”, but you take notions like “preexistence consciousness” far too seriously given that they are unsupported by any serious evidence.

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.

As opposed to scientific knowledge which is formed on the basis of inferences and deductions of observed phenomena, which is my position but not yours it seems. See above re POSSIBLE notions based on no supporting data.

That is the basis of your belief.

Correct! Solid, verifiable evidence is the basis of my belief as opposed to fanciful speculation. ALL the available evidence indicates that consciousness does not survive the death of the body. There is no credible evidence for any alternative hypothesis.

The fault in your assumption may be that the word ALL is being confused for being everything there is to know about consciousness.

I’m saying is that the very least we know about consciousness is that it depends on the material brain to exist, that the brain does not survive the death of the body and therefore consciousness does not survive the death of the body. This does not necessarily equate with “everything there is to know about consciousness”, but it clearly limits consciousness to the material brain or a physical substrate. Conversely, there’s not a shred of evidence to support your idée fixe of a pre-existent 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.

Exactly! It is not known. There is no reason to think it did OR that it might have had something to do with the "formation of the universe" or the "human form". This is baseless speculation more in keeping with fantasy-fiction or New Age woo.

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'?

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m picking you up on your contradiction that on the one hand you refer to “possible preexisting non-material consciousness” (whatever that might mean) but on the other hand you claim you are "remaining in the physical universe”. All your words, not mine.

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?

A throwaway remark intended to compare your unsubstantiated fantasies with those of L. Ron Hubbard!

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.

An idea which is possible but improbable to the extent it may readily be discarded – like that of invisible pink unicorns, which was the point of the comparison.

 

[bruto]

So what is the thing that you know does not exist? God?

Paragraph after paragraph I reiterate that I am making no statement about what I or anyone else knows. I am stating that if something does not exist its nonexistence is complete. IF a thing does not exist, there is nothing to know about it, and you will never know more about it than a newborn. IF IF IF IF IF! If a thing does not exist, then naif ignorance and the studied determination of non-being result in exactly the same knowledge of the properties of that thing, because it has none. IF IF IF IF IF it does not exist, it has no properties to know.

 

[Navigator]

Paragraph after paragraph I reiterate that I am making no statement about what I or anyone else knows. I am stating that if something does not exist its nonexistence is complete. IF a thing does not exist, there is nothing to know about it, and you will never know more about it than a newborn. IF IF IF IF IF! If a thing does not exist, then naif ignorance and the studied determination of non-being result in exactly the same knowledge of the properties of that thing, because it has none. IF IF IF IF IF it does not exist, it has no properties to know.

Right so IF something exists and is unknown it cannot be said it does not exist.

You are not stating you know anything about anything which is not apparent or otherwise available for scrutiny. There are no properties to know, and in some cases the properties assigned to the idea make the idea of that thing non measurable.


I still think atheism is something which requires theism, and as such it is not a default position because a baby does not require theism ... atheism is a compulsive reaction in relation to theism and requires a certain type of position within the structure of thought and deductive reasoning based within the confines of the observable, most specifically in relation to 'god' ideas, which for the most part are theist in origin.

 

[Navigator]

I am neither atheist or theist and the circular arguments requiring that individuals be one or the other as if those were the only choices (and atheism being the only rational choice) are practically meaningless.

If atheism is the default position according to some beliefs, then those beliefs were formed through the existence of theism, rather than actually being true.

Ignorance is the default position.

Atheism is something learned.

One learns that they lack belief in god ideas after having encountered those ideas, ordinarily from theism.

One can claim 'oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby'. But it is not the same type of lack. It is lack based upon knowledge in which the position is chosen once the data is assessed and processed by the individuals brain. It is a personal choice to lack belief in god ideas (the data of) and that is simply data a baby does not have the ability to deal with.

If god ideas sourced in theism were non existent, then atheism would be meaningless. There would be no such thing as atheism.

Which is to say that if theism did not exist, atheism would not exist.

In this way both positions are responsible for the existence of each other, and are equally meaningless for that.

 

[RayG]

Right so IF something exists and is unknown it cannot be said it does not exist.

You mean like fairies, sasquatches, fire-breathing dragons, werewolves, mermaids, chupacabras, unicorns, angels, leprechauns, loch ness monsters, and gods?

Praise Zeus, King of the gods.

RayG

 

[bruto]

Right so IF something exists and is unknown it cannot be said it does not exist.

It can be said, but the person saying it would be wrong. Of course in certain areas, such a theology, we may never know.

You are not stating you know anything about anything which is not apparent or otherwise available for scrutiny. There are no properties to know, and in some cases the properties assigned to the idea make the idea of that thing non measurable.

I am not stating anything about anything that exists, or about what I know or claim to know or claim not to know. I presume that people who believe the non-apparent exists can infer certain properties, through logic, philosophy, or pure guesswork, which might or might not be true. We can evaluate them for wisdom or likelihood or philosophical beauty, but cannot prove or disprove them.

I still think atheism is something which requires theism, and as such it is not a default position because a baby does not require theism ... atheism is a compulsive reaction in relation to theism and requires a certain type of position within the structure of thought and deductive reasoning based within the confines of the observable, most specifically in relation to 'god' ideas, which for the most part are theist in origin.

It is with this last part that I disagree. I understand what you are saying, and agree that expressed, or professed atheism requires some thought and if one is going to bother to express it, it requires that theism exist. We do not need to deny the existence of something nobody has ever though of. But I still believe that the end result of atheism, which is to say the absence of faith and the presumption that there is nothing divine about which there can be any knowledge, adds up the same, even if the persons doing it run the entire gamut from newborn infants to disenchanted old theologians. We can easily say, as you do, that the expression of an atheist position requires that theism exist somewhere, but I say, as well, that the expression and the actuality are not the same thing.

 

[Navigator]

It can be said, but the person saying it would be wrong. Of course in certain areas, such a theology, we may never know.

Sure. Fairies, sasquatches, fire-breathing dragons, werewolves, mermaids, chupacabras, unicorns, angels, leprechauns, loch ness monsters, and gods might exist as realities somewhere and do exist as ideas certainly. That they actually exist we may never know and it is not something I personally dedicate much thought toward.
Most of those ideas are not even sourced in theism. They bear no importance in relation to atheism just on that fact.


Consciousness might continue after death of the body but we would only know that when it happened. Until that moment, we will never know.

I am not stating anything about anything that exists, ...

I know ideas exist.

or about what I know or claim to know or claim not to know. I presume that people who believe the non-apparent exists can infer certain properties, through logic, philosophy, or pure guesswork, which might or might not be true.

We will never know in our present positions, regarding the validity of those kinds of ideas.

We can evaluate them for wisdom or likelihood or philosophical beauty, but cannot prove or disprove them.

That is the fact of the matter yes.

It is with this last part that I disagree.

Okay.

I understand what you are saying, and agree that expressed, or professed atheism requires some thought and if one is going to bother to express it, it requires that theism exist. We do not need to deny the existence of something nobody has ever though of.

Okay we are still presently on the same page...

But I still believe that the end result of atheism, which is to say the absence of faith and the presumption that there is nothing divine about which there can be any knowledge, adds up the same, even if the persons doing it run the entire gamut from newborn infants to disenchanted old theologians. We can easily say, as you do, that the expression of an atheist position requires that theism exist somewhere, but I say, as well, that the expression and the actuality are not the same thing.

Okay well then - while I was writing the post you now comment on, those thoughts were part of my assessment of the subject.
What I thought was that some think atheism is simply a position which is not here nor there and when 'it' become something here or there it shifts position and cannot be entirely honestly regarded as 'atheism' anymore because of that shift. The position becomes proactive and focused upon theism and theist ideas in definitive concerted expressions which are not really 'atheist' (which is neither here nor there) but are something else to which atheism is assumed.

Lets face it, there are any number of individuals involved in expressing in no uncertain terms that they are 'atheists' and that they owe their activism to being atheist and self identify as atheists and want others to know specifically that they express themselves the way that they do BECAUSE they are atheists....yet these are not the same thing. There is no expression of atheism as a position.

Words like 'faith' and 'divinity' are traditionally theist ideas. If someone says they lack these expressions, they do so in relation to theism.

 

[Aridas]

One can claim 'oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby'. But it is not the same type of lack.

I seem to recall multiple threads where you tried and failed to argue against atheism being what it is. At no point in any of them did anyone say that babies lack belief for the same reasons or in the same way that someone who expresses an atheistic position does, but rather that they simply both qualify as lack of belief. Further, I pointed out that making claims like you just suggested is inherently contradictory, which is enough to negate their validity anyways.

 

[Aridas]

Consciousness might continue after death of the body but we would only know that when it happened. Until that moment, we will never know.

Again, you're demonstrating poor logic... and on a point where you've been corrected multiple times before. Even if consciousness continued after death, that doesn't mean that it would happen in a way where we either would or could know that it's continuing after death. As you've said, you're supposedly referring to something that may well be completely alien to consciousness as we know it, yet, you're trying to claim that it's just like consciousness as we know it when you're trying to talk about it like this. For that matter, consciousness that continues after death could potentially be confirmed to be the case via scientific means, if it actually were the case and happened via reliably testable means. By making statements like the quoted, you're ruling out numerous possibilities that are exactly as likely, as far as we can tell, illogically, inconsistently, and arbitrarily.

 

[Tassman]

I am neither atheist or theist and the circular arguments requiring that individuals be one or the other as if those were the only choices (and atheism being the only rational choice) are practically meaningless.

If atheism is the default position according to some beliefs, then those beliefs were formed through the existence of theism, rather than actually being true.

Ignorance is the default position.

Atheism is something learned.

“Atheism” is a necessary ‘catch-all” designating lack of belief in any of the deities proclaimed by religionists. If there was a dominant belief in Unicorns and we had active proselytizers for the existence of Unicorns we would probably be a-unicorn-ists, but in our culture it’s not necessary. The “word “atheist” has no more significance than this. It is a reaction to those making nonsensical, unevidenced claims.

One learns that they lack belief in god ideas after having encountered those ideas, ordinarily from theism.

