To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[Navigator]

If an atheist believes in a thing that is not a god, then that belief has nothing to do with their atheism.

Partly true.

It does however have a bearing on what type of 'atheist' they can be labelled as.

If their beliefs are such that they argue that god(s) do not exist, they are a particular type of atheist.

The point of the thread topic is that to begin with, the creation of atheism and its associated subsets revolve around a question framed in belief rather than knowledge.

If the question was one framed with 'lack of knowledge' rather 'than lack of belief,' then an agnostic would not be required to have the prefix or suffix 'atheist' attached to it, nor could it be easily claimed that everyone not a theist must therefore be an atheist.
Nor could it be so easy for someone to argue their beliefs 'in the name of' atheism, which itself causes confusion.

There are more to human beings than merely 'theists' and 'atheists' and neither theism or atheism should be the foundation of that which humanity stands upon in relation to overall identification.

 

[Navigator]

Incorrect - I'm an agnostic-atheist not merely an agnostic.

In relation to the framed question, you are an agnostic. Same rules apply. You are an 'agnostic-atheist' in relation to another framed question (to do with belief) and that question is different from the knowledge based question asked in this thread.

So my agnostic friend, how does it feel to be called something you are not that comfortable with? Just 'merely' an agnostic?

 

[ynot]

In relation to the framed question, you are an agnostic. Same rules apply. You are an 'agnostic-atheist' in relation to another framed question (to do with belief) and that question is different from the knowledge based question asked in this thread.

So my agnostic friend, how does it feel to be called something you are not that comfortable with? Just 'merely' an agnostic?

I will leave you to your "confusion".

 

[Navigator]

The only thing I can see is your confusion (that's putting it nicely).

I will assume that's game over.

Retractable opinion not relevant to the topic

YES SIR, CAPTAIN SIR.

Your little whine last night had me laughing. Keep up the good work.

Sorry but I'm not sure exactly what "whine" you mean (I've had so many).

Okay, I think I know. Different time zones and all that (last night)

PM related chit chat unrelated to thread topic.

 

[Navigator]

I will leave you to your "confusion".

Retractable opinion not relevant to the topic - ie - not an argument.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The correct question regarding god(s) existing or not should not be one involving belief or lack of belief.

The correct question therefore would be:

Q: Do you know god(s) exist or do not exist?

The possible answers therefore can be:

"I don't know" or "I do Know".

That is simply the wrong question.

To truly know something you must have actual knowledge of it, but you can still believe without knowledge. Theists embrace belief without knowledge - therefore it's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Similarly, atheists cannot honestly say they 'know' that no gods exist - only that they believe it (you can't prove a negative!).

The divisions between Theism/Agnosticism/Atheism are of belief, not knowledge. Therefore you cannot separate them with a question about knowledge. With the same knowledge, an Atheist believes it proves no gods exist, while an Agnostic believes that knowledge is insufficient to know whether gods exist or not.

 

[Pup]

But some atheists do have beliefs, so therefore - at least according to them, belief does have something to do with Atheism.

Darat,

Q: Do you know god(s) exist or do not exist?

(Does being an atheist prevent you from answering this question?)

Are you asking that question, or the question "Do you know god(s) exist?"

The version you asked Darat (which I'd answer yes to) seems to imply the shortened version is actually "Do you know whether god(s) exist?" (which I'd also answer yes to).

But it could also mean "Do you knowthat god(s) exist?" That's trickier. No, I don't know that god(s) exist, because I know they don't exist.

If one concludes from the "no" answer that the person must be the same as one who is unsure, that conclusion is, well, just a strange quirk that tells nothing relevant about the person.

"Do you know you're six feet tall?" you ask a short person. The person answers no. Does that mean you should conclude you've found a person who's unsure of his own height?

 

[Pup]

That is simply the wrong question.

To truly know something you must have actual knowledge of it, but you can still believe without knowledge. Theists embrace belief without knowledge - therefore it's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Similarly, atheists cannot honestly say they 'know' that no gods exist - only that they believe it (you can't prove a negative!).

Of course, one can wander into philosophical questions about the limitations of knowledge. But under normal circumstances, I'd say that one can know that no gods exist, the same way one can know that there are no unicorns or mermaids. It's a matter of looking where you'd expect to find evidence and not finding it, in combination with learning how the human mind works and tendencies it tends to have toward imagining things.

If one claims that we can't really know there are no unicorns or mermaids, I'd agree if one is including things like solipsism. We could all be brains in a vat and there is no planet earth at all. But for normal usage of "know," I think unicorns, mermaids and gods all fit in the same category.

 

[Navigator]

That is simply the wrong question.

To truly know something you must have actual knowledge of it, but you can still believe without knowledge. Theists embrace belief without knowledge - therefore it's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Similarly, atheists cannot honestly say they 'know' that no gods exist - only that they believe it (you can't prove a negative!).

The divisions between Theism/Agnosticism/Atheism are of belief, not knowledge. Therefore you cannot separate them with a question about knowledge. With the same knowledge, an Atheist believes it proves no gods exist, while an Agnostic believes that knowledge is insufficient to know whether gods exist or not.

