To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. — Pattern-chaser

Enthusiastically agree, except to quibble that we do have evidence. The best minds among us have conducted an extensive God debate inquiry over thousands of years and have developed evidence of something important. Nobody can prove anything on this topic, no matter how smart they are, or how hard they try. We are ignorant.

So we should believe. We should believe in what the investigation has uncovered, because the evidence for our ignorance is very compelling.

The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. Imagine some miners who were searching for gold but instead found silver. The rational miner says, "Ok, this silver is not what we were hoping to find, but here it is, and there's tons of it, so how can we profit from it?"

An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason.

But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." — Pattern-chaser

What? Why must it?

For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. — Pattern-chaser

No, that's not an observation that I have made. I said that most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence. What you're saying is different, and wrong. There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. What more do you need? It doesn't need to be disproved.

To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence. — Pattern-chaser

It's not logical to refrain from disbelief in light of the lack of evidence. And that can't rightly be characterised as involving faith. The word "disbelief" is even defined as a lack of faith on Google's dictionary.

The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No, it can apply to agnostics as well. But yes, taking an overly strong position either way can indeed stem from erroneous reasoning. That's why I am not a strong atheist, except in those cases where that stance is justified, of which there are some. And that's why I'm not a theist.

The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. — Jake

Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. :smile: :up:

There's a reason for that, don't you think? — S

Yes, there is a reason. Public atheism is a much younger enterprise than religion and has, generally speaking on average, not yet matured to the point of understanding that it too is based on faith. This is particularly true in younger commentators, for understandable reasons.

Here's how the process often works...

1) First, a sincere misunderstanding.

2) Next, the ego is attached to the misunderstanding.

3) Finally, any new information which might threaten that ego position is automatically rejected, leaving the user trapped in the misunderstanding.

The same thing often happens on the theist side (where it's easier for the atheist to see).

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S

If that satisfies, you, go with it. Personally, I find your position lacks rigour.

An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason. — Pattern-chaser

You might be preaching to the choir here. I'm not denying that atheists can do the same thing. However, that doesn't mean that the link is just as strong with one as with the other. Faith has a much bigger role in religion, and it is much more prevalent in religious thought. That shouldn't even be seen as controversial. It's not controversial. It's widely accepted, and one almost can't help but notice and readily make that connection.

Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. — Pattern-chaser

Oh dear, I was with you until the last sentence. At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced.

The "regular agnostic" perspective typically accepts the core assumption of the God debate, that the point of the inquiry should be to move towards "The Answer", and thus further learning is suggested as part of that process. Ok, I'm not at war with this, to each their own etc.

I'm just suggesting there is another way to look at it. Instead of working within the assumptions that form the foundation of the God debate, the God debate and all it's assumptions can be discarded. Why keep looking for The Answer? Why not accept the results of the investigation (we are ignorant) and work with that?

If that satisfies, you, go with it. Personally, I find your position lacks rigour. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not confident that you actually understand my position. In what way do you think that it lacks rigour?

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S

If that satisfies, you, go with it. — Pattern Chaser

That could be the wisest advice.

If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.

Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call.

I find your position lacks rigour. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not confident you actually understand my position. — S

Well, you argue...

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S

...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness.

At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced. — Jake

:smile: I acknowledge that the realisation and recognition of our ignorance is a gift. But ignorance itself? I'm not sure about that. In what way, other than achieving knowledge of our own ignorance, can ignorance be seen as a gift? :chin:

Edited to add: I just realised you said that the discovery of our own ignorance is a gift, which seems to align with what I'm saying (above). Have I misunderstood you?

That could be the wisest advice.

If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.

Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call. — Jake

Haha, do you think that you can rip my position to shreds? Do you think that you can demolish my kind of atheism? If so, then be my guest. But, some advice in return: first ensure that you understand my position.

Is there a god? It’s a boolean question so a gambling man would initially answer 50% yes 50% no and proceed to alter the odds in light of the evidence.

I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this?

...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness. — Pattern-chaser

But do you realise that I was talking about evidence to not believe in God, which is not incompatible with agnosticism? I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God, although that can be done in some cases. Impossible concepts of God do not actually exist any more than square circles do.

I would add qualifications to, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", so that phrase, in itself, does not accurately represent my position, which, as I suspected, you have not adequately understood. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. In some cases, it is. But we'd have to go into more detail.

Do you think that you can demolish my kind of atheism? — S

Yes, I can. So can Pattern Chaser it appears. But we can't detach your self image from atheism. And if that is necessary, then nothing will be accomplished until that task is completed.

If so, then be my guest. — S

If demolishing is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Otherwise, I'm going to try to be wise like Pattern Chaser and leave you in peace.

