Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[Vigile]

i was simply RESPONDING to Vigile's falalcy logic when he told me jesus didnt have a contemporary so beleive in hi was invalid

 

Your paraphrase is odd, but explain to me why it's a fallacy to withhold belief when reasonable evidence is absent.

 

Mind you, I make no claim that Jesus didn't exist.  I simply point out that evidence for his existence is verrrrry shaky. 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

 

exactly you hide in a corner hoping your stance or position is not open of attack or examination, that is a nutral agnostic stance not an atheistic one, if you want to be agnostic fine but dont be full atheist acting like an agnostic. Furthermore as i stated before its not enitrely nuetral, when you lack beleif in something, you have a BELIEF that something is TRUE that caused you to have that LACK of beleif about something else

 

 

You should learn what atheist and agnostic actually mean.  You are misusing the terms.

 

Atheism means without belief in gods.

 

Agnostic means without claims of knowledge.

 

 

You don't get to change the meanings of words in order to advance your personal agenda.

 

You dont get to change the meanings of words in order to misrepresent me granted probably ona ccident not accusing you directly. But i said Atheist not Atheism entirely different. Atheist is the person and Atheism is more a general description of those who ARE atheist.

an agnostic has without claims of knowledge ok so what does an Atheist hae? Do they both lack a claim?

 

Futhermore i disagree for the nuetral position as i told FLoruh If someone lack beleif in God they msot likely believe in science reason and logic. That is what i mean by if you lack beleif in x then you BELIEVE in something else to support the lack of belief in X because what you DO BELEIVE caused you to come to that conclusion. Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

[Neverlandrut]

Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

 

Precisely! Reliance on the scientific method can rightly be called a "belief" in the scientific method. But that "belief" is not without merit. The scientific method has been the most consistent way ever derived that distinguishes between what we think to be true and what is actually true. We all have beliefs, true. But not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are justified because there is evidence to support them, to varying degrees depending upon how much evidence there is and how well it supports the beliefs, and some beliefs are not justified.

 

Atheism, in the stripped down definition of the word, is not a claim. It is the rejection of a particular claim precisely because it is not well defended. Not all conclusions must be defended directly. Look up the concept of the null hypothesis in statistics. It is the default assumption that there is no relationship between two sets of data. This is a kin to falsifiability in science. In regard to the god claim, it would go something like this:

 

Either god does exist

Or god does not exist

 

These are the only two logical options. God cannot half exist or 2/3 exist. It is logically one or the other. A true dichotomy.

 

God does exist: alternative hypothesis (in statistics terms)

God does not exist: null hypothesis

 

The alternative hypothesis is the one that gets tested, because if one can make an accurate determination about the alternative hypothesis, then one can also make an accurate determination about the null hypothesis by extension. When an alternative hypothesis is tested but there is insufficient data to determine if it is true, then the default assumption (null hypothesis) is accepted. This does not positively prove anything. It is still logically possible that the alternative hypothesis could be true. But with insufficient evidence to show the alternative hypothesis is correct, the null hypothesis must logically be accepted until such time as new data is gathered which proves the alternative hypothesis.

[florduh]

Florudh

If someone lack beleif in God they msot likely believe in science reason and logic. That is what i mean by if you lack beleif in x then you BELIEVE in something else to support the lack of belief in X because what you DO BELEIVE caused you to come to that conclusion. Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

 

Obviously, I and other rational people hold a well founded belief that facts trump guesses and logical inference is more useful and accurate than wishful thinking. Such a well founded belief isn't comparable in any way to an unreasoned, unproven and unfounded belief in invisible realms that are taken on faith.

 

So I confess; I do believe that facts, reasoning and logic lead to more reliable models of reality than do guesses, dreams, hallucinations and "revealed" wisdom of ancient tribesmen.

 

None of this, however, helps the case you're attempting to make. The "beliefs" you're attempting to compare are the proverbial oranges and horse apples. I do not expect you to agree or perhaps even understand the distinction, but others are reading and learning.

