Atheism isn't a belief?

"Believes there is no God" is an impossible position because the basis on which an athiest believes this is that there is no objective evidence for God in the natural. That however takes no account of the fact that God would have to be supernatural and so expecting natural to provide evidence for a supernatual God is a fools errant. The athiest says "no evidence" but doesn't look in the appropriate place. What 'tools' one might apply to look in the appropriate place is a different issue. Firstly, the athiest would have to decide that their examination of evidence is only partial and that his position is untenable until a complete examination is carried out.For the athiest who plays the words to say "I lack belief" the situation is no different. The athiest isn't suspended in a vacuum. If asked "Okay you lack belief in God but what do you believe?" he will most likely say that the world is here for natural,undirected reasons: big bang, evolution etc. He lacks belief in God but has belief in something else. But if you examine the something else you find that there isn't a natural explaination for it. No one has yet got around the fact that we exist and for it all to come out of nothing is illogical - or at least there is no scientific basis for it. There was something (the Singularity?) and something doesn't arise from nothing - or at least Science has never found anything that does (similarily, some scientists believe in abiogenesis but to date there has been no undirected experiment carried out which has produced a single strand of self-replicating RNA from non-living material. The belief in abiogenesis is a faith one not science) Nor is there any scientific basis for saying something exists forever. Such questions are beyond the reach of science. The universe is here and a reason can't be posed as to why that is. Lacking any indication that there is a natural reason, a supernatural reason is equally possible. The athiest plumps for natural but can't say why. Well, he can, but can't give any sound rational basis for it. He believes it, ultimately, through faith alone.The athiest who sits on the fence and says "I don't know either way" isn't an athiest. He's an agnostic. He's entitled to say "if I had to chose I reckon No God...but is only guessing without having any basis for his guess. He's at the root, an agnosticAs I understand it....

As the athiests pre-supposes it isn't. But in pre-supposing thus he says his natural tools don't show him the supernatural. Which they could hardly be expected to. Saying something doesn't exist when you haven't attempted to look for it - on its terms - is to say nothing at all. Note - on 'its' terms. Just like we do with the natural.This message has been edited by iano, 17-Aug-2005 12:33 PM

It's nothing to do with liking the argument or not. It's demonstrating that the argument is incomplete. If there is argument against the argument of incompleteness then fine. What would it look like? You seem to be contradicting yourself here: a)"if God existed, it is not the case there would be evidence in the natural world" b)"(natural)evidence is not impossible". Or maybe I've picked it up wrong There is no easily identifiable way to investigate what happened at the point of the universe coming into existance: natural or otherwise. Yet many athiests believe it was natural. It has also been said, with some justification, that no-one really understands General Relativity Theory. Accessible it is not. What tools one can use to investigate the supernatural (God) is a different issue to whether it is valid to consider what may lie beyond the natural. Like it's not that I made up the idea. The idea of a supernatural has been around forever. To dismiss it out of hand as hocus pocus on the basis of naturalistic presumption...but without any genuine, unpredisposed and disciplined investigation....is not a position that has much merit in a case for athiesm.That one has difficulty developing tools says more about ones ability/willingness to develop tools and to try them out than it does about the existance or otherwise of a supernatural. I don't agree. Belief in something else (natural) is a positive case against God. God cannot be, if there is something else which explains it all. The person has another belief so cannot believe in God. Fine, if the other belief was sound. Which it is not when it comes to the issue of 'first cause'. And first cause is the very place where God would be most necessary if he existed. So, no case one way or the otherIf one believes neither God nor the Natural then one is beliefless altogether. They have no view at all. They are not athiest they are a-anything.

---

"..and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21)

It's a position characterized by lacking certain beliefs but holding others. Just like a theist lacks belief in a natural first cause and believes in a supernatural first cause. There is no central position for the athiest (although there is for the agnostic). An athiest will lack belief in God but will believe in natural first cause. Belief it is, because he doesn't have any objective evidence for it. One definition of religion is that it is a system of belief held in the face of no objective evidence and held to with ardour. So strong athiests are religious

