Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[Maeght]

the fact is that I jeremyp do not believe in God. That is a statement that is true no matter who you are. It's a universal truth that jeremyp does not believe in God.

Yes, if course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the fact is that I jeremyp do not believe in God. That is a statement that is true no matter who you are. It's a universal truth that jeremyp does not believe in God.

That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?

And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?

[Gordon]

That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?

And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?

For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.

First of all this IMO makes the claim to then having no beliefs about God not credible.

Secondly Anyone.....even the Pope in Rome could criticise arguments for God and reject them.......or do you mean rejecting them all....a priori....ahead of hearing them?

[Maeght]

For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.

Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.

[Roses]

Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.

You also need to take on board the albeit remote possibility that one could be wrong.

[BeRational]

Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.

I agree.

I think you can not believe for good or bad reasons. If you have critically looked at the information and evaluated it, you are more likely to not believe for what you conclude are good reasons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seems to me there are two sorts of atheism: unaware and reasoned.

If someone living on a remote volcanic island somewhere is convinced that there’s a volcano god causing eruptions I’m an atheist in respect of that god because I’ve never heard of it. That is, I have no awareness even of the potential existence of that god. 

On the other hand, if that islander (or any other believer in any other god) attempts to validate his claim with argument then I can investigate that and, when I find the argument to be logically false (as so far any I’ve ever seen have been), then I’m a reason-based atheist in the sense that I can dismiss the attempted validation.

The “true for me” thing is useful when the islander then says, “OK, I cannot make a cogent argument for my god but I believe it to be real nonetheless”. That’s a faith belief that for him is every bit as true as the moon orbiting the Earth is true for me. The difference between these beliefs though is that the former is specific to the islander whereas the latter has general application – by sending rockets to the moon for example – so we can call it a fact.

That’s pretty much how I view the claims of a Christian god too. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who believe in such a thing, but (so far at least) I’ve seen no good reason to think them to be right.           

[Gordon]

Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.

That is why I added 'for me': in my case, not having had any involvement in religion as a child or during my school years, it was only as an adult that I wondered why other people got themselves involved in religion, so I decided to find out a little more.

I was generally interested in philosophy anyway and when I encountered philosophy of religion stuff, and gave it some thought, I concluded that the arguments offered in support of 'God(s)' were all spurious.   

[Gordon]

First of all this IMO makes the claim to then having no beliefs about God not credible.

Secondly Anyone.....even the Pope in Rome could criticise arguments for God and reject them.......or do you mean rejecting them all....a priori....ahead of hearing them?

See #233.

[jeremyp]

That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?

And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?

You've totally missed the point of my post.

[jeremyp]

The “true for me” thing is useful when the islander then says, “OK, I cannot make a cogent argument for my god but I believe it to be real nonetheless”. That’s a faith belief that for him is every bit as true as the moon orbiting the Earth is true for me. The difference between these beliefs though is that the former is specific to the islander whereas the latter has general application – by sending rockets to the moon for example – so we can call it a fact.
     

I think that is a misuse of the word "true". The volcano god either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, no amount of people believing it does is going to change that.

There are subjective truths - it's true for me that Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is a great film, but it's false for Mark Kermode - but the existence of a deity is not one of those unless you want to deny objective reality, which you can if you like, but it's the nuclear option.

[Maeght]

That is why I added 'for me': in my case, not having had any involvement in religion as a child or during my school years, it was only as an adult that I wondered why other people got themselves involved in religion, so I decided to find out a little more.

I was generally interested in philosophy anyway and when I encountered philosophy of religion stuff, and gave it some thought, I concluded that the arguments offered in support of 'God(s)' were all spurious.

Okay, so that's what was needed for you to be an atheist - a different question really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Jeremy,

I think that is a misuse of the word "true". The volcano god either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, no amount of people believing it does is going to change that.

There are subjective truths - it's true for me that Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is a great film, but it's false for Mark Kermode - but the existence of a deity is not one of those unless you want to deny objective reality, which you can if you like, but it's the nuclear option.