[Vigile]

 

Florudh

If someone lack beleif in God they msot likely believe in science reason and logic. That is what i mean by if you lack beleif in x then you BELIEVE in something else to support the lack of belief in X because what you DO BELEIVE caused you to come to that conclusion. Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

 

Obviously, I and other rational people hold a well founded belief that facts trump guesses and logical inference is more useful and accurate than wishful thinking. Such a well founded belief isn't comparable in any way to an unreasoned, unproven and unfounded belief in invisible realms that are taken on faith.

 

So I confess; I do believe that facts, reasoning and logic lead to more reliable models of reality than do guesses, dreams, hallucinations and "revealed" wisdom of ancient tribesmen.

 

None of this, however, helps the case you're attempting to make. The "beliefs" you're attempting to compare are the proverbial oranges and horse apples. I do not expect you to agree or perhaps even understand the distinction, but others are reading and learning.

 

 

There ya go.  Wordsmith has spoken. 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

you make

 

Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

Precisely! Reliance on the scientific method can rightly be called a "belief" in the scientific method. But that "belief" is not without merit. The scientific method has been the most consistent way ever derived that distinguishes between what we think to be true and what is actually true. We all have beliefs, true. But not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are justified because there is evidence to support them, to varying degrees depending upon how much evidence there is and how well it supports the beliefs, and some beliefs are not justified.

Atheism, in the stripped down definition of the word, is not a claim. It is the rejection of a particular claim precisely because it is not well defended. Not all conclusions must be defended directly. Look up the concept of the null hypothesis in statistics. It is the default assumption that there is no relationship between two sets of data. This is a kin to falsifiability in science. In regard to the god claim, it would go something like this:

Either god does exist
Or god does not exist

These are the only two logical options. God cannot half exist or 2/3 exist. It is logically one or the other. A true dichotomy.

God does exist: alternative hypothesis (in statistics terms)
God does not exist: null hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis is the one that gets tested, because if one can make an accurate determination about the alternative hypothesis, then one can also make an accurate determination about the null hypothesis by extension. When an alternative hypothesis is tested but there is insufficient data to determine if it is true, then the default assumption (null hypothesis) is accepted. This does not positively prove anything. It is still logically possible that the alternative hypothesis could be true. But with insufficient evidence to show the alternative hypothesis is correct, the null hypothesis must logically be accepted until such time as new data is gathered which proves the alternative hypothesis.

I must say you make good points although if you study language broken down Atheism is A(no) Theism (God) equals NO God that is a defivinitive claim that needs to be defended, so because of this conundrum Atheist switch gears to probably does not exist, be just because something is improbable doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt true. Its improbabaly that 300 spartans could take out as many people as they did, but didnt change the fact that i happened. And second Probably God doesnt exist still poses a few problems, people dont really live their life that way, you dont board a plane that says "probably safe or eat food that says this food is probably safe,  the end conclusion of God Probably doesnt exist is a truth claim about what the believe as the END result or conclusion and as stated before conclusions are claims you cant say God probably doesnt exist in a casual nonchalant way and the seriousness of a truth claim dictates the amount of evidence necessary to support it

[Storm]

After having read this thread, I feel like putting my two cents worth in.

 

It is my opinion that the default for any setting should be "I don't know". Not atheism or agnosticism. I don't know is the only true unbiased starting point.

 

Webster's defines belief as:

 

"1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

 2. something believed; especially :  a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 

 3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

Webster's defines Atheism as:

 "a disbelief in the existence of deity

  the doctrine that there is no deity"

 

Webster's defines disbelief as:

 "the act of disbelieving:  mental rejection of something as untrue"

 

Based on these specific definitions, atheism is, in fact a belief. Based on number 3 of belief in the definition above.

 

Point, if you have the initial default stance of I don't know, then you have no specific answers, nor has any evidence been presented to you. Once someone comes to you and makes a claim, you challenge them to prove their assertion. At this point, evidence is submitted to you and you make an informed decision about that particular evidence. Once you have examined the evidence, you then are placed in a position where you must either accept that evidence or dismiss it. Once this evidence has been presented to you, you no longer are neutral about that particular subject. You have information to choose from. You either choose to believe the evidence or disbelieve the evidence. But I would argue that based on the definition of disbelief listed above, that disbelief is, in reality, a belief. A belief exists when you believe that something is true, in this case, you believe that no deities exist because no evidence for any of them has ever been shown to you. This becomes your truth. Atheism is by definition a belief. So, I would argue it cannot be the default position.

 

Webster's defines agnostic as:

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

Based on this definition, Agnostic is not a default option because its definition states that the person is not committed to believing, not that he does not know; or that the belief is unknowable, thereby still making it a belief as well. 

 

I don't know is the default position that is truly neutral.

 

These are my thoughts.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

So I confess; I do believe that facts, reasoning and logic lead to more reliable models of reality than do guesses, dreams, hallucinations and "revealed" wisdom of ancient tribesmen.

 

 

 

So based on that you believe facts, doesnt that belief lead you to the conclusion that anything that doesnt involve facts or evidence, should not be taken seriously? that is a belief.... that is a claim...... paraphrased "unfactual and unfounded lack of evidence type issues should not be taken seriously"

using This Believe in the background you then proceed to talk about a lack of beleif in God....once could point to your previous belief about facts that lead you to the conclusion of lack of belief, simply by putting together context clues

[Neverlandrut]

 

you make

 

Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

 

Precisely! Reliance on the scientific method can rightly be called a "belief" in the scientific method. But that "belief" is not without merit. The scientific method has been the most consistent way ever derived that distinguishes between what we think to be true and what is actually true. We all have beliefs, true. But not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are justified because there is evidence to support them, to varying degrees depending upon how much evidence there is and how well it supports the beliefs, and some beliefs are not justified.

 

Atheism, in the stripped down definition of the word, is not a claim. It is the rejection of a particular claim precisely because it is not well defended. Not all conclusions must be defended directly. Look up the concept of the null hypothesis in statistics. It is the default assumption that there is no relationship between two sets of data. This is a kin to falsifiability in science. In regard to the god claim, it would go something like this:

 

Either god does exist

Or god does not exist

 

These are the only two logical options. God cannot half exist or 2/3 exist. It is logically one or the other. A true dichotomy.

 

God does exist: alternative hypothesis (in statistics terms)

God does not exist: null hypothesis

 

The alternative hypothesis is the one that gets tested, because if one can make an accurate determination about the alternative hypothesis, then one can also make an accurate determination about the null hypothesis by extension. When an alternative hypothesis is tested but there is insufficient data to determine if it is true, then the default assumption (null hypothesis) is accepted. This does not positively prove anything. It is still logically possible that the alternative hypothesis could be true. But with insufficient evidence to show the alternative hypothesis is correct, the null hypothesis must logically be accepted until such time as new data is gathered which proves the alternative hypothesis.

I must say you make good points although if you study language broken down Atheism is A(no) Theism (God) equals NO God that is a defivinitive claim that needs to be defended, so because of this conundrum Atheist switch gears to probably does not exist, be just because something is improbable doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt true. Its improbabaly that 300 spartans could take out as many people as they did, but didnt change the fact that i happened. And second Probably God doesnt exist still poses a few problems, people dont really live their life that way, you dont board a plane that says "probably safe or eat food that says this food is probably safe, the end conclusion of God Probably doesnt exist is a truth claim about what the believe as the END result or conclusion and as stated before conclusions are claims you cant say God probably doesnt exist in a casual nonchalant way and the seriousness of a truth claim dictates the amount of evidence necessary to support it

 

True. There are varying definitions of atheism. The one I was using is simply the lack of belief in god(s). I accept what you are saying that atheism is position that needs defending. But exactly how do you gather evidence for something's non-existence? Something that does not exist leaves no evidence. And that is precisely the point. The only way to demonstrate that something likely does not exist is to show the lack of evidence for it's existence. That's exactly what most of us do.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

At this point, evidence is submitted to you and you make an informed decision about that particular evidence. Once you have examined the evidence, you then are placed in a position where you must either accept that evidence or dismiss it. Once this evidence has been presented to you, you no longer are neutral about that particular subject. You have information to choose from. You either choose to believe the evidence or disbelieve the evidence. But I would argue that based on the definition of disbelief listed above, that disbelief is, in reality, a belief. A belief exists when you believe that something is true, in this case, you believe that no deities exist because no evidence for any of them has ever been shown to you. This becomes your truth. Atheism is by definition a belief. So, I would argue it cannot be the default position.

 

 

 

interesting i agree for the most part, Atheism is not the default position its a baseless assertion, One cannot know the phylisophical or mental state of a person at birth, and a baby may lack belief in a God in a binary way due to lack of exposure it cannot even grasp concepts it did not have the chance to evaluate anything but an atheist a full grown man or teenager ro anyone of age who HAS been exposed can no longer take a nuetral stance, That i also agree with storm

[florduh]

This whole topic and how it has spawned its own lexicon and special definitions tells me that theism is strongly entrenched as the default, unnatural as that may seem.

 

We are all born without beliefs in gods, fairies, Santa or the Boogeyman; but we are all taught what to believe from birth.

 

To not believe in extraordinary constructs such as fairies, unicorns, alien shape shifters and so forth is normal, expected, and beyond questioning. We don't need a special category of words to describe our rational rejection of such ideas. We don't believe in the alien shape shifters because it's a rather wild notion and there is no evidence that it is true. When it comes to not believing the assertions for gods, the theists have forced us into a new ballgame. We can't simply not believe because it's silly and lacking evidence, no! We must further justify why we don't believe that particular silly thing. Enough!

 

[Vigile]

just because something is improbable doesnt mean it doesnt exist or isnt true. Its improbabaly that 300 spartans could take out as many people as they did, but didnt change the fact that i happened.

 

Right.  But to be clear, the likelihood of something falls on the scale of a continuum or probability (whichever you choose).  The likelihood of an underdog winning a challenge is not in the same universe, much less ballpark as is a sheer conjecture (sheer as in zero evidence and plenty of damning contraevidence) is of being true. 

 

IOW, god is in the same category as Santa, Harry Potter and Humpty Dumpty, whereas the Spartans is in the category of a college team on their best day beating a pro team on its worst in terms of probable likelihood. 

 

you dont board a plane that says "probably safe or eat food that says this food is probably safe,

 

Of course you do, unless you're deluded that there are 100% guarantees in this world. 

 

[Vigile]

Based on these specific definitions, atheism is, in fact a belief. Based on number 3 of belief in the definition above.

 

Webster's is wrong.  Or, the English language is lacking a word that splits the important nuance of 'lack of belief' from 'disbelief.'

 

Point, if you have the initial default stance of I don't know, then you have no specific answers,

 

 

Splitting hairs here, but 'I don't know' implies puzzlement.  Lack of belief isn't confusion.  It's lack of action. 

[Storm]

 

Based on these specific definitions, atheism is, in fact a belief. Based on number 3 of belief in the definition above.

 

Webster's is wrong.  Or, the English language is lacking a word that splits the important nuance of 'lack of belief' from 'disbelief.'

 

Point, if you have the initial default stance of I don't know, then you have no specific answers,

 

 

Splitting hairs here, but 'I don't know' implies puzzlement.  Lack of belief isn't confusion.  It's lack of action. 

 

Lack of belief doesn't change anything. Your lack of belief comes from a lack of evidence. You were challenged to believe something that someone claimed. Evidence, or no evidence, was presented to you and you made a choice at that point to believe, or not believe. That has become a truth for you. Belief is based on a truth you have come to accept. Atheism is still a belief. Whether or not you want to accept it as that or not doesn't change anything.

 

And I disagree about I don't know. Its just "I don't know". Maybe some puzzlement exists, but its that puzzlement that should drive you to find the answer or lack of answers. So, I contend that my original premise still stands.

[Vigile]

This whole topic and how it has spawned its own lexicon and special definitions tells me that theism is strongly entrenched as the default, unnatural as that may seem.

 

We are all born without beliefs in gods, fairies, Santa or the Boogeyman; but we are all taught what to believe from birth.

 

To not believe in extraordinary constructs such as fairies, unicorns, alien shape shifters and so forth is normal, expected, and beyond questioning. We don't need a special category of words to describe our rational rejection of such ideas. We don't believe in the alien shape shifters because it's a rather wild notion and there is no evidence that it is true. When it comes to not believing the assertions for gods, the theists have forced us into a new ballgame. We can't simply not believe because it's silly and lacking evidence, no! We must further justify why we don't believe that particular silly thing. Enough!

 

Ha ha. Prone, but I don't know about default.  Maybe they're the same thing. 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Vigile i can learn alot from you i like your ability of examination, I am just a beginner.

 

can you help me understand the distinctions between theses

 

lack of belief

 

unbelief

 

disbelief

 

nonbelief

[Vigile]

Well, I'm not linguist by any sense of the word, but as I understand it, non-belief and lack of belief and maybe unbelief are in the same category.  None are verbs as best I can tell.

 

Disbelief, if Websters is correct, disbelief is a verb.

 

Think of it this way.  The words see and look contain an important nuanced difference.  To see indicates lack of control.  If your eyes are open and something is right in front of you, you just see it regardless of intention.

 

Look, however, implies contemplated action.  You have to control where your eyes point in order to look at something.

 

Similarly, un/non/lack imply lack of control (no action/no verb), whereas disbelief (if used as Websters defines) implies choice or directed action. 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm innnttteerrssstttiiinnngggg

 

never had someone explan it that eloquantly unless they were a woman. I like you Vigile i think i will buy you a pizze with pineapple on top

[bornagainathiest]

bornagain,

as mentioned again personal eye witnesses aint got squat to do with if something is false or not.

So i one does not need to see or observed the big bang to show that it is false or true. This goes for any claim not just the big bang, that is why i am not directly supporting the big bang im merely asserting that ANY CLAIM doesnt need an eye witness to be true, again i was simply RESPONDING to Vigile's falalcy logic when he told me jesus didnt have a contemporary so belief in him was invalid, i shwoed that was faulty reasoning by saying big bang doesnt have contemporaries but it doesnt mean it isnt true

 

 

 

 

The claim that the Big bang is true or false is impossible because that event is unknowable to us.

 

.We covered this, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63950-cosmology-101-for-1acceptingatheist1/page-2#.VAYnJfldVzM ...where I explained to you that there are things that are not just unknown, but also unknowable.  Your law of antonymic pairs fails to account for the unknowable.

 

That which is unknowable to us can only be inferred about, not known about. 

We can surmise, speculate, guess and infer - but we can never know.  

[florduh]

Atheism is still a belief.

 

Then are A-Santa Clause-ism and A-Shape Shifters-ism and A-Unicorn-ism also "beliefs?"

 

Why or why not? 

 

Why do these other non-beliefs not have their own terms and language and the implicit and accepted implication that it needs to be proved why you don't believe in such things? IOW, show how a belief/lack of belief in a god is different from a belief/lack of belief in fairies and why different rules and demands should be applied.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

exactly you hide in a corner hoping your stance or position is not open of attack or examination, that is a nutral agnostic stance not an atheistic one, if you want to be agnostic fine but dont be full atheist acting like an agnostic. Furthermore as i stated before its not enitrely nuetral, when you lack beleif in something, you have a BELIEF that something is TRUE that caused you to have that LACK of beleif about something else

 

 

You should learn what atheist and agnostic actually mean.  You are misusing the terms.