An question oft asked is "How could one investigate God when we have no tools to do so?". God is presumed not to exist for the very reason that we consider ourselves powerless to apply any tools to it in investigating it. I think that that is a somewhat defeatist attitude myself given that we have accomplished so much when we put our minds to it. Think of the early pioneers in science, whose tools were so crude as to produce the wildest of results - and then consider if they had taken the same approach.As with science, a lot can be achieved by presuming a position and then developing hypotheses to examine the presumption. An initial bit of thinking might produce the following:a) I'm leaving the house only to discover that I've lost my car keys. I start rationalising. I don't get a bus to work to see if they are there as I must have had them to arrive at home with the car. I start thinking about where I might have left them but draw a blank. I start looking in the places where they most probably are; behind the sofa cushions, in my pockets etc. Then, irrationally I find myself looking in places I've already looked as if they could magically turn up by virtue of looking 10 times.What I realise is that inanimate objects rely totally on me to find them. They can contribute nothing to the task of finding them. Nothing at all.b) I'm an avid bird watcher. I've heard that the lesser-spotted eagle has been reported around the area. As with my keys I set about figuring out the rational way to observe it. Where is it likely to build a nest, what are it's feeding habits and and what times is it likely to be out and about. When and if I do spot it, it is a result of my efforts BUT ALSO the actions of the bird itself. If it didn't do what it did, I could have looked forever without being in the place where it revealed itself to me. It's actions were unconcious in helping me in my search but without them my search would have been in vainc) I fancy this girl in work. I think she's make a good girlfriend. So I go about, as above, developing methods by which I might attract her attention. I shower at least once a week, I invest in that aftershave which seems to (at least on tv) drive them wild, I mind my language, I decide not to talk about football results when I meet her at the water fountain. Unless she makes some concious decision in my direction however, I am powerless to have her reveal her thoughts on me, to me. I do what I think I can do. And I do it as well as I can but the choice is to a fair extent, hers.d)I decide I want to investigate if God. I have no clue about what actions I should take but given the above progression, I can presume that if he exists, then the revealing is to a large, if not total extent reliant on him doing it. In presuming his existance I may (although I may not - but we're trying to develop a positive hypothesis) consider the following to be 'reasonable' things to assume for a start:- God would be a complete wonder. Somebody/thing who could do all this would be beyond my wildest dreams about what is possible to achieve. I would have no inkling as to the power/ability/means it would take. If I assumed this then the assumption of some humility would be a sensible thing to assume. If God exists then 'me' is a speck compared to 'him'. I would be at his mercy not the other way around. I, it would seem likely, would have to bow my will to his- It is reasonable to presume that God did all this for a reason. The reasons might be to amuse himself, or he might be prototyping for something else he has in mind. But given the new found and appropriate humility of above, I may just hold off second-guessing and just suppose he did it for a reason which is far beyond my comprehension. Not only would he have to reveal himself, he would have to reveal his reason too.- It would be reasonable to suppose that his reason has something to do with me. Man after all is orders of magnitude above all other creatures as far as we can tell: man walks naturally upright, has vastly greater intelligence, is a historical and political being, has consciousness and self-awareness, man has propositional language which allows him to write prose, poetry and express emotion in complex ways using this language,is capable of complex reasoning, has mathematical skills, has achieved massive amounts in culture and science, has an aesthetic dimension, is not completely governed by instinct,is uniques in his relationship with the opposite sex: he can chose to love and chose the level of that love, man has a moral dimension, man has a spiritual dimension. If man is an animal then he is the most extraordinary animal there is or ever was. Yes, it is reasonable to suppose God's purpose has something to do with me.- That there is no widespread revelation of himself, yet many say they have had this revelation, implies that there would be terms and conditions to his self-revelation. It is also reasonable to suppose that this self-revelation would be such so as to ensure the person to whom he was doing the revealing was in no doubt as to what was happening. Nothing that man could suggest as an alternative reason for the idea that God had revealed himself would be powereful enough to cause the person to doubt what had happened.- If God exists and there was a reason why he created me to be the pinnacle (as far as I know) of all he has created then it is not unreasonable to suppose that he might want me to know that he is there. Maybe he wants to reveal himself but I am not meeting his terms and conditions. It may well be that he leaves the choice up to me, that is to say, his terms and conditions could very well be that I must be the one to want him to reveal himself to me - before he will do that. Like the keys,lesser-spotted eagle, attractive girl my desire to have them reveal themselves depends more and more on the amount of desire I have to have them reveal themselves. Given that God would be total maybe the amount of my desire must be total. What would total desire look like.- It is reasonable to suppose that a desire born out of curiousity or fun is not a total desire. The desire would have to be a genuine, heartfelt one, one that felt that this was the question to which one wanted an answer above all others. If God did reveal himself then it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the most significant thing that would ever happen. As much humility as one could summon would be the total humility one could summon. Total humility would, I imagine, be essential.- such total desire too would involve a total, blind acceptance of the consequences of desiring God to reveal himself. Massive consequences such asa)life would never be the same again. It would change dramatically and there is no way of knowing beforehand whether this would be for better or worse. It would be placing total trust in God that, him revealing himself would not be the worst thing you ever did. But you couldn't know beforehand. A blind leap. A leap of faith.b)There is no possibility to go back to disbelief after such a revelation. Once it happened that would be that. One would now have no choice but to believe...and all that that might entail. One would have relinquished their freedom to chose on this matter.c) An acceptance that if God doesn't reveal himself that that is not proof of his non-existance. It means accepting that God is allowed to reveal on his terms and that if he doesn't it could be that the terms haven't been met or that the timing, his timing for revealing himself, might not be now. Again humility and bowing to whatever it is he wants to do.That's the hypothesis. It's only one of a myriad of possible hypotheses but there is nothing unreasonable in it. Best thing to do now is to test the hypothesis to see if it works. There is no point though if the hypothesis isn't followed. So due consideration of it: humility, acceptance of any and all consequences that may follow, a genuine desire for God to reveal himself - realising that ones ability to have total desire is imperfect but it is the best one can do at present, the acceptance that it one would be asking God to do something very special - just because you ask it. That's the hypothesisAll that remains is to ask Him to reveal himself. As simple and as hard as that. Simple, because it would only be the simplest form of words required. Hard because in following the hypothesis means those words would have to come from the very bottom of your heart. No one knows where that is. You'd have to trust that he wouldp.s. an obvious help in asking "from the bottom of your heart" would be to ask him to help you ask from the bottom of your heart. If he exists it would seem reasonable to suppose that he could and that he would.

