ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 เม.ย. 2015
- To help support this channel and for a few extras (patron only vids, early access, requests etc) visit / noelplum99
A lot of what is discussed in this video i think relates to how we view "faith", yet faith is generally very badly defined. I attempted to have a go a couple of years back and I still think my take on it is probably as close to how we use the word than any other I have seen since. Here is that video "Faith Defined"
• Faith Defined
So this is the third in the "ON" series, following up the On Privilege trilogy and On Taking Offence.
As I state in the video, we can boringly (if arguably correctly) trot out that atheism is a lack of belief, rather than a positive belief (or even an attitude or knowledge of the proposition "God exists") but as the vast majority of atheists DO hold a positive belief it clearly cannot account for the asymmetrical way we feel and consider our atheism as a belief versus religious beliefs.
![[ไฮไลต์] ฟุตบอลชาย ญี่ปุ่น vs ปารากวัย รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X_BeGaAv1oM/mqdefault.jpg)
Anything that anybody claims to know is a belief. We cannot be 100% certain about anything. However, there is a correlation, as you pointed out, between probability and the validity of that belief and further correlation between observable, demonstrable, predictable evidence and probablity. The problem for the Theists are that they are stuck around the zero mark and that value is what makes us Atheists.
glad I'm not the only one annoyed by atheists who refuse to use the word "believe" as if it's toxic. I believe in evolution, the big bang, a lack of god, etc. It's based on evidence. I don't see why that's so hard for some people to say, when they act like it's true of them and i believe it is true of them (based on that evidence).
That's sort of the point though, to believe in things because there is evidence is a pretty obvious stance to take. Religious people believe in a god without such evidence because of their faith
It's both. Contrary to popular opinion, a lack of belief is still a type of belief at the end of the day. It's still a stance/position.
Sorry for the double post, can't edit from a tablet.
What seems to be a problem is the confusion between belief in a god or gods, which in & of itself means little, to the connection & sometimes justification of rules, conditions & desires of a god or gods.
The argument seems to center around the proposition of a god existing rather than the anthropomorphism of that god which is then complicated with human characteristics. This is what is portrayed in things like the bible, qur'an, talmud/tannakh etc (with Abrahamic), hindu and other belief systems are even more anthropomorphic.
The point is, it is almost pointless arguing over a god or gods existence when the theist is arguing from the anthropomorphic characteristics which in their mind, makes this god real to them. I have found it is much better to argue the likelyhood of an entity bearing human characteristics and desires Vs the human imposing those characteristics & desires upon such an entity. This has a better chance to disconnect the theist from the religious specificity of their assumptions to a more deistic attitude which from there seems to errode over time.
The problem with many common atheists seems to be they are exchanging their belief with disbelief yet are equally evangelical, searching for religious type structures (ie dogma) & looking to leaders to think for them rather than the independance that most would consider atheism should induce and this is what fuels the theistic argument that atheism is fast becoming it's own religion and rightly so. It has slowly become evangelical, dogmatic and has its own figureheads whom attract sicophants.
In short, it is not enough to simply turn theists into atheists & expect a better world, it is the deconversion/deconstruction of their belief system or religiousity that is paramount to interfere with the demagogueristic applications religion (theistic or not) is often used for which IS the problem we currently have with religion (theistic or not).
6:00 My objection is not to "belief" but rather I object to "just believe", which is a popular slogan that applies to many things (sport, gambling, health care, etc.), not just religion.
imo, this whole "misunderstanding" comes primarily because the people who make this argument can't or won't think. they just continuously repeat the same mantra they picked up off t'internet or tv.
just like most CC deniers.
a lot of humanity just seems destined to be as thick as shit.
Those atheists that have considered whatever proposed deity notion are atheists due to having rejected the notion being proposed. The positive notion being something along the lines of "That claim is ridiculous!". This can easily result in a claim of no god, since, the term god is about whatever proposition being presented - and some of the propositions such as the biblical depiction are literally impossible.
I've yet to be presented with any independently verifiable means by which to distinguish between an "absence" of belief in deities and the presence of belief in the nonexistence of deities.
Well thought out, as always.
Let's try a little mental exercise, based on the example given, to test our entire conception of "belief" and "real".
Being honest, come up with a _real_ scenerio, where Orcs and Hobbits *are* real and indeed, do exist.
You have to put onyour lateral thinking cap for this one, because the literal one just won't do.
Because once that's figured out, you're going to do the exact same exercise _except_ we're going to replace "Orcs and Hobbits" with "God".
Here's the real fun part, where this becomes a social experiment as well. Most people can figure out the Hobbit/Orc part fairly well (you can insert "Santa" or "Tooth Fairy if you like"). But for many people, their brain stalls and usually refuses to make the same connection when "Orcs/Hobbits" is replaced with "God" no matter what their background or faith/non-faith is.
There's an aspect that you miss from this discussion and that is people taking positions that are easy to defend rather than their actual position - let's call it strategic positioning. Dillahunty says that he takes the 'weak atheist' position of "not enough evidence" to argue his case even though he is a 'strong' atheist that is _sure_ that a god doesn't exist. He does this because that's all he needs to do and will probably get into trouble defending his actual 'strong atheist' position.
Likewise christians don't believe in God because of Kalam, fine tuning, or the Ontological argument, but they use these positions strategically.
And so the debate goes on, both sides defending positions that are strong but not definitive and neither side being able to safely defend their real position.
It's not just "never considered the proposition", it is more have not been presented with a coherent proposition in which there are many more that 7 xD
I tend to look at this subject these days as someone either has a model that includes a god(s) or doesn't, & from that either falls into the category of theist or atheist. Each model is likely to be subtly different within each category & even between the fringes of both depending on definitions & relationships etc.
There is a difference between personal experience of a god and human claims of a god. For the former I require no belief to support my lack of perception. For the latter I automatically form beliefs regarding the claims. In the former aspect I consider myself an atheist and therefore consider atheism to be a lack of belief. In the latter aspect I consider myself a skeptic and consider skepticism to be a valuation of beliefs. Rejecting the claims of man doesn't make me atheist, not being able to perceive of a god makes me an atheist.
I prefer to think of Atheism as the default position towards a belief in any god.
Just as one has a default position of scepticism towards anything until proven otherwise.
Nice this "it's an absence of belief" shit has always pissed me off. As if thats the only leg atheism can stand on...
pindakaas42 The proposition that all beliefs are equal, which follows from the fear of admitting that atheists belief something, is so preposterous it makes me laugh.^^
I agree.
I believe you made a good point.
String of thought to lead to the video responses you got in January? Or was the idea scrapped? Just wondering. :)
EoThorne
The idea? Are you talking about the video contributions I asked for on purpose? If you are, the idea isn't scrapped but on the back burner. I really HOPE to make the video i had planned but it is one that will take a great deal of work to realise (it involved quite a bit of green screen acting in one section, and a shit load of editing) and will little junior on the scene i can't afford 30-40 hours on a single video (which is what religion rebutted #3 and #4 took respectively)
Yes, the idea. Damn that purposeful asking, always getting me into trouble. ;) On the back burner is better than fried. Hope life with Junior is good. TC Noel! :)
When a believer can put forward a god that isn't dumb, ridiculous, impossible, nonsensical, contradictory, meaningless tautology, or mere on-the-spot speculation, I'll start wondering if I should believe in it or not.
I think the main idea should be to keep the burden of proof where it belongs, at the door of the one believing the claim of religion x,y or z. The idea of getting atheists to say they believe in atheism is an attempt on the religious persons part to sidestep their burden of proof. See Qualiasoup's channel for burden of proof vid.
I just cooked an entire roast pork for myself and ate half of it whilst watching this :-)
holy befuck "defender" i have not seen that since the 80,s great game and concept and funny enough no female princess to save lol
Actions speak louder than words. I don't go by how individuals label themselves, I go by how they act. Therefore, if a person is going to make comments that aligns with the position that God does not exist or that there is no God, then he or she ought to be ready to defend that position.
In addition, a lack of belief doesn't inform of anything and has no connection to anything. Philosophies have various subjective components to them, and defining Atheism as only a lack of belief is completely subjective since that is going to vary from person to person. I'm pretty confident that there are atheists that don't stop at simply lacking a belief in God but rather, they strongly believe "there is NO God."
Oh I am absolutely sure almost every person who self identified as an atheist is the global society goes beyond simply a lack of belief. However, if you found an isolated tribe who had no conceptualization of a god and thereby utterly lacked a belief (an unconsidered position) in a god how could you label them anything other than atheist?
If that isolated tribe had no conceptualization of a God whatsoever to begin with, then it wouldn't be possible for them to even lack a belief in a God, in which they have never heard of, or know nothing about. Therefore, because they taking no position on the true or false proposition that "God exists," there'd be no reason to label them as anything.
@@positivechange2000
How so?
Prior to me writing this had you every heard of the Martian subterranean aardvark-squirrel (an aardvark like creature that stores space nuts undergound)? No is the answer and you had no belief in the martian subterranean aardvark-squirrel: you couldn't have done as the concept wasn't even something you were aware of. What you are saying is the equivalent to saying they cannot lack ownership of a motor car because they don't know what a motor car is!
Your proposal is that you cannot LACK a belief in something you have no concept of. My counter-claim is that you can ONLY lack a belief in something you have no concept of. To hold a belief or disbelief in that concept would require you to have knowledge of it.
I propose you are conflating lack of belief with disbelief.
I think the cloudy part of the isolated tribe example was using the specific lack of belief in "God," and whether or not we would call them atheists.
To begin with, I agree that people in general can lack beliefs in a great many things that we've never consciously considered. For that matter all living beings lack belief in a countless number of things. However, it is not something that we would or could ever know about.
For example, I would maintain that it wound not be possible for me to even know that I lacked a belief in the Martian subterranean aardvark-squirrel until I was presented with proposition that there even is a such an animal to begin with. In fact, a simple way of testing this is to sit down and try to come up with a list of 5 things that you lack a belief in, and that you have also never even conceptualized, and see if it is possible.
Now, as I understand it, science has shown that people cognitively choose perspectives and value systems and, unavoidably, an associated belief system when faced with the truth or falsity of a proposition. Therefore, once I am introduced to the proposition of there being such a squirrel, I must decide to either accept, reject it, or maybe withhold judgement pending more information and/or evidence. But I've got to do something with the proposition.
Now, it comes down to this - can a person consciously will themselves to have a complete lack of belief in something that he or she has heard of? And I suggest that the answer is no. The reason why is that we cannot, strictly speaking, choose to believe something or even lack a belief in something. For example, if I tell you that I will pay you $1,000 if you sincerely believe that a pink elephant is flying around outside your window right now, you cannot do it. Sure, you can say you believe it and you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash. You might even lie about believing it, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it. Likewise, if we cannot will ourselves to believe something, it doesn't seem likely that we could turn around and will ourselves to lack a belief in something either.
Authentic belief is influenced by many things, such as environmental factors, but what is most important is our view of the available evidence for or against a belief. In this way, we have indirect control over our beliefs. This is what philosophers call "indirect doxastic voluntarism." And so, going back to what I said before, when presented with a proposition, that person must again do something with it via simple tri-state logic Yes, No or unknown/undecided pending more information. But I am not seeing where a person can return to a "clean slate" lack of belief, especially once the target proposition has been conceptualization to them.
And so, I don't think we could call an isolated tribe atheists any more so than we would call unborn children and deceased folks atheists - simply because they happen to lack a belief in everything, including God.
Also, sorry for the long reply and BTW, good conversation and video!!
Didn't hear a word you said, too busy watching Defender.
An “ism” is a proposition. An “ist” is someone who accepts that the proposition is true (or likely true). “Lack of belief” is not a proposition, it’s a psychological state. A-theism is the negation of the proposition “god exists”. Thus atheism is the proposition that no gods exist and an atheist is someone who accepts the negative proposition “god does not exist” is true (or likely true).
the punchline of Terry Prachetts Hogfather comes to mind
th-cam.com/video/AnaQXJmpwM4/w-d-xo.html
Can I come round and play?
I'm sorry but I think you equivocate about the word belief. I genuinely lack a belief in a god. I would rationalise that a god is possible but on balance is unlikely, and the god or gods postulated by all of the world's allegedly revealed theologies extremely unlikely. Thus, you may say that my thoughts based on my experience are beliefs, but I have no belief in a god.
It is a spectrum, of course. But atheism as a lack of belief is nothing more than saying "I don't have enough information to compel me to believe or disbelieve." So unbelief is a totally rational stance. It's like my stance on extra-terrestrial technological civilizations within the Milky Way: I neither believe nor disbelieve. I lack belief.
But atheists don't say "I don't have enough information to compel me to believe or disbelieve". I dare say the vast majority of atheists who "simply lack a belief in gods" will have no trouble talking at length on just how ridiculous and absurd the belief in gods is. But they don't believe gods do not exist, oh no! Seriously, of course they believe gods don't exist. If you believe that it is preposterous to believe in X, then of course you believe X does not exist. I am myself an atheist, precisely because I believe in the non-existence of gods. If I didn't, I would be at best undecided, and you could not then call me an atheist. I am pretty confident in my belief that there are no gods - which is not at all to say that I claim to _know_ there are no gods. It's not just the lack of evidence for gods, although that would be enough. But there is more than enough evidence that gods are entirely fictitious, so _of course_ I believe they're not real. I'd be pretty naîve not to. Just like Santa: you do _believe_ that Santa's not real, don't you?
Oh, don't count me among the lacktheists. I firmly believe there are no gods. I'm just saying that the "lack of belief" position is rational. This position is dismissed by apologists as irrational because "If atheism is a lack of belief, then this rock is an atheist." They're clueless.
But can you consciously have a complete lack of belief in something you have heard of, but still no belief that the claim is false? Doubt, after all, entails a certain amount of belief both for and against. "Yes, it _could_ be this, but it could also be that..." With a complete lack of belief in X, one becomes convinced of not-X. Conversely, a complete lack of belief in not-X implies a firm belief in X.
No. There's a gray area which contains neither belief nor disbelief e.g. is coffee drinking more harmful or beneficial? There are claims for both. I just don't know. But until I get more data, I'm not believing either way. This is similar to the soft atheist position.
Exactly: neither belief nor disbelief, you just don't know. In other words, undecided. Either proposition, yes or no, sounds equally reasonable. Someone who is undecided on the question of God does not describe himself as atheist. Note that this position also lacks a belief in the negative position.
-Do you believe coffee is harmful?
-I wouldn't say I believe it, no.
-So you believe coffee is _not_ harmful?
-I wouldn't say I believe that either, no. Either proposition seems reasonable to me until I see some good evidence.
-Do you believe in God?
-I wouldn't go so far as that, no.
-So you believe God does not exist?
-No, that doesn't fit either. To me it seems that either proposition is _equally reasonable,_ until I see some good evidence either way.
-So you would call yourself?
-Agnostic.
-Not atheist?
-I'm no more an atheist than I am a theist. And no _less_ a theist than an atheist.
Now compare that to...
-Do you believe in God?
-Of course not, that's a ridiculous proposition. No, I don't believe in God. Belief in deities is totally irrational.
-So you believe God doesn't exist?
-Whoa whoa WHOA! That's not what I said at ALL!
_"I believe that there is a high probability that no god exists"._
One problem with taking this stance (apart from needlessly giving yourself a burden of proof) is that it presupposes that this "god" is a coherent concept already worth considering. This is the main reason why many atheists opt for the "lack of belief" definition because it reminds the theist that they always have the burden of proof. After all, "god" for some people simply means "love", or the "universe".
So then you will say that what your statement actually means is something like "I believe that there is a high probability that no god, that people typically believe in, exists". And then when you find the problem with this you will change this to separate claims about the Christian god, for example. But then Christians turn around and say "But my god is different than how you describe", etc., etc..
So the bottom line is to get your interlocutor to first define what they believe in, present their evidence, you then evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion.
+SteepDescent You're right of course, that taking on the burden of proof in a debate setting is suicidal.
Noel's just taking that next step and describing what most of us think is true; Not only are we unconvinced by the "evidence" in scripture and miraculous testimony, but we are swayed much further to the other end of the belief spectrum.
As you say, the claims aren't even worth considering when weighed against the vast scientific explanations for the reality we live in.
If someone says "I have a magical space dragon with zebra stripes in my garage", It's clearly not worth pondering whether or not it has zebra stripes. That's why, when separate religions dictate what to wear or eat, or what laws to enact, we don't ponder the specific claims one by one... it's clearly all bullshit.
I realize I'm preaching to the choir... Have a super day, man.
_Not only are we unconvinced by the "evidence" in scripture and miraculous testimony, but we are swayed much further to the other end of the belief spectrum._
But which scripture? Which testimony? The god claim is completely dependent upon the the claim maker. I always make it a habit to find out exactly what they believe in before I make any claims of my own. They might believe in some type of Christian god and still reject many parts of the bible for example.
SteepDescent Well that was kind of my point: It doesn't matter which dogma from which scripture.
_I always make it a habit to find out exactly what they believe in before I make any claims of my own._
Sure, that's the tactical approach. Be honest though, are you ever expecting to believe those specific claims? I know I'm not. The claims are never going to sound plausible, because they aren't.
Depends what claims. There are likely many true historical events in the bible. eg:
"So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another."
-Jonathan Michael Golden
*One problem with taking this stance (apart from needlessly giving yourself a burden of proof) is that it presupposes that this "god" is a coherent concept already worth considering.*
I do not see why that would be. Whenever you hear a claim, you automatically either believe or disbelieve the claim, based on your current body of knowledge, even if the claim made was utterly ridiculous. If I said I have a fish in my brain which predicts the future, you would immediately believe my claim was completely false. That my claim is an incoherent concept not worth considering doesn't matter the slightest: you have still made up your mind that it's false.
Of course with the god-claim your level of belief (or disbelief) is going to be affected by the definition of "god", but without specifying most people have a more or less common understanding of what goes into a god. And you'd be answering according to the definition you'd think relevant in any case, so the claim would be well enough defined.
I tend put it like this:
At this time I have seen no credible evidence to support the existence of a god or gods.
Since this is an evidence based claim it does not require belief or faith.
***** The standard for what constitutes proof is subjective. To a true believer they assert that they have "proof" that God is real, despite not being able to point to a single piece of evidence to support their claim.
My position is that in the absence of evidence I do not have a belief in god.
Calling non-belief a belief is not only contradictory but dishonest. To borrow one of the many analogies on this "Calling Atheism a belief is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby"
*****
"You believe stamp collecting is a waste of time and you do whatever else you don't believe is a waste of time."
Well that is a statement devoid of supporting evidence.
One does not have to see a hobby, past time or activity as a waste of time in order to not participate in it. There are also many activities that are done precisely because they are a waste of time.
"If you believe in stamp collecting you collect stamps;..."
There is no belief in involved, you are either involved in the activity or you are not.
Theist: one who has the belief that God exists or that many gods exist
Atheist: Not-Theist. One who does NOT have a belief that god exist or many gods exist.
Again, rejection of a belief is not itself a belief.
*****
If what you posted was abbreviated then I doubt that my hard drive would have enough space for your rambling none abbreviated version.
I understand what you are saying it is just that what you are saying is, to put it bluntly, horseshit.
The reasons for engaging in a behavior is not by default a belief. Back the the stamp collector, they either enjoy stamp collecting or they do not. If they enjoy it they will likely continue collecting. If they do not they will likely stop. No belief is needed on any level only the analysis of whether or not the activity is enjoyable. Now the activity may contain many elements that could classify as beliefs but the activity itself does not qualify as a belief.
This works for most any activity that you plug in. Watching sports is not a belief. Reading is not a belief. Hiking, camping, swimming, going to the gym, playing video games and the list goes on. These are activities, not beliefs.
Of course then we get into activities driven by which as indicated can be a part of activities. Some sports fans believe that they have to perform some ritual in order for their team to win. There is no evidence that this is true but by your metric not performing the ritual is a matter of belief and not based on the evidence that superstitious rituals have no effect on the outcome of the game.
Someone with OCD may wash their hands 12 times in a row because they believe if they do not something bad will happen on the other side of the world. Again by your metric my knowledge that this is incorrect is just a belief.
There are people who believe that the water vapor trails that come from jets are cause by the government dumping chemicals on us (Chemtrails) and that spraying vinegar into the into the are from the ground makes the trails dissipate. It do not believe this is wrong, I know it is wrong.
chrisose You are wrong. If you just did not believe a god existed that would make you agnostic. If you're an atheist then you BELIEVE there is no god. It is not possible for you to know.And you not seeing evidence of something is worth shit. I am convinced you have not seen evidence of thousands of things that exist. Your ignorance does not shape the reality, sorry.
nayyr1
Perhaps you should spend some time looking in a dictionary and actually learning what the terms you decide to comment on REALLY mean. Now run along child you are bothering me.
As an atheist, I'm criticizing in believing in something without--or in spite of--adequate evidence.
Not too sure about this argument really. I struggle with the concept of a lack of something actually being something. I'm sure you've heard the analogy a million times, but it really rings true with me, calling a lack of belief in a god a belief at all is like saying that not playing golf is a hobby
Maybe we can solve this problem once & for all by looking at non belief/belief from a Psychology perspective. We all know that Psychology has a lot to say about religious belief, & not much of it is good. How the belief is formed, sustained, reinforced & how it affects the believer, their behaviour, their lives & those around them. There's a lot for Psychologists to work with. Psychology on the subject of Atheism is silent, because there is nothing for Psychologists to work with, the belief that affects the Theist is absent for the Atheist. Doubting, being skeptical, is a perfectly healthy natural human thing to do.
I hope this doesn't come across as semantic, and I know you're aware of the arguments but I would define an atheist as a person who has consciously adopted the default position "there is/are no god(s)". I take this position because lacking a conscious awareness of the belief system is not the same as not accepting a belief system. I feel you can be bogged down with titles that don't serve a purpose, not to mention they aren't necessarily accurate. You may very well be theistic minded. I am not defined by positions I am unaware of.
AtheisticConclusion
That isn't really the argument for this video (I explain at length why i define atheism as I do in last years video 'Are rocks atheists: 50th Anniversary edition"(or something like that).
If you hold it requires knowledge of the proposition, fine, just ignore the opening disclaimer. Like I say, either way,almost all atheists (and necessarily every self identifying atheist) has an awareness of the proposition.
noelplum99 yea...I realized when I resumed watching that it was kind of a digression from the point of the video. I actually was going to delete it but had to run back into work. Wrong video for the argument for sure.
***** I wouldn't say a person can't define it that way, but in my opinion a label is important because it tells you something about somebody else. When you can't glean any information from it, it seems a bit pointless to me. I don't get the point.
Saying it is a default position is pretty common. It's cool if you don't agree, but it is called the default position because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
AtheisticConclusion Then I'd have to strongly disagree with your definition. You'd be defining an anti-theist, not an atheist.
It's a rather absurd claim to make 'there are no gods',... the Universe is immense, and there is a lot we don't know. I don't believe there are gods, but that is really quite a long way away of making a definitive statement saying they aren't any. I can only make statements I can back up, and you know, there's that old 'proving a negative' issue.
engineeredlifeform what in the world are you talking about? I am not an anti theist, and I never claimed to know there are no gods. I imagine you don't know what an anti theist is, and you didn't read what I wrote. I say again, I AM NOT an anti theist, I am on the fence about the issues that relate to anti theism, but it has nothing to do with making a positive claim about the non existence of gods, which I also didn't do.
Religion is belief in supernatural.
Is a brick inanimate objects atheist? Are animals?
I think you're talking apples and oranges. If you want to call my atheism a belief then it's the belief that there is insufficient evidence to support the God hypothesis. It's not that I believe there is no God. Belief is a faith claim. I wouldn't for example say "I believe in evolution" I would say "I accept the theory of evolution because there is sufficient evidence to support it". Why I say it's apples and oranges is because you're equating faith based belief with evidence based acceptance. Maybe you use the word belief differently than I do.
TheNakedAtheist
*Belief is a faith claim.*
I don't that is true. When I set about thinking about how people use the word faith, what they really mean by it, I settled on the definition that it is a belief held to a level of certitude that exceeds the level of evidence.
The word belief, however, is used to describe things we are both highly cetain of and uncontroversially true and things which are highly speculative (in fact knowledge is often defined as _justified true belief_ which necessitates belief incorporating knowledge claims):
1) I believe the odds of you tossing a head six times in a row are firmly against you
2) I believe Elvis is still alive
Of course some people retort _well people are using the word incorrectly_ but words are defined by usage.
*Maybe you use the word belief differently than I do.*
This is probably right and i think we need to be aware that this is one of those words in common usage where people have very different ideas as to the limits of what it means and tend to incorrectly infer things as a result.
PS: In terms of this video I was using belief in the philosophical sense of a doxastic attitude to a proposition: to wit you either believe or do not believe
God I expose scrub atheists online all the time for this stupidity.
Noel,
Let's stop defining "atheism" as a "lack of belief". Atheism addresses the divine existence question; it is not a stance, position or declaration of non-belief. It is a matter of conviction. *Does god exist?* "Due to the lack of evidence, I am not convinced." This is not disbelief; it is a lack of conviction due entirely to the lack of evidence.
An atheist leaves open the possibility that a god exists. Since the unknowable can never be known, this possibility will be open-ended forever. Also, there is no motive or agenda therein.
Non-belief or unsupportable declarations of "There is no god." are, at best, abeliefism, anti-beliefism and/or anti-theism. These positions hold concrete motives and multiple agendas.
Thank you.
DK Kempion
*Atheism addresses the divine existence question; it is not a stance, position or declaration of non-belief. It is a matter of conviction.*
I don't think it is necessarily any of them. I put it to you that if we found an uncontacted people who had no conceptualisation whatsoever in anything we would regard as constituting a theistic proposition (in the broader sense) - perhaps having no more considered the idea than they had of fire breathing dragons - then we would regard them as not believing in a deity and as an atheistic tribe. I really struggle to believe that before we regarded a tribe as atheistic we would insist that they were aware of - and had considered - the concept of a deity in some form and have had to have dismissed it. i just don't think we would require that, a lack of belief (through lack of awareness) would be sufficient.
So that is why i feel _lack of belief_ as the most minimal requirement defines atheism though, as I say here, this innocence applies to precisely none of us and to probably no-one we have ever met in our lives.
noelplum99
Noel, indeed, you are welcome to your perspective. However, there are many aboriginal tribes - worldwide - that do not possess a god-concept. Their world consists of survival not boogeymen in the sky. The members of these tribes would be adeists ("a" being "without") - a word with which many take issue. They don't know, they aren't concerned and they are without a god. (But, to their credit, they eat monkeys.) Even Jains could be lumped in here because they observe no supreme being.
A truly skeptical person, that which an atheist should be, leaves open the possibility of a god existing somewhere/somehow. Does this possibility equate to a lack of belief? Or, is it nothing more than Western civilized privilege?
"I don't believe." is very different from "I don't know."