You seem to be stating that the question has to be belief based, because there is no thing about atheism which is not actually anything but belief based.

So therefore if an agnostic is someone who believes that knowledge is insufficient to know whether gods exist or not, then agnosticism is belief based.

(If that is the case then I am not able to identify as being agnostic because I simply say "I don't know" which is not belief based.)

If that is the case, then is there anything about atheism which is not belief based and if there is, then why does the question have to be belief based?

 

[John Jones]

To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[...].

Get to your point.

 

[Navigator]

Are you asking that question, or the question "Do you know god(s) exist?"

I have substituted the word 'believe' for the word 'know'

Q: Do you know god(s) exist? or
Q: Q: Do you know god(s) do not exist?

The version you asked Darat (which I'd answer yes to) seems to imply the shortened version is actually "Do you know whether god(s) exist?" (which I'd also answer yes to).

But it could also mean "Do you knowthat god(s) exist?" That's trickier. No, I don't know that god(s) exist, because I know they don't exist.

If the question "do you believe god(s) exist" can be asked without adding 'whether' etc, then it should be okay to do so with this question too.

If one concludes from the "no" answer that the person must be the same as one who is unsure, that conclusion is, well, just a strange quirk that tells nothing relevant about the person.

I would say that labeling others to suit one's own position, is just a strange quirk that tells nothing relevant about the person.. Still it happens all the time and it thus appears to be important to those doing the labeling.

"Do you know you're six feet tall?" you ask a short person. The person answers no. Does that mean you should conclude you've found a person who's unsure of his own height?

I don't understand the example above and how it relates to the question.

Would it be the same as saying to the short person "Do you believe you're six feet tall?" The person answers "no" and thus I conclude that I have found a person I can label as being unsure of his own height?

 

[Navigator]

Of course, one can wander into philosophical questions about the limitations of knowledge. But under normal circumstances, I'd say that one can know that no gods exist, the same way one can know that there are no unicorns or mermaids. It's a matter of looking where you'd expect to find evidence and not finding it, in combination with learning how the human mind works and tendencies it tends to have toward imagining things.

If one claims that we can't really know there are no unicorns or mermaids, I'd agree if one is including things like solipsism. We could all be brains in a vat and there is no planet earth at all. But for normal usage of "know," I think unicorns, mermaids and gods all fit in the same category.

Specifically atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc are not concerned with unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns etc.

Such as is the case, bringing these into the thread discussion as argument is more useful for distraction than relevance.

IOW - retractable.

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, I've read through this entire thread and, other than temporizing about the definitions of knowledge and belief, I'm not sure I've found any other meaning.

 

[Navigator]

Get to your point.

Pointless comment. Retractable.

Do you see the point of the OP? It is all about the framework of the question being asked as to what the answer can be and thus what others can label you as being based on the answer you give.

 

[Navigator]

Well, I've read through this entire thread and, other than temporizing about the definitions of knowledge and belief, I'm not sure I've found any other meaning.

If you don't understand the meaning of the OP, and the thread content hasn't helped you, perhaps there is no necessity to make any comment at all?

 

[abaddon]

Specifically atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc are not concerned with unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns etc.

Such as is the case, bringing these into the thread discussion as argument is more useful for distraction than relevance.

IOW - retractable.

What you are attempting is a false dichotomy wrapped up in a strawman in order to find an imaginary gap into which you can insert your own particular flavour of "spiritualism". You have avoided particular "spiritualism" because you seek, or even must require, that the "gap" be first established before whatever belief may be mentioned, let alone inserted into this imaginary gap.

It's a common rhetorical trick.

 

[John Jones]

Pointless comment. Retractable.
Do you see the point of the OP? .

No.

 

[John Jones]

[...] perhaps there is no necessity to make any comment the opening post at all?

FIFY

 

[Dinwar]

Navigator does raise a good point though: the options are NOT "I believe" and "I don't believe". The option "I don't know" is always valid, in as much as it is always a potentially true answer. This is accepted in literally every other area where the question can arise. For example, Ayn Rand once commented that she had not studied evolutionary theory, and therefore was not itis advocate or opponent--she said, essentially, that she was agnostic on the topic. As a philosopher and author, that's a reasonable stance to take. No one would go around demanding that I REALLY am an anti-whatever if I delcined to answer a question about electircal engineering. A scientist is expected to say, when appropriate, "That's something I haven't studied, so I can't answer that."

It's only in religion where anyone considers it acceptable to place "I don't know" in the "I don't believe" bin. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure that one could have an absolute field day with the jinking and juking folks here are using to distort even simple arguments to pretend that "I don't know" isn't an option.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's only in religion where anyone considers it acceptable to place "I don't know" in the "I don't believe" bin.

I don't think so. The null position is to refuse to believe any proposition without sufficient evidence. One who does not know has insufficient evidence to form a conclusion. Therefore, that person should not believe.

In any case, this entire line of thinking appears to be based on the very loose convergence and divergence of the words "know" and "believe." It's a linguistic trick. There is no philosophy behind it. We might as well argue whether Barack Obama is black.