I like this and completely agree. As an atheist, I can use your template:

I do not believe in god. That means that I believe that there is no god. It is a belief because I cannot prove there is no god, but I am ok with that. If someone who believes that there is a god wanted to claim that I had a belief just like them, that's fine. Why would I get defensive about that?

I have no problem at all with stating "I believe that there is no god" just as I can state "I believe that there are no unicorns." Neither of these constitute a "belief system" that I live by (which is different from people who strongly do believe in god). I consider it trivial to not believe in god, or to believe that there is no god, in the exact same way I consider it trivial to not believe in unicorns, Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, etc.

As has been said many times before in this forum and in many threads, I actually don't see the need for the label "atheist." We have no label for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns, Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, because in an enlightened society those terms are unnecessary. The only reason that the term atheist is necessary is because there is still an ancient belief system that so many people in the modern world cling to.

And why do they cling to it? They were indoctrinated in it at a young age and it "took." To me, the beliefs of religious people appear insane.

In what ways does not holding a belief also require justification?

If I hold no belief as to whether extraterrestrial intelligent life exists on other planets then why would the onus be on me to justify such a position? Wouldn't the onus be on the person arguing for or against the possibility of intelligent life on other planets?

Substitute extraterrestrial intelligent life with Santa, Tooth Fairy, Time Travel, The Meaning of Life (bit of a tricky one) and rinse and repeat.

If you've chosen a side, you ought to justify.
If you haven't chosen a side, you ought to do whatever you want to do.

Perhaps you've got some good reasons as to why not holding a belief requires justification though?

IMO the above is a better way to state your point.



When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Democracy. -Zeno, from his upcoming book: Please Shoot Yourself.

I added the immediate above to inject a bit of comedy into RGT. It really lags in this respect. Life can't be that serious, is it?

This is an interesting read for those that wish to explore the theme(s) of skepticism from its western foundation(s): Ancient Scepticism, linked below-

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Scepti.../dp/0520260260

Yes, you are right. But I'm not calling the people who believe insane. I just think the tenets of major religions are insane. That may sound offensive, but I don't mean it to be.

The only reason these beliefs aren't deemed delusional in our society is that religion is the epitome of group think. Can't be wrong if so many people profess to believe it, right?

No problem. You have recognized it as a belief and are not defensive about it. You do realize that there are a lot of atheists who do get defensive about it, so my comments were directed in that direction.

If you believe these two statements are equivalent and equally valid then you have made a profound error. If you simply meant them to be analogous, then you need to clarify your point to make the statement useful.

The God statement does in fact have consequences with respect to how you live and does indeed constitute a belief system. If you truly believe that it does not, then you have made a second profound error.

Again, a very profound error.

The term exists because it is useful. That is why words exist. Is that difficult to see?

The remainder of your paragraph seems to be an attempt to discredit the concept of theism as "ancient" or "unenlightened". Do you think those constitute counterarguments? I already knew you were an atheist so how is a thinly veiled insult to those who hold a different opinion useful?

Really? You think that every theist is a theist because they are unable to muster the clarity of thought and intelligence that you have demonstrated in becoming an atheist. Again, not a counterargument so there is not much for me to say, but I will point out that your post does not display your incredible analytical capability beyond simply stating that it exists. In any event, my opinion is that you are an atheist due to profound reasoning errors coupled with a serious error in judgment. I do not think you are insane, just not nearly as bright as you think you are.

I don't believe the earth is round. I'm not claiming it's flat. I'm just saying that I don't believe it's round. And this isn't about some sort of "perfect sphere" round. I just don't accept the roundness of the earth.

Do you believe that I can make this assertion unchallenged? That is, do you accept that I can hold this non-belief without some sort of justification?

Edit: I thought about using "I don't believe I exist" but that one might get bogged down in some unnecessary weeds.

Beat me to it (with the same example, I was just going to use the word 'globe').

Thank you for many good laughs. Keep on trucking with your labels and oh-so-"profound" arguments for the existence of a god. I'll just get on with my life. It obviously annoys you that I don't share your delusion.

What criteria are you using that would lead me to think that they are misguided?

I doubt that annoys him.

Keep on trucking

Sound like a belief system (though not very profound). :-)

If you fail to do the duty of a law because you don't believe a law is valid, then they take you to court and are about to punish you, then you would feel the burden to justify yourself.

You may not care to speak and just take whats coming to you, but if you want to escape then you're going to have to justify not doing the duty.

A possible defense could be challenging jurisdiction.

I substituted misguided instead of insane because technically insane is a clinical/medical condition based on set criterion and diagnoses. Insane also carries with it, however used, a deeply negative connotation. I had simply hoped to help foster an interesting discussion by word diplomacy and accuracy. It appears to have failed. Apparently, I am misguided myself. Certainly not the first time that has happened nor will it be the last.

sometimes people just drop by RGT to vent a little, rather than looking for a discussion. I'm not sure there's any benefit in trying to get them to moderate their language. Probably defeats the purpose

Yes you can make this assertion unchallenged. The fact that it has been challenged (with significant evidence on the contrary) however is likely to cloud most people's opinions (as to whether it should be challenged) when you choose to use an example - that has indeed been historically challenged by evidence.