Depends what you mean by “true”, but it seems to me to be a probability game. The islander thinks – really, really thinks – that “volcano god” is an objective truth. That others don’t agree with him must be their mistake or their ignorance, but for him it’s still an objective fact about the world.

For me, the moon orbiting the Earth is an objective truth too. I think it’s a better supported claim of truth than the volcano god because I have various tools at my disposal to verify it that across the landscape have been shown through intersubjective experience to provide solutions, but that’s all.

I wouldn’t therefore make a claim of ultimate, certain truth – for all I know the moon is an illusion put there by Zarg, the pan-Galactic commander of the Milky Way star fleet – but I have no means to investigate such a possibility so I proceed on the basis of the only truth I can investigate, albeit provisionally.       

[Gordon]

Okay, so that's what was needed for you to be an atheist - a different question really.

Indeed: others might consider themselves to be atheists having been involved with religion and, in response, rejected theism else they could have just conclude that the proposal 'God' doesn't even get off the ground and is no more than superstition - which would my position in relation to, say, fairies.

[jeremyp]

Hi Jeremy,

Depends what you mean by “true”,

"Accurately describes reality".

but it seems to me to be a probability game. The islander thinks – really, really thinks – that “volcano god” is an objective truth. That others don’t agree with him must be their mistake or their ignorance, but for him it’s still an objective fact about the world.

But if there is no volcano god, the islander is wrong and his belief is a falsehood.

For me, the moon orbiting the Earth is an objective truth too. I think it’s a better supported claim of truth than the volcano god because I have various tools at my disposal to verify it that across the landscape have been shown through intersubjective experience to provide solutions, but that’s all.

The fact that you can never be 100% certain of the truth does not alter the fact that "the Moon orbits the Earth" is either true or it isn't. You may be absolutely certain that the Moon orbits the Earth and 99% of the population may be certain that the Moon orbits the Earth but it does not alter the fact that the Moon does not orbit the Earth and your belief is false.

This "true for me" stuff really annoys me because it allows people to avoid dealing with reality. It lets the believers of nonsense off the hook. Why can't we just be honest and say "the Moon orbits the Earth is a simplification of the fact that the Moon orbits the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system and even that is also a simplification because you have to add in the effects of the Sun, planets and other mass in the Universe".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

"Accurately describes reality".

“Accurately” according to what metrics? Lots of things have been thought to be accurate descriptions of reality that have turned out to be no such thing. The most we can say is something like, “most congruent with the methods and tools available at this time to determine provisional accuracy”.
 

But if there is no volcano god, the islander is wrong and his belief is a falsehood.

And if the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth then we are wrong and our belief about that is false too. That’s the point – things are only as true as we can establish them to be, but no more. 

The fact that you can never be 100% certain of the truth does not alter the fact that "the Moon orbits the Earth" is either true or it isn't. You may be absolutely certain that the Moon orbits the Earth and 99% of the population may be certain that the Moon orbits the Earth but it does not alter the fact that the Moon does not orbit the Earth and your belief is false.

Sort of, but the idea of “100% true” is a philosophical problem rather than an evidential one. Even if we thought we had every possible piece of evidence there ever could be for a conclusion, we have no means to eliminate the possibility at least of an unknown unknown that could show us to be wrong. That something “either is true or it isn’t” is fine conceptually, but that’s all it is.     

This "true for me" stuff really annoys me because it allows people to avoid dealing with reality. It lets the believers of nonsense off the hook. Why can't we just be honest and say "the Moon orbits the Earth is a simplification of the fact that the Moon orbits the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system and even that is also a simplification because you have to add in the effects of the Sun, planets and other mass in the Universe".

I don’t think it need let them off the hook at all. If Fred says, “the moon orbits the Earth” and Jill says, “the Earth orbits the moon” Fred's claim can be shown probabilistically to be more likely to be true than Jill's within the context of the tools available to both Fred and Jill. And that’s enough for Fred’s claim to be accepted and Jill’s to be dismissed. The danger though is in Fred overreaching into claiming certainty for his truth.     

