Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'?

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

That sounds like a mocking term that one would use to deflect us away from the fact that you added the tag “God” to your “Creator” after you claimed that “Creator” only meant that which started the whole shebang.

It seems that you are more at odds with the terms being used than you are the concept of First Cause, or creation. Is that right?

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

If we assume that there was a first cause(the “Creator”), why should we then assume that this “Creator” still exists after all this time? Indeed, might it not be possible that the very act of Creating destroyed the Creator?
“There ain’t enuff room in this universe for th’ both of us, pardner.”

I allow for that exception. But why is that important? We’re discussing the creation, not today. I’m curious as to why you bring this up.

[magellan01]

@The_Hamster_King

“Eternal”?

“Sentient”?

It sounds like you’re making a few more assumptions than the mere existence of an uncaused cause … .

Granted, they are not necessary attributes. Particularly “eternal”. I find it hard to envision a non-sentient Creator, but that’s not a primary attribute either.

[magellan01]

@PBear42

And, no, you don’t have any basis for assuming your Creator is eternal or sentient. Nor does assuming such solve the problem of where it came from.

Correct. I addressed this in a recent post.

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

According to the premise put forth in this thread, atheists cannot know that there is no god. Does it not follow that religionists cannot know that there is a god?
Let’s see a show of hands for all those that believe in a god, but will admit that they do not know if there is a god.

<raises hand>

I’m glad you posted this. I do think that all opinions on the existence of a Creator should be followed by “…but I might be wrong”.

[magellan01]

@iamnotbatman

OK. Your logic is:

1. Everything needs a cause
2. God doesn’t need a cause

As others have pointed out, this is flatly a contradiction, and an obvious one at that. Even forgiving the logical blunder, it makes no sense from any sympathetic angle I can muster; it is incomprehensible to me what you could be thinking. I realize you use the word “special” as though anointing your exception with this adjective precludes the application of rational thought, but look you: if God doesn’t require a cause, then neither does the universe – the universe can just as well be “God” as anything else.

Nope. It’s simply un an unfair reading of what I’ve been saying.

As far as the universe being it’s own cause, and I think that is a possibility for “a” universe, as in a multiverse scenario, but you’re still left with who/what created the universe that created our universe? Or “what set the wheels in motion?”.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

Nope. It’s simply un an unfair reading of what I’ve been saying.

As far as the universe being it’s own cause, and I think that is a possibility for “a” universe, as in a multiverse scenario, but you’re still left with who/what created the universe that created our universe? Or “what set the wheels in motion?”.

I don’t see how, given that we’ve already come up with the notion that some things need not have a cause. IOW, if you could have a creator god without a cause, why not a universe?

[x-ray_vision]

@magellan01

Granted, they are not necessary attributes. Particularly “eternal”. I find it hard to envision a non-sentient Creator, but that’s not a primary attribute either.

This was your argument:

@magellan01

Of course there is an exception to my argument that everything needs a cause—otherