Posts by Viviane

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

I'm under no obligation to define it in your terms, as I'm not here to oblige to your activism. I've given you some common traits that theists attribute to their deities. Stop asking for further definition or it becomes clear that you're debating in bad faith

As I said, you've defined nothing. Much like the absentheism thread, it seems you want to seem like you're saying something without doing any of the work that goes into it.

So far you've:

- attempted to use a ridiculous an untrue platitude and call it logic

- make sweeping generalizations about how people think

- complained that I addressed what you wrote rather than what you meant to write

- attempted to tell others what they they and why

- Commonly mistaken objective for subjective and vice versa

I should add to that list "confuse actual debate with agreed upon terms" for "acting in bad faith".

Seriously, until you decide to understand and clearly tell us what you are saying, no real debate or discussion can happen and you are going to continue to think people are acting in bad faith when it's really just a lack of preparedness on your part to discuss your idea.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

I want to distance myself from atheists who are on a mission and I am quite happy to entertain neologisms like absentheist to see where it takes us

I would appreciate that as well. Kthnxbye!

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Seems to me that what you're saying describes the loss of theist belief, not the same thing as atheism.

In what way is "no belief in spirits, gods or theism" any different from "no belief in spirits, gods or theism?

The intention is merely to point out what I perceive to be a logical flaw on the definition of atheism, that makes it somehow misleading.

Perception often isn't reality.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

While the author points, with justice, to creationists and their disbelief in evolution, I also contend that atheism can become likewise a form of rationalized belief, subject to become def and blind to contrary arguments, not based of their merits, but simply because they go against their deeply engrained biases.

You should seriously take his advice and stop trying to tell others what they believe with faulty reasoning, bad logic and false definitions.

If you have a valid argument, I am all ears.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

I see you're also perfectly capable of bag arguments. No they're not. They're often vaguely defined, that's entirely different. Several common traits of deities: Superhuman, immaterial, intelligent, powerful beings who somehow take interest in human affairs and are capable of influence them. That's certainly vague, but not "undefined".

Of course I am. This isn't an example of course, but it's possible.

Anyway, the traits you've given scream "undefined" and are contradictory. What do you mean by "superhuman"? Xray vision? Can fly? Super speed? You've not defined it.

What is immaterial? Not made of matter? Energy? You've not defined that what means. Made of spirit? Now you need to define spirit.

Intelligent? The requires a brain, so now it's NOT immaterial? Humans are intelligent. Does that make them a deity? Undefined.

Powerful? In what way? Strength? That implies a material body. Energy? That implies made of matter. You've defined nothing here.

Interested in human affairs and capable of influencing them? That means they can observe, which means senses which means a corporeal body. Influencing them means they can exert energy in this universe and corporeal. Which is it? Immaterial or not? You've not defined or decided.

So far you've 100% NOT defined anything.

The fact that you identify yourself as atheist and you think it is because it meets certain criteria doesn't automatically makes the definition of atheism logically sound. What you believe or don't believe isn't in discussion here.

You've tried to tell me what I think. You've attempted to conflate, confuse and mistake terms to attack atheism, but that's not addressing your arrogant and wrong attempt to tell me what I think. It IS under discussion because YOU decided to declare what people you don't know and haven't talked to think.

So, why do you think you are qualified to tell people what they think?

False analogy. I meant nothing like that.

The analogy is perfectly parallel to what you wrote. If what you wrote isn't what you meant, then try writing what you mean.

You're contradicting your own statement. You said that, in spite of not having evidence that I wasn't a zebra, you could confidently know that I wasn't a zebra. By the same logic, I could assert knowledge about others feelings and ideas.

Of course I didn't. I actually think things through before I write them.

The difference is that zebras are a real thing with specifically designated properties regardless of opinion. Zebras cannot type, cannot speak human languages, etc., so it's perfectly rational and true to say you are NOT a zebra.

You are pretending to know what people think and how they feel, about people that you've never met, which is not an objective fact and is often only knowable AFTER talking to them, which you didn't do and why there is no contradiction.

Objective vs. subjective.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Simply put, a belief defines an idea or principle which we judge to be true.

Who is this we? Some people believe in god. That doesn't mean "we" do. Do you mean a belief is something an individual judges to be true?

The lack of belief of the atheist comes from the fact that the doesn't share the same judgement as the theist. But his lack of belief isn't the direct result of the lack of evidence.

So now you're going to try to tell me what I believe or don't and why? Really?

That lack of evidence results in lack of knowledge.

A ridiculous unfounded assertion. You really should dedicate an entire thread to this. For now, think of it this was. I lack evidence that you are a zebra. That doesn't mean I lack knowledge of your status as a zebra. A zebra is a real thing with properties well know. Deities are undefined, there is nothing there to assert that we lack knowledge of until someone can even tell me what the thing is.