The first person who had asserted that the earth was round was the person who had to justify their beliefs/provide evidence for them: not the people who had no belief as to the roundness of the earth.

There is no onus to provide evidence or justify something for which you hold no belief over. It is only once you assert that - x exists - or - x functions in this way - or - x comprises these properties - must you justify and/or provide evidence for your assertion (belief). Do you believe that the principle of excluded middle or sufficient reason clash with the notion of withholding belief?
If you don't believe a law is valid then by definition you already HAVE a belief about that particular law: making your example irrelevant.

The fact that in my own personal experience they're generally (on average) boring to hang with.

In my conception of "guidance and misguidance" people who avoid taking chances and risks to make themselves more interesting - are not fully living or living to experience the breadth of highs and lows that life has to offer: and are thereby misguided.

If their direction is different to mine however, and they're not looking to expand their breath of experience, then they may not be misguided as there is no objective criteria of "misguided". As a result we all make our own subjective criteria, and there's nothing wrong with that.

One can withhold assent to a proposition, suspending judgement is one of three doxastic attitudes one can have towards a proposition, the others being assenting and denying. The correct attitude towards a proposition is a function of the evidence in support of it. To suspend judgement is to consider the evidence insufficient to assent or deny, unless you want to take a position where you withhold on all non self evident propositions, and the Pyrronist's provide a justification for withholding on all, the decision to suspend will require justification.

We aren't talking about beliefs represented by propositions we don't understand, you are posting in RGT.

Notice that the second half of your claim denies the first half of your claim. It is no longer the case that the rejection of the claim that the earth is round is a legitimate position to hold. The evidence itself challenges the refusal to assent to the claim.

But this isn't about the "first" person to assert the claim. It is about some person TODAY asserting the claim that they do not accept the roundness of the earth and being fully justified on the basis of no reasons at all.

Why not? All you have is a blanket assertion. What reasons do you have for pretending that the refusal to accept a claim can be done without justification in all circumstances?

This isn't a nebulous thing. The terms are completely understood. I simply do not accept the roundness of the earth. Why is my position fully justified?

This has nothing to do with the law of the excluded middle. It has to do with justification. There is no basis upon which the refusal to accept a claim is automatically justifiable.

Pyrronist article was an interesting read. Reminded me some of the book I referenced early in this thread.

I believe that I am Carneades reincarnated. I'm interested in any comments you (or others) may have on that statement.

By the way I've mentioned Carneades before in some previous SMP thread(s).

I am aware that I am posting in RGT. I am also aware that right now I am drinking a Lagunitas IPA. And I know you are not. So I win.

I have two related reasons for making this claim, one of which has been touched on by dereds and Aaron W. First, ignorance can be taken as a justifiable reason for withholding assent or denial of a belief. I think most cases of justifiable withholding of belief are of this type. However, we are not always in a place of ignorance.

For instance, I do not think that withholding belief about the reality of evolution is justified for reasonably educated adults. It is trivially easy to find justifying reasons for accepting evolution (just looking at the unanimity among scientists is sufficient), so if someone withholds belief even after being exposed to this evidence (such as those on this forum who remain skeptical of evolution), I think they do so without proper justification. People think of justification as if were being made from a blank slate, but it isn't. People often already have the information necessary to justify a belief, but because of other, more central, disagreements, still do not accept that belief.

The second reason is that I think belief justification never happens in a vacuum, but is always part of a package of background assumptions about human psychology, the nature of reality, and epistemology. As such, even withholding belief presupposes a set of criteria about belief justification, what kinds of things count as evidence, and so on--all of which require justification. This also shows that the common way of thinking of justification in foundationalist terms, where we justify one belief on top of another until we get down to the foundational beliefs, that are themselves somehow self-justified, doesn't really work. Instead, justification operates on systems of belief as a whole. Here's Quine's way of putting it:

The remainder your quote above I think represents the crux of our disagreement.

It's not "refusal to accept a claim" if you have no beliefs at all regarding the claim: which is the basis of my contention. If I have no opinion whatsoever, with regards to the claim, I am not refusing or agreeing with the claim. Nor am I required to justify the reasons for withholding belief in either agreement or disagreement with it.

Good points, thanks for sharing.

I've never really understood the rationality of this attitude. W0X0F is transparently uninterested in either discussing the truth of religious/theistic beliefs or in exploring the beliefs and motivations of religious people. Nor does he particularly seem interested in persuading anyone to his view--at least, not on any kind of directly intellectual grounds. Instead, this kind of posting seems like a vestigial impulse of group dynamics, where the primary point of insulting others is purely for group morale, by implicitly praising the cleverness of your compatriots.

This makes sense to me when religious people do it--after all, they have a relatively clearly demarcation between in and out. But what group is W0X0f trying to unify? Atheists are too diffuse to really rally with this kind of rhetoric. Furthermore, atheists have much more to lose than to gain by encouraging religious conflict or competition. It seems irrational to me.