 

Atheism means without belief in gods.

 

Agnostic means without claims of knowledge.

 

 

You don't get to change the meanings of words in order to advance your personal agenda.

 

You dont get to change the meanings of words in order to misrepresent me granted probably ona ccident not accusing you directly. But i said Atheist not Atheism entirely different. Atheist is the person and Atheism is more a general description of those who ARE atheist.

an agnostic has without claims of knowledge ok so what does an Atheist hae? Do they both lack a claim?

 

Futhermore i disagree for the nuetral position as i told FLoruh If someone lack beleif in God they msot likely believe in science reason and logic. That is what i mean by if you lack beleif in x then you BELIEVE in something else to support the lack of belief in X because what you DO BELEIVE caused you to come to that conclusion. Conclusions are claims and need to be defended

 

 

 

The line :

"exactly you hide in a corner hoping your stance or position is not open of attack or examination, that is a nutral agnostic stance not an atheistic one, if you want to be agnostic fine but dont be full atheist acting like an agnostic."

 

Contains the words "agnostic" and "atheistic".  Don't blame me if you are not happy with your word choice.

 

You are the one changing the meaning of words.

 

The part you put in red is an over generalization.  (This is why you are wrong.)  You cannot defend your conclusion.

[midniterider]

 

Any claim is false, until proven true.

 

.............

 

Something that's true has to be proven to be true before it IS true? Or can it just be true on its own without anyone thinking about it?

[bornagainathiest]

Three simple questions that will demonstrate the falsehood of antonymic pairs, 1AAT1.

 

1.

The Pole Star exists today, Sept 2 2014.  True, False or Unknowable?

 

2.

The temperature of the Earth's core today is 5,430 degrees Centigrade.  True, False or Unknowable?

 

3.

Alexander the Great had a small mole on the lobe of his left ear.  True, False or Unknowable?

[Neverlandrut]

Any claim is false, until proven true.

 

.............

 

Something that's true has to be proven to be true before it IS true? Or can it just be true on its own without anyone thinking about it?

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it...

 

It's hard to believe there are people who spout such non-sense. Fact is fact regardless of whether or not it's recognized. Basic law of a material universe.

 

I think what the author must have been getting at is falsifiability. In order to determine if a claim is true, there must be a logical way it could be found false. Falsifiability is what allows us to make predictions based on hypotheses. It's also a tool to help us avoid confirmation bias and help us accurately assess results. Without falsifiability, you have absolutely no way to have any degree of certainty that your hypothesis is correct. And theism, for the most part, paints god into a non-falsifiable corner. It protects him from disproof, but it also prevents him from ever being proven, and it prevents us from even assessing the likelihood of his existence.

 

If it is true that any claim is false until proven true, then by 1AA1's logic, that would include both claims that god exists and that god does not exist. Therefore, agnosticism would be the only conclusion one could come to. I do, however think there is very good reason to believe that the specific god characters in the religions of the world do not exist.

[midniterider]

The default position is always non-belief. No one is born believing in god, they are taught and conditioned to believe in god. It's hard for many to look at atheism as a default position because theism is so prevalent, and in many cases, it seems like a reaction against theism which gives the illusion that theism is the default.

 

Babies don't really philosophize much so the atheist apologetic "no one is born believing in god" lacks relevance, imo. I could say babies aren't born with the knowledge that the Green Bay Packers are the number one football team in the USA yet this lack of knowledge is neither a point for nor against the Packers. I think the cliche is a sound bite.

 

No one is born thinking or doing much of anything at all, really. But as children gain the ability to think they tend to think magically. Children may have thoughts of God prior to being able to verbalize what that means  and prior to being 'conditioned' by adults. 

 

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.html

 

This link is interesting. I may get the book. I'm not saying  there is a God.