I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God — S

No?

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S

It looks to me as though that's exactly what you have argued. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your position. It seems so clear.... :chin:

I could do, and maybe I will, but I would like you to tell me in what way you think that your position differs from mine.

to be wise like Pattern Chaser — Jake

Bloody Hell! :rofl:

No? — Pattern-chaser

No. But it seems that I was right to suspect that this was your misunderstanding.

It looks to me as though that's exactly what you have argued. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your position. It seems so clear.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Where does it conclude that there's no God? :brow:

Pattern Chaser says: "An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position."

That's basically why I consider myself an agnostic.

It's actually a bit more complicated. When it comes to the named deities of monotheistic religious tradition: Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu, that crowd, I'm an atheist. I believe that none of these figures corresponds to anything in reality. (I can't 'prove' it though.)

But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further.

Pattern Chaser: "Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason."

I'd define 'faith' as willingness to commit to the truth of a belief in the absence of sound justification for the belief's truth. And I think that religious or not, we do that every day.

Atheists often like to associate themselves with science. (As if some of science's prestige might rub off on them.) But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. It believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics', it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction). Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law. Physicists fill chalkboards with obscure hieroglyphs, without much concern with what mathematics is, what its foundations are, how human beings know about it in the first place, or what it's precise relationship is to physical reality. Everyone is proud of their use of logic and their employment of reason, without much interest in what justifies these things. (How could logic be logically justified without circularity?) They trust that their sensory experience provides true and reliable knowledge of the external world...

I don't think that human beings could life their lives without faith in this sense, faith in many of these kind of fundamental propositions.

"Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here." — Michael Ossipoff


Lol. That's quite a mouthful. Do did you come up with that yourself? — S

No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses,

Michael Ossipoff

No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses, — Michael Ossipoff

Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction.

But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further. — yazata

I find the agnostic position the weakest. At its base it is not saying they are un convinced of either theism or atheism - at its base it is saying the large questions you asked above, answered by either theism of atheism are not important enough to take a side on. For some the questions demand taking a position, for some they do not. But it is the questions, not the answers that are at the base of being agnostic.

But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata

The true faith under science is the believe that science is capable of answering all possible questions. At its base is really a belief that humans are capable of answering all possible questions. Stepping into theology, this is original sin.

What he says isn't true, which also means that the basic reason why you consider yourself to be an agnostic is an untruth.

How is it a position of faith to assert that God doesn't exist if that assertion is based on a sound argument? And that's not just a hypothetical. Here, I'll demonstrate:

Assertion: God, as per certain definitions, doesn't exist.

Argument: God, as per this definition, is a powerful being which is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and both everywhere and nowhere. A being can't be both everywhere and nowhere. Therefore God, as per this definition, doesn't exist.

Ta-dah!

But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata

No, science isn't faith-based. Science-Worship is faith-based. ..the faith-based belief that Science explains, applies to, and covers all.

And the metaphysics called "Materialism" is faith-based. It's based on belief in an unsupported, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.

Materialists believe that this physical universe is all of reality. That suggests that, definitionally, all Materialists are Science-Worshippers, and that all Science-Worshippers are Materialists.

It [science] believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics'

...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.

...or if they really even apply in our region of this physical universe. ...because subsequent experiments might result in overall results better explained by different physical laws.

, it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction).

No it doesn't. It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned. ...or at least won't be overturned anytime soon. But there's so systemwide assumption that all currently accepted physical laws will apply throughout the future history of physics.

That wouldn't be science.

You haven't read much about science. Physicists have no such firm general belief. Sure, sometimes it seems as if a physical law will likely continue to be upheld. But it's well-understood by physicists that it might not.

Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law.

A physical law is a current working-assumption. Sure, individual physicists might believe that it's likely that some particular physical law(s) will continue to be upheld. But it'd more of a working-assumption, and it isn't something that physicists have unquestioning faith in.

Michael Ossipoff

Your hyperbolic rants against materialism, or, as it's now called, physicalism, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.

I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this? — Devans99

I've said it a number of times now. I can be certain if it violates the law of noncontradiction. And I can be certain if it entails evidence which is absent. But lacking these kind of reasons, sure, there is reason to accept the possibility, as a possibility, even if there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than that.

Religion for sure is complicated to talk about so just keep in mind that this is my opinion, so it can be wrong.
Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else.

No, science isn't faith-based.

It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.

[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.

Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.

It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned.

Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there. As David Hume argued pretty convincingly, it's hard to justify that without circularity.

You haven't read much about science.

I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.

A physical law is a current working-assumption.

And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.