[Nearly Sane]

Pretty much with jeremyp on this. The true for me declaration reads not about the belief in the claim but about the responsibility one is is willing to take about the claim. It isn't that people do not think it is true; just they think it is a pass to not justifying it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Pretty much with jeremyp on this. The true for me declaration reads not about the belief in the claim but about the responsibility one is is willing to take about the claim. It isn't that people do not think it is true; just they think it is a pass to not justifying it.

That doesn't contradict most of what I said, but getting a pass for not justifying it is rather the point. People who can rationalise their beliefs will be circumspect about them - recognising that if further and better particulars arrive they could be shown to be wrong. The uncertainty of thinking you could be wrong tends to engender tentativeness, humility, caution. 

By contrast, the person who believes as an article of faith knows – really, really knows beyond any possibility ever of being wrong – so can proceed with total confidence to act as his faith dictates. If the islander categorically knows that sacrificing a first born will stop an eruption that'd kill the whole village for example then he'll do it - and with a good heart and a clear conscience too. After all, he'll have just saved the whole village (minus one).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

That doesn't contradict most of what I said, but getting a pass for not justifying it is rather the point. People who can rationalise their beliefs will be circumspect about them - recognising that if further and better particulars arrive they could be shown to be wrong. The uncertainty of thinking you could be wrong tends to engender tentativeness, humility, caution. 

By contrast, the person who believes as an article of faith knows – really, really knows beyond any possibility ever of being wrong – so can proceed with total confidence to act as his faith dictates. If the islander categorically knows that sacrificing a first born will stop an eruption that'd kill the whole village for example then he'll do it - and with a good heart and a clear conscience too. After all, he'll have just saved the whole village (minus one).

As interesting as this is it is about theism and at best an obscure theism at that. This thread is about atheism and there are a hundred other theism threads covering this ground.
Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs ...........I would rephrase the question Hillside raises. ........Could an atheist sacrifice others for any cause related to the beliefs they form in rejecting religion or for the sake of reason?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

“Accurately” according to what metrics?

Really? You're going down the dictionary bullshit route?

Lots of things have been thought to be accurate descriptions of reality that have turned out to be no such thing.

Indeed and we can therefore label them as false. What's your point?

The most we can say is something like, “most congruent with the methods and tools available at this time to determine provisional accuracy”.

There's what we can say and there is what is true. Because of the limitations of our perceptions and methods, we can never say with certainty that some statement about the real World is true, but that doesn't mean that the statement is not true.
 

And if the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth then we are wrong and our belief about that is false too. That’s the point – things are only as true as we can establish them to be, but no more. 

Bollocks. Either the Moon orbits the Earth or it doesn't. The statement "the Moon orbits the Earth" doesn't suddenly change from being true to false just because our understanding of gravity improves.  It was false all along. All that's changed is our understanding of it.

[Maeght]

Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs

What?

...........I would rephrase the question Hillside raises. ........Could an atheist sacrifice others for any cause related to the beliefs they form in rejecting religion or for the sake of reason?

What beliefs?

[Gordon]

Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs

No I didn't: I said that I had considered the various arguments offered by theists and found them to be fallacious and/or incoherent, which is all that is required to dismiss the argument.

Do pay attention, Vlad.

[Maeght]

No I didn't: I said that I had considered the various arguments offered by theists and found them to be fallacious and/or incoherent, which is all that is required to dismiss the argument.

Do pay attention, Vlad.

You seem to speak the lingo. Can you translate for me?

[Gordon]

You seem to speak the lingo. Can you translate for me?

I'll try, M; though when encountering Vladdish as uttered by himself, one can never be certain.

My guess is that Vlad somehow still thinks that being an atheist involves having beliefs that are somehow akin to theism, and that when an atheist rejects theism it is because they hold these beliefs. He's been told otherwise, and often, that atheists tend not to hold beliefs about Gods and that saying there are no good reasons to think that Gods are real, such as by rejecting certain arguments, isn't exactly the same as believing there are no Gods.

I think that is what he is getting at, though I can't be certain: it could well be that he's providing us with a recipe for scones.