§On the side, is that "Defender" in the background? I know the person who programmed the original Atari 2600 version of the arcade game.§
DK Kempion Would you mind mentioning any of these tribes by name or location? I would like to read more about them.
TheDamped
The Pirahã of the Amazon region.
DK Kempion Thanks! While this example indeed seems not to observe any supreme being, they do seem to believe in "boogeymen in the sky". (This information just coming from a read of the wiki page, it's not well referenced and the references aren't easily accessible)
But from what I did read they do seem to have a culture pretty resistant to religion. Which is pretty interesting.
You said there are many, do you actually know of many more? Or were you just being hyperbolic for the sake of making a point?
You know, by far the most intelligent Atheists out there have to be everyone's computer keyboards. After all, they 'lack a belief in God.'
10 People? You might want to go out into the world and learn about secular societies. The US is definitely not representative for the first world when it comes to religion.
I grew up in Berlin, Germany and I wasn't aware what impact religion has one the world until I went onto the internet. The concept of a god was totally foreign to me. The only exposure to religion I had was when very old hags rang my door bell and wanted to talk. Even then the only thing I knew was that they are crazy and I shouldn't be talking to them.
So no. If you haven't been born in one of those religious societies, chances are you have not heard of the concept of a god.
*****
So you are telling me that you lived in Germany and was old enough to answer the door but hadn't even considered the idea of a higher power, or of a creater, or even heard talk of God (or had and had no idea what the fuck people were taling about?)
*The US is definitely not representative for the first world when it comes to religion.*
I don't live in the US, I live in the UK which is significantly less religious that germany en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe
I have to tell you that i have never met a single person in my life who had somehow managed to evade the entire idea of a god or gods.
noelplum99 I completely agree with SebastianMisch. I think that "new atheists" mostly ex-Christians are unaware of what it is like to be a life long atheist. It's not that you've never heard of gods, but rather that you've really never given their possible existence any serious thought what so ever. Literally like you've never considered the existence of santa or the tooth fairy, not as a metaphor. I was naïve about belief in gods for decades. I assumed that religions existed for social and cultural reasons, and it did not dawn on me that anyone (except for fringe loons) actually believed that gods existed.No, I had no belief to speak of.
kilroy1964
But that isn't really what is at issue here. You don't need to have given an idea serious consideration to express a doxastic attitude towards it - but you have to know _of_ it.
Never having come across the concept of Santa Claus grants you a lack of belief quite impossible once you are aware of the concept.
kilroy1964
PS: whilst I agree that many life long atheists fit the description of yours (never give the idea serious thought) it certainly is not true of all. I declared to my irreligious father I didn't believe in God and gave him my reasons at six years old. Ever since I have been more obsessed with the issue that it really merits. I am 43 now, so no 'new atheist' or Pauline style zealous convert.
noelplum99 *"So you are telling me that you lived in Germany and was old enough to answer the door but hadn't even considered the idea of a higher power, or of a creater, or even heard talk of God [...]"*
Yes. Religion is irrelevant here. Nobody talks about it despite some few crazy people. Btw. I was 13 when I first came in contact with the internet if I remember correctly.
*"I have to tell you that i have never met a single person in my life who had somehow managed to evade the entire idea of a god or gods."*
I know. Why else would you think only 10 people wouldn't know about god.
*"I live in the UK which is significantly less religious that germany"*
Good to hear. But in case of Germany religiousity varies heavily depending on your location. Like most places in the world people living in cities are less religious than people that don't. In Germany religiousity is higher in the south than in the north and due to Sowjet occupation and DDR, the east is less religious, as well.
For comparison: In my whole live I have only met one person who claims to be religious and she was more of a cultural Christian who didn't really practise.
If you're interested here is a (German) source showing religiousity per state: de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/201622/umfrage/religionszugehoerigkeit-der-deutschen-nach-bundeslaendern/
Columns are: % catholics, % protestants, % muslims, % without confession or other religions
Now in comparison (London vs Berlin vs New York) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_London (20% non-religious)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Berlin (60% non-religious)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_New_York#Religion (13% non-religious)