The 5 famous atheists thread got me thinking about what exactly constitutes a belief...

I'd like to think that I don't hold beliefs about anything. Rather, I try to figure out what's true by assigning different degrees of certainty about things. However, when probabilities reach a certain point to one extreme or the other, I guess I do have to consider that a belief...

For instance, I've never been to the north pole. Yet, I'm willing to believe there is snow there. It's possible that all of the scientists, articles I've read, and pictures I've seen have been all part of some large hoax, but I'm willing to go ahead and "believe" that there is snow at the north pole.

If one of you told me you have a ghost living in your attic, I'd tend not to believe that. I'd be so skeptical, that I'd be willing to go ahead and believe that there was never a ghost in your attic.

So when it comes to an invisible personal god who answers prayers, I think the probability is almost as low as your ghost. So to that end, I suppose I do hold an active belief that there no god exists.

Yet I always cringe a little when some naive theist wants to say that atheism is a belief system. Until now, I've been perfectly okay with an analogy like WOXOF saying that atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby. But maybe I shouldn't be okay with it?

So what is a belief? I don't believe in gods, but does that have to mean that I believe no gods exist? I guess it does. But something just feels dirty about that. I don't believe Yeti exists, so I guess I believe he doesn't. But am I required to make a claim? I believe Yeti and god are fictional characters. Is that a claim I must defend? Or can I just say that I reject the claims that they do exist, and leave it at that. I'm so confused

I think this is one of the biggest reasons why discussions about religion and god break down so easily. Each side maintains the other side has a belief system, but I really don't think non-belief is a belief system. So I'd like a discussion just about what constitutes a belief.

The classic trichotomy is that given a claim, you either:

A) Accept it
B) Reject it
C) Take no position on it

So are you "required" to make a claim? No.

That being said, there's definitely an element of this which is intellectual honesty. Some atheists take the no-position position because it's true that it requires no justification. But I also believe that many atheists who take that position really don't think God exists. They just choose to describe their position in this manner because it avoids having to defend anything.

You really don't believe Yetis exist. That is, you believe the statement "Yetis do not exist" is true. And you have reasons for that. And that's fine because you really do believe in their non-existence. That's very different from merely saying "I reject the claim 'Yetis exist.'" That leaves the possibility open that you also reject the claim "Yetis don't exist."

Original Position had a thread ("Weak Atheists attack"?) where he tried to convince the no-position atheists that their position is unjustified. That is, they are holding on to the no-position position for reasons that are insufficient.

A good example of a truly no-position position is the following example:

Claim 1: There are an even number of stars
Claim 2: There are an odd number of stars

I can reject both statements while not needing to accept one, and there's a probabilistic sense in which I think both are equally likely to be true.

But if you take the next pairing of statements:

Claim 1: God exists
Claim 2: God does not exist

I think most atheists will believe that Claim 2 is more likely than Claim 1, and significantly so. But they have reasons for not taking a position on either one. Justified or not... that is the question.

A discussion regarding absolutes and ultimates is usually hampered by very little seemingly being absolute or ultimate. So at the end of the day, I'd rather view justified knowledge as something resulting from "qualified consensus subject to change".

Belief in such a setting would be considered from its instrumental and empirical value rather than some endless debate about absolute certainty.

And when the inevitable protest "but you can't know anything for certain" crops up, you merely challenge the protester to jump off a very tall building and get back to you.

Okay, but I do take a position, insofar that I would be willing to bet everything I own (including my eternal soul) that no gods exists. Of course, I don't believe I have an eternal soul so that's a bit disingenuous. But I would definitely bet all my money on it.

Again, I like to live my life by assigning probabilities. There's a chance if I go outside today, I will be hit and killed by a truck. Yet, I'm going out, because I deem the chances justify the risk. I certainly would not bet even money on whether the number of stars are even or odd.

I'm trying to decide if I'm a weak or strong atheist. I'm guessing it's strong. I put the probabilities so low that I'm willing to say that I think a god does not exist. I believe a god does not exist. Yet, I don't claim to know this for sure. I'd be willing to change my mind if compelled to do so by new evidence. So to that end, I like to think I'm different than most theists. I do think the chances for god and yeti are identical. If anything, I think there's a slightly greater chance of Yeti. So what am I, besides confused?

But I am willing to flat out declare that I do not think a god exists. Does this mean I believe no god exists? I think it does. I'm not wishy washy about it. So is this a claim I need to justify? I know there is no way of proving my position, so I try to steer clear of making any claims about god. Yet, I do make this claim. I don't think gods exist = I believe no gods exist. Am I a hypocrite?

You have the belief of a strong atheist, but your rational position is open to questioning your opinion.

There is nothing odd about this; it is in fact extremely common in every facet of human experience. For example you might (hypothetically) enjoy a good BBQ with your family, but your rational position could be that excessive western lifestyle ruins the world we live in.

Or to use your own analogy: You are confident the north pole exists, but you'd be willing to rationally accept the position that you can't know for certain. And so forth.

I think I consider it a belief system when an identity begins to form around it at a subconscious level which can affect thoughts, feelings and behavior even if it's subtle. So in my view, it's a product of how much time and energy is invested in the subject.

Don't get bogged down by "for sure" as being a meaningful quantifier in this type of discussion.

No, you're actually the same as most theists. Don't fall into the "I'm better than they are" trap.

It's a claim you ought to be able to justify. Whether you "need" to justify it really depends more on the context in which you've made the statement.

No. But if you find that your inability to "prove" your position is not a barrier to your disbelief, then you shouldn't be surprised at the theist's inability to "prove" their position yet to believe anyway.

The biggest difference I see between the atheist and the theist who have both put a lot of consideration into this is that the theist doesn't fully understand how their belief system has formulated. The atheist engages on a rational, intellectual level and so the theist will attempt to reply at that level and may even think that their belief is based on rational reasons when it's not. The metaphysical is outside the domain of reason and logic.

Again, the "we're better than they are" style of argumentation. It doesn't actually do anything, but lots of people like to use it.

Well, except for that whole branch of philosophy called metaphysics.

We all have extremely complex models of the world. These models are further colored by emotion, philosophical sophistication (and choice of philosophy, conscious or not), and modified by focus, habit, etc.

To say that there's a "null" position on something as fundamental as religious belief (or lack thereof) is just nonsense, in my opinion. At all times you're operating a model of reality that goes from the basest emotions through to your highest thoughts. That's a real thing and it's learned and it's a positive act. It's a long way from the "no position" of a vegetable or an ant.

I think we're largely unaware of how our philosophical choices (i.e. what philosoph(ies) we filter the world through), needs, feelings, habits etc color our world. Atheists are usually tending toward individualists, materialists, naturalists, rationalists, narcissists, etc. Their atheism is simply built on top of the philosophical undercurrents that define them. You can pretend to tease out the purely rational arguments, but that's not what's going on in 99% of atheists.

Are those philosophies (of atheists) more valid than others? Not really. We know from philosophy that no particular one can be proven false (all the core philosophies that exist are irreducible to some extent).

So I don't think there is a null position in a real human being who has an opinion on something. What we think about things are all positive acts and choices (conscious or not) about how to filter everything.

Another rehashed dialogue that's circulated RGT at least 10 times since I've been here.

Intellectually I don't take any position on God's existence. But, I live my life as if his existence is unnecessary. So for all intents and purposes, he doesn't exist.

This doesn't mean I believe God does not exist. Merely that his existence/non-existence is irrelevant to my life: and this is a belief in itself - but a belief of utility, not truth.

To provide an analogy, do I have belief regarding whether bigfoot exists? No. I take no position on whether bigfoot exists or not, since its irrelevant to my day-to-day life.

In this pragmatic way, I only take a position on issues that I deduce can discernibly and significantly have an impact on my day-to-day life. Perhaps if my line of work was in biology, I might take a position on bigfoot's existence. But since the existence of rare animals is not something that discernibly and significantly impacts on my life or the work I do, I have no sufficient reason to take a position on it.

I'm not an atheist so no need to take on the victim mentality and metaphysical philosophy is all pointless speculation.

Edit: I should have clarified that a belief in God is not ROOTED in reason.

We all have beliefs. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. What many people find objectionable is the idea of having a "belief system" which means being committed to particular beliefs.

I believe that unicorns do not exist. If I saw one up close, I would change my mind. I believe that the universe is ~13.8 billion years old and is expanding. It's not inconceivable that I could change my mind about that.

I believe that the God described by any religion I've come across does not exist. What it would take to change my mind depends on the god in question but for the most part any apparent evidence for most of them would probably lead me to doubt my senses more than my worldview.

Even though in principle I might like to think of myself as not having any belief system, I'm pretty strongly committed to a physical materialist model of mind and a rejection of any form of cartesian dualism which means that if for instance Jesus came down from the clouds tomorrow and started performing miracles, I would be looking for physicalist explanations which might include my own insanity or that this world is a computer simulation, etc.

I categorically disbelieve in the supernatural because I see it as being a logical impossibility. The existence of psychic powers or beings with powers I couldn't explain would not imply to me that anything beyond nature exists. It would just mean that nature was quite different from my understanding of it (which has to be true in some ways to varying degrees anyway).

This is a very good description! So to the extend that my atheism involves me with politics and discussions about religion, it can be said that my atheism is in fact, a belief system!

I'm okay with that, because truth be told, I am a rather active atheist. I get upset (and vocal) about ID being taught alongside evolution in schools. I get upset when courts don't allow euthanasia for terminal illnesses. I get upset about gays being discriminated against, etc. So to that end, I hold a belief system.