One can claim 'oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby'. But it is not the same type of lack. It is lack based upon knowledge in which the position is chosen once the data is assessed and processed by the individuals brain. It is a personal choice to lack belief in god ideas (the data of) and that is simply data a baby does not have the ability to deal with.

If god ideas sourced in theism were non existent, then atheism would be meaningless. There would be no such thing as atheism.

Which is to say that if theism did not exist, atheism would not exist.
In this way both positions are responsible for the existence of each other, and are equally meaningless for that.

Well of course! “Atheism”, as a concept, only exists because of the dominance of theism. We don’t need such negating words for most of the un-evidenced nonsense we are confronted with; e.g. it’s just not necessary to coin a word for non-believers in pyramid-power or astrology. But, sadly, it is for non-believers in theism. In a better world it would not be necessary - the notion of gods would be as unlikely as leprechauns.

 

[Navigator]

I seem to recall multiple threads where you tried and failed to argue against atheism being what it is. At no point in any of them did anyone say that babies lack belief for the same reasons or in the same way that someone who expresses an atheistic position does, but rather that they simply both qualify as lack of belief. Further, I pointed out that making claims like you just suggested is inherently contradictory, which is enough to negate their validity anyways.

What claims?

So they 'both qualify' as 'lack of belief. It is quite irreverent to bring the default condition of a baby into an argument claiming (or even inferring) atheism is a lack of belief and since babies have no beliefs, atheism must be the default setting.
My previous recent posts here show this to be a silly way to think.

 

[Navigator]

Again, you're demonstrating poor logic... and on a point where you've been corrected multiple times before. Even if consciousness continued after death, that doesn't mean that it would happen in a way where we either would or could know that it's continuing after death. As you've said, you're supposedly referring to something that may well be completely alien to consciousness as we know it, yet, you're trying to claim that it's just like consciousness as we know it when you're trying to talk about it like this. For that matter, consciousness that continues after death could potentially be confirmed to be the case via scientific means, if it actually were the case and happened via reliably testable means. By making statements like the quoted, you're ruling out numerous possibilities that are exactly as likely, as far as we can tell, illogically, inconsistently, and arbitrarily.

You have conflated the two ideas regarding consciousness. Pre existing (to the big bang) consciousness would be beyond our comprehension and could only be spoken of in metaphor.
An individual consciousness continuing after death of the body may well retain its sense of 'self identity' in relation to where it came from and how it sees itself.
Science at present time of course is not a great method for determining if such does take place.
The idea of consciousness continuing after the death of the body in some other environment/situation, would most surely be completely alien to the present situation as we (individuate consciousness) know it.
In one case we have the idea of consciousness which can only be spoken of in metaphor and the other idea is the situation which can only be spoken of in metaphor.

 

[Navigator]

“Atheism” is a necessary ‘catch-all” designating lack of belief in any of the deities proclaimed by religionists. If there was a dominant belief in Unicorns and we had active proselytizers for the existence of Unicorns we would probably be a-unicorn-ists, but in our culture it’s not necessary. The “word “atheist” has no more significance than this. It is a reaction to those making nonsensical, unevidenced claims.

Skepticism coupled with anti theist/'spiritual' sentiments is the reaction to these things.
Atheism is not a reaction to anything. It is a lack of belief in god ideas.

 

[Aridas]

What claims?

If you had paid any attention to the part where there was only one claim that you suggested in the quoted and that it's not the first time that you've tried to make a similar claim, it would be overwhelmingly obvious. Still, I'll back up my statement, yet again, when you have yet to back up numerous claims of yours.

One can claim 'oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby'.

Again, yes, someone could claim that. Claims like that invalidate themselves, though, and can simply be dismissed from the discussion.

So they 'both qualify' as 'lack of belief.

Yes.

It is quite irreverent to bring the default condition of a baby into an argument claiming (or even inferring) atheism is a lack of belief and since babies have no beliefs, atheism must be the default setting.

So, why did you do it, when you understand that much? Peering back in the discussion, Tassman certainly wasn't doing that at any point. Nor was bruto.

My previous recent posts here show this to be a silly way to think.

And that would be a fine thing... if anyone was making the argument that you tried to project onto them.

 

[Navigator]

If you had paid any attention to the part where there was only one claim that you suggested in the quoted and that it's not the first time that you've tried to make a similar claim, it would be overwhelmingly obvious. Still, I'll back up my statement, yet again, when you have yet to back up numerous claims of yours.

As usual you neglect to show these 'claims' I have made. My position is that this does not annoy me. As I have said to you before, it bores me.

Again, yes, someone could claim that. Claims like that invalidate themselves, though, and can simply be dismissed from the discussion.

Ignored? This would open up the likelihood of others mis representing themselves as 'atheists' and atheism being misrepresented.
Rather such was not dismissed.

Yes.

Yet they do not both strictly qualify as atheism.

Question: "Baby, are you an atheist?"

Answer: "Goo goo ga ga"

So why are you an atheist? The answer is that you lack belief in the idea of gods.

The idea of gods come mainly from the theist sector. In order for you to claim to be an atheist has everything to do with you knowing about ideas of god and knowing that you lack belief in those ideas.

Anything else attached to this position is additional to what atheism is.