As a corollary example, we lack knowledge of exactly what dark matter is. We do have evidence it exists, but we do science to get more information. Before we had evidence it existed, there were mathematical calculations that showed it should exist. We had a reason to look before we even had evidence! Before the math and before observations, we lacked a reason to even think there was such a thing, we lacked knowledge AND evidence. That's not at ALL the same as god, we simply have the assertion that it exists with nothing else. No one have given us a reason to think there is anything there that we lack knowledge of. In fact, all positive evidence points in the opposite direction.

But that judgement he makes is in itself a belief.

No, it doesn't. Why do people keep trying to say "not A = A"? It is logically impossible! It's like saying "you don't have any money, therefore you have money!"

What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an illogical proposition to say that lack of belief is a direct consequence of lack of evidence.

That's because you are getting all sorts of things wrong.

The logical consequence of lack of evidence is lack of knowledge.

Such as this.

The direct consequence of lack of evidence about the existence of God is agnosticism.

And this.

Ok, I'll rephrase: Most atheists that I have come in contact with ....

Rational people SHOULD be offended when people make bad arguments about others feelings and ideas and assert knowledge they cannot possibly have.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Precisely, the claims that theists make about their deities - and lets now use the most common sense of the word deity - is that they are ultimately immaterial in nature. That makes it impossible to acquire evidence about them.

How does that lead directly to a lack of knowledge?

But in any case, even if we can call BS on these religious systems, and be pretty confident that no god is going to send us to hell for it, it's still a "belief" and not "knowledge".

Again, no one ever claimed it was.

Now most atheists get very offended when theists say that atheism is a "belief" and argue that atheism is simply a lack of belief based on the lack of evidence.

First, please refrain from commenting on things you cannot possibly know, such as how "most" atheists feel when someone makes a bag argument. You certainly don't know most atheists and cannot possibly have any knowledge of this.

Second, as you are well aware, there is at least weak atheism, which is exactly what you described, and strong atheism. To discuss a particular for, you need to define which one you are discussing and discuss it with someone holding that view rather than conflate the two and then make an incorrect sweeping generalization.

But what I see here is that the lack of belief in this case is in itself a form of belief.

Yes, many people incorrectly attempt to make that argument by conflating different terms, ideas and failing in their logic.

Because what you get from lack of evidence is lack of knowledge.

Also that common mistake is based on ridiculous claims such as this.

And those who claim lack of knowledge are agnostics, not atheists.

And conflating and not understanding the difference between ideas. See exhibit A ^^^

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

hope this is helpful although it may seem off topic for now (but bear with me)

It wasn't and and it was.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Since the lack of belief is said to be supported on the lack of evidence, my perplexity is this

For some. For others, they simply don't care, or they think it's ridiculous or they've never been exposed to the idea to believe or not believe.

Lack of evidence leads to lack of knowledge. [You may call this a "major unfounded assertion", but you haven't proven me wrong.]

It's a ridiculous assertion. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right. Proceeding from the standpoint that others must prove you wrong is exactly backwards.

In any event, not having evidence for god in no way leads directly to a lack of knowledge of god. Indeed, I could know everything anyone has ever written about god, but if god doesn't exist, there isn't a lack of knowledge to be had. The evidence is commensurate with the knowledge.

I can only know something because I have evidence about it.

You are attempting to use a positive, non-corollary statement to prove your negative. It doesn't work like that. It's not either A or !A. For instance, if someone tells me they are sitting on my couch next to me and I look over and they aren't there. I have evidence that they aren't there. They tell me they are invisible, so I reach out and touch nothing but air. I have further evidence they aren't there. They then tell me they are incorporeal but definitely sitting there.

I have no evidence to disprove that claim, however, I now know they are full of it, no matter how much they believe it (or don't).

What you are attempting to do is conflate a situation where the people making the claims can't tell you how to get evidence, can't describe in any meaningful terms what the thing they believe in is or what it is made of or where it is or how it exists with actual things we can go figure out how to get evidence for. The two things don't correlate like that.

Ergo, lack of evidence leads to lack of knowledge.

Ergo, go build an internally consistent argument so we can have an actual discussion and stop attributing things to people they didn't say.

What is more logically sound, then:
"There's no evidence, therefore, I don't know"; or
"There's no evidence, therefore, I lack belief?"

It depends on what you are discussing. If it's whether or not to believe in god, then "I don't believe" is more logically sound. If it's asking whether or not something is true or exists as a point of fact, then "I don't know" would be more appropriate.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

Viviane

Notice that "belief" is characterized as a feeling, state of mind, conviction. Never as knowledge.

I never said it was. Are you trolling your own thread?

My question is: If lack of evidence cannot produce positive knowledge, on what grounds is the lack of belief of an atheist more sound than the belief of a theist?

Is that your new question? It certainly wasn't your first one. Are you changing questions?

I stand corrected if you can prove me that lack of evidence can produce positive knowledge.

I never made such a claim, no idea why you would ask me to prove it to you.

I suggest you read very carefully what I write (as well as what you write) and make sure you very clearly understand what I say. For instance, I NEVER said lack of evidence leads to positive knowledge. You somehow got that, but I never said nor implied it. In this specific case, there is a lack of evidence that you are reading carefully, leading to the positive knowledge that you are adding in your own meaning.

You may sit down now.