Thanks!

I get upset when people try to mould everyone into a standardised set of beliefs, as such. The reason I get upset about it is partly my inclination toward libertarianism and partly my pragmatic desire to maintain competitive advantage over those clinging to out-dated ideas.

If a fish on a poker table is telling you all about how 8-4 is a great starting hand in first-position in a 9 player game, you naturally encourage such a belief system.

I suppose there are atheists who would also admit to never being convinced of the existence for god. But I am inclined to think they are fewer than theists who admit to this. I've had numerous believers in god tell me that NOTHING could ever change their mind about Jesus being their Savior or that God is a loving god, etc.

I don't mean it to sound like I'm better, but in my experience, atheists are more willing to change their opinion. Of course, I realize that doesn't necessarily mean much. I mean, if god appeared to me tonight, I'd probably be more inclined to think I was hallucinating than think it was really god. However, if the stars rearranged themselves into the 10 commandments and this could be verified by scientists all over the world, then I'm going to think there's something to it. Whereas, if stars rearranged to form the sentence "Vishnu is the one true god", I'd think most Christians would think it's a trick and still believe in Yahweh.

I just want to remain logically consistent. I have found this is much easier said than done. There have been many times just in this forum where I thought I was being consistent only to have DS, yourself, or someone else point out that I wasn't in the big picture.

Well, this gets to the crux of everything. "Prove" is such a strong term. There's really not much I can prove about anything. I like to think that I'm able to at least "justify" my beliefs so that any other rationally sane person would agree with me. I don't expect a theist to be able "prove" that a god exists. But I do expect them to be able to "justify" it to in a way I can agree with. Since I've yet to meet one who can, I of course, think that they're wrong! -lol. What if anything, can be done about this?

I would not be so convinced if I were you that if God appeared to you, that you would automatically think it is a hallucination.

I smoked some weed laced with some unknown substance and had auditory hallucinations. I knew what I was hearing wasn't real but the brain is trained to believe our senses. It was unbelievably difficult to dismiss them. If there was visual ones as well I doubt that I could have dismissed them.

As a former acid user who has had some incredibly powerful hallucinations, I get it. But a week after coming down, if you still didn't realize you were hallucinating, I wouldn't have much respect for your intellect.

There are plenty of examples of people who have said that who have at some future point in their life changed their mind.

In what domain of thought and how strongly did they hold their opinion in the first place?

One of the errors that Mightyboosh has made repeatedly was to treat religious thought as being something totally different other forms of thought, and that there were somehow some extra rules or something that governed the development of religious beliefs and that those things look absolutely nothing like how other beliefs are formed.

But in reality, it's all basically the same. We have experiences and observations and those things feed our understanding of the world around us. We take in some information through reading, through thinking about our experiences, and through things that we don't have any control over. We've got biases that are either innate biases or biases that we've developed through ideas that have been reinforced over the course of our lives. That's just how people come to believe things, religious or otherwise.

I don't know what people would do in that scenario because it's so outlandish. It's hard to predict how people will behave when they experience something that far out of their own set of past experiences.

"Logically consistent" is a very different type of standard all together. I will assert that it is logically consistent to believe that there is a God and logically consistent to believe that there isn't a God. It all depends on what types of worldview assumptions you're building on.

There are times where we do run into these inconsistencies, and sometimes they're real inconsistencies and sometimes it's more about the contextualization of concepts. Some statements may be true in some contexts and not the other. Sometimes, things may not even be true or false in some technical sense, but they could lie on a better/worse scale or a useful/useless scale.

"Agree with you" meaning that they would also adopt your position, or "agree with you" meaning that they can understand your position and why you hold it? Those are very different standards.

Before asking what can be done, why not first consider what you want to be done? What are you trying to accomplish?

It's entirely possible that you're not able to "agree with" the theist because you're looking for something that's not there and missing the thing that is there. If you think of religious beliefs as being merely a collection of abstract statements that are either true or false, you're not going to find anything compelling about religious statements. You can *always* deny assumptions. You can *always* reject the gap between an observation and the acceptance of some corresponding claim. There's no way around that.

When people say they believe something to be true they typically mean they make it more likely than not. Better than fifty percent. But when talking about God something strange happens. They somehow feel that belief requires a much higher percentage. Atheists conversely tend not to admit you to their club unless your number is tiny.

You would think that this would leave a lot of people in limbo because they think there is somewhere between a 10% and 90% chance that God exists. But strangely there are very few people who are in this limbo category. Or if they are, they won't admit it. Why do you think that is?

This seems inaccurate. I think it's exceedingly rare for someone who thinks a statement is true if they have 50.1% confidence in it.

(And it's also far from clear that people make meaningfully quantitative statements like that in the first place.)