It’s not a belief (unless you intend to be excessively reductionist), rather a summation (however unorthodox) of epistemology. I explained my thinking in the previous post, specifically the problem with claiming as fact that which is not demonstrable, and therefore may not be demonstrated as the fact that it is taken to be. Accepting that what one holds is an opinion, rather than necessarily a fact, is what I was talking about. Why are you calling me Apos??
Yes, Sentient, thank you. Abe, not Apos. Or frankly, anyone who holds to the assertion.
Sounds like walking sideways to me.
I think that that presumes a standard of demonstration that does not exist. If specifically you mean “scientific fact”, then that is at least somewhat less controversial, but not entirely.
Then it is your opinion, and not a fact, that “Belief without supporting fact is the same on either side of the agnostic fence: silly.”
A mistake. But if I were called Apos, I would consider it an honor. 
This particular atheist thinks that it is impossible to be “excessively” reducationist. Either everything is physical or not everything is physical, in which case you might as well believe in God for all the mauling you’ll receive from Ockham’s Razor (which, incidentally, Lib neatly sidesteps).
I don’t assume anything about individuals. I know smart believers and dumb non-believers.
But, if I have to pick 10 random members of an organization (one a Christian Church, the other a group of secular humanists) to play trivia in a bar with, I’ll take the humanists. My personal experiences matches Skeptico’s site - non-believers are more likely to be intellegent.
Metacom, interesting link. Atheist=Chinese or member of a nation where religious observances are prohibited. But apparently, all Italians are Christian. Didn’t know that.
Before I start debating others about the topic, I’ll weigh in with my own views:
*If all you know about a person is that they believe in a god or gods, do you assume that they are…
not intelligent?
Whether one believes or not, anyone who has studied history will see that intelligence has just as often lead the intelligence to spectacular error as spectacular truth. Intelligence is like a fast, driveable car. It doesn’t say much about which road one will pick.
**not rational,
not a (good) critical thinker??
One can just as easily cling to atheism for social/personal/irrational reasons as to a God or gods.
Further, people can apply reason and “critical thinking” to achieve a pre-conceived end, whether they are atheists or Christians. Read Aquinas for an example of the one and Susan Blackmore for an example of the other.
*childlike?
There are many species of bad belief: childlike, fanatical, evangelical, dogmatic, etc. These approaches apply as well to political positions as religious positions.
**If all you know about them is that they follow an organized religion, do you assume that they are…
*not intelligent?
*not rational?
not a (good) critical thinker?
childlike?
The atheists/skeptics usually don’t get this one. Organized relgion’s real purpose is social enjoyment and social control. I myself have participated in campus Christian activities just to have something to do. Half the people there didn’t even go to Church regularly. Such activities are a basic human need. True, it’s better when such needs can be fulfilled without having to accede to irrational, baseless beliefs.
Yep, excessively reductionist. You may be heading straight for a solipsism, at which point we could just assume that “it’s all relative” and nothing matters. However:
What is demonstrable, period. If it is not demonstrable, we can take it as opinion/belief, no? You might use logic, mathematics, the scientific method, and such tools to demonstrate something, depending on the needs of the situation.
The scientific method and its confirmation of demonstrability (if you will), work, and are therefore sound from an epistemological point of view. However the method is frequently employed by some people to attempt to prove in highly objectionable manner some belief they hold. I refer here to a number of creationist scientists, but I might as well be talking about certain dishonest parapsychology researchers or some of the bigots in the eugenics field.
SentientMeat: I agree, I meant that Lib seemed to be reducing the argument to absurd terms and solipsism.
So, Abe, we agree that metaphysical things do not exist?
More or less. I would say that we have no information to suggest that metaphysical (non-concepts) things do exist, and therefore we can say that they do not exist.
Of course, they might exist, conceivably, somewhere… but I know of no epistemically sound information pointing to such existence.
And what would you say mathematics, logic and the scientific method are?
Concepts. That is why I specified that i was talking about “metaphysical things” that are not concepts. Clearly concepts do exist (at least as concepts), and in some cases even work extremely well.
Are concepts not metaphysical things?
Are dreams? Ideas?
You may need to define “mataphysical things”. Since they are products of sentient matter concepts are not necessarily “metaphysical”, but rather are expressions of matter and energy (just like dreams and ideas), which are strictly physical quantities, as far as we can tell.
By metaphysical I assume you meant something that is entirely “superior” to the physical, such as ghosts, angels, gods, and so forth. I did not take your phrase “metaphysical things” to mean all intangible things, as you seem to be suggesting. Since that wasn’t clear in your post, I ruled out concepts from my statement when I answered your question.
“Things which are not physical.”
You see, in order to avoid being sliced up by Ockam’s Razor, the atheist must explain how things like mathematics, logic and scientific principles are physical. To be at all convincing, they must also be able to provide a feasible explanation for the Big Bang, and indeed the universe and everything in it, including human thought.
Now, I can do all of this to my own satisfaction but I meet countless atheists who can’t, yet they continually berate theists about their supposed logical inconsistencies.
Beams, motes, eyes, pots, kettles, stones, glass houses etc.. I would certainly like to hear Mercury address the above, at least.
This I do not get. Why must I provide a feasible explanation for the Big Bang? Why would it make me “not convincing” if I failed to do so? I’ll say it loud and proud: I don’t know what started the Big Bang. Last I checked, no-one does. Does that mean that we chuck all the “unconvincing atheists”, who have actual factual support for the things they do claim, and instead shack up with people who have no support at all? Should we choose the boat that doesn’t exist over the boat that might have a hole in the side?
Sorry to interrupt this metaphysical party you’ve got going on here, but it took me a while to find a summary of a recent theory that purports to identify sixteen reasons people are attracted to religion. The high degree of correlation between religiosity and self-identification with these sixteen points offers a useful outline of the types of personalities that are attracted to religion, better suited for this purpose (classifying people as believers or non-believers) than intelligence alone.
If you were trying to convince me that God is unnecessary, I certainly wouldn’t find someone who answered the question “What is your explanation for the Big Bang” with “Errm, I haven’t got one” convincing at all.
Check again. You’ll find that you’ve framed the problem poorly.
No, it means that atheists must remove the beam in their own eye before berating the mote in a theist’s.
The boat might not exist physically but again I ask: Does maths?
I must note I provided an answer to the question you pose in my previous post, SentientMeat: "Since they are products of sentient matter concepts are not necessarily “metaphysical”, but rather are expressions of matter and energy (just like dreams and ideas), which are strictly physical quantities, as far as we can tell.
"
Are you seriously saying you prefer the explanation “God started it. Where God came from? Not a clue. My evidence that God even exists? None.”?
Yes. Maths is a system that describes physical reality. Of course many things are abstract, like economics or languages or whatever, but in what way does that make them metaphysical? And even if I were to say that maths doesn’t exist physically, what would that prove?
I’m not Mercury , but I’d say a whether or not something physically exist isn’t what makes it true or not. It’s the degree to which that a concept is a reliably useful way to describe or predict the physical world .
Plenty of concepts have very clear physical evidence of being true.
The mathematic equations which describe gravitational behavior don’t physically exist, but when you plug in the numbers from the physical observation of the movements of planets, they reliably describe their motion.
You can believe in any concept you want, but I’d only call it an objectively true concept if it correlates w/ physical reality. There’s plenty of concepts that are out there that aren’t useful to describe the world, and until they do they’re both unproven and of dubious truthfulness.
As an atheist, I absolutely believe that the concept of God exists. 