See post currently in Proposed topics: "A reasoned proof of God" It demonstrates that you, as you are this instant, was guaranteed to happen given the initial conditions that existed at the start of the universe. If that holds then it means you are no accident and there is nothing random about you being here now. There is nothing else known more special than us so it's reasonable to assume hypothetically, that we're the most special thing of all. If so, then God knew you would be here - then. The hypothesis is based on what we CAN surmise about God should we chose to assume for a moment that he exists. I don't think there are many others which could avoid the suggestion that a) he must do the revealing and b) all we can really do whichever hypothesis we use - is ask him to reveal himself to us. The rest of the hypothesis concerns what terms and conditions might reasonably apply. The hypothesis is the easy bit the preparation for testing it is hard. The only important revelation is the one you would recieve personally. What others think/experience is irrelevant to you. You would have to judge for yourself. I suppose if someones terms and conditions wavered from the ones that seem most apt then other super natural doors could be opened. If God then God is sovereign but that doesn't mean he doesn't permit other supernatural beings to act (a part you could add into the hypothesis based on how natural beings act - they have free will. Some are 'good', some 'not good' at all) If someone was determined to invite the supernatural in, but in doing so, avoided the 'requirement' to admit to and accept God's sovereignty (ie: tries to get god on their own terms rather than Gods terms)then who knows what'll come in. Like I say, putting all one's trust not in self, but in God, is about the safest thing to do. If there are any subsequent consequences for ones attitude to belief in God (or not) then at least the person can say that they did the very best they could do. Asking him, trusting him and being willing to put oneself at his 'mercy' - what else could a person have done. Although possibly flippant, I am being deadly serious. I posed before that God/No God was THE question. And I haven't read anything in that thread which suggests otherwise. I've heard of folk asking God to do this, that and the other to prove himself to them but you may by now agree that this is trying to get God to jump through our hoops - which is anything but showing sensibly appropriate humility. I asked him in this way. I didn't believe in him, I didn't know the first thing about him, but when I did ask I asked more or less in the way described: humility, acceptance of his sovereignty (if he existed), I said something like " I don't know if your there or not but if you are then I need and want to know you. Nothing else is going to make sense of this life. It must be you or I'll go nuts" It was a genuine prayer - from the heart. Now that I know him a bit better I've come to understand that it's the heart he's interested in. If you ask from the heart truly because you want him to come in - and not to carry out an experiment then prayer won't fail. If it's a test and done as a test - then it is bound to fail. Trying to get God to jump through hoops. If you do say some prayer inviting him into your life and you know it was from the heart then that's it. He'll come. It may not be that second and you may not be able to put your finger on it straightaway but he will come. And when he does - you will know. Me? I'm more certain of God than I am the sun will rise tomorrow. That's how sure you can be. Surer than sure. It may be that you don't do so now. No matter. If a day comes when you do feel you can genuinely ask from the heart - do it then. No one is going to laugh at you for asking. Their not going to know. He will though

Not exactly hiding your light behind a bushel . Assuming that God, if he were to exist, would have to be supernatural - how do you KNOW there is no God. Do you have some insight into the supernatural and have found there is no God there? The theists do say athiesm is a belief. A belief based on faith (ie: a religion) It relies on a faith that the natural is all there is.

At least your using the correct terminolgy: 'assumed' is far more truthful that 'know'. It's 'assumed' because a book of evidence is known not to be a case. Its a book of evidence. And a natural book of evidence which attempts to comment on something that would undoubtably be supernatural is a book of evidence which wouldn't make it up the courtroom steps. Case dismissed On what basis do predictive powers determine somethings usefulness. Or are you just comparing everything to science uber alles -in which case a question..... If someone said a dragon was the cause of the universe coming into existance, you wouldn't even have to step out into your yard to see it doesn't exist. You would just say the universe exists because.....em...because....er...because.... Because what? Until you know that you don't know whether your assumption is correct. It's assumption in the dark. Assumption by faith = religion.

If that's your definition of an athiest, PY, what's your definition of an agnostic?

I find it interesting that given the incompleteness of evidence of first cause either for God or for a Natural explaination, that a person who has no evidence either way plumps for no God. Both are expressions of faith without concrete evidence, both are religions.I would have thought that if someone had to toss for it, the logical thing to do would be to play safe and suppose there is a God.(funny that a book called the Bible demonstrates all over the place why this should be the case. Not bad for a 2000-4000 year old documnent supposedly written by a bunch of nomads)This message has been edited by iano, 17-Aug-2005 07:19 PM

Not really CP. It would help tremendously if a reason for the no belief had a why attached to it. A why to the question: given no idea as to first cause be it supernatural or natural, and given that God (and anything else supernatural) would be supernatural and thus won't be evidenced naturally - why disbelieve in God?Go on, no-one else here has answered this. Be a sport - two more cents on this one

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. That God would be very complex and beyond our understanding says nothing for or against the likelyhood of his/it's existance. That the universe is so staggeringly complex means that for a God to initiate it, he would be staggeringly complex. That much is correct. What evidence are you talking about? You say above that he'd complex and radically different. This means too that evidence would be complex and radically different. Do you understand the supernatural? If it exists it would be complex and radically different. So different that the normal naturalistic expectations of evidence are useless in getting a grasp of it. Ball bearings bouncing off the side of an ocean liner Which implies you have an explaination for first cause. A naturalistic one at that. Or are you assuming there is no evidence. Different thing altogether. You are entitled to believe what you want. We all are. But the case for the belief has yet to be made.

Gee CP, you sure know how to confuse an issue (or me at least)! Or do you know how to confuse an issue? And if so, how do you know you know...if you know you know what I know I know you know I know you mean. If you know what I mean...Wonder what Theodoric makes of all this.Is it "I know and I ain't telling" or "I know because...." I'd be more interested in the latter

The tanglible natural universe that supplies you so much natural proof had a beginning. The cause of this (you may agree) most important event is a total mystery. Totally intangible, totally without a naturalistic proof. Totally relevant for all that - given what it produced.If you've no proof for the cause of the most significant event ever, are you not just assuming that the cause was natural. If so, how does this assumption equate to 'knowing'. Knowing (in the non-Chiroptera sense of the word) involves some justification of itself. At least for oneself if no other.

Did you know that that the mechanism God uses to 'save us' is called "justification" which folk sometimes explain by saying it's "just-as-if-I'd" never sinned. It took me 38 years to come to understand the workings of that justification. Now I'm ready for yours (p.s.And just what we need now CP...an "epistemic minimalist athiest". Why don't you just go throw in a hand grenade there - sheesh. Can you imagine the fun such a being would have debating with an "espistemic minimalist theist. Espitemic? More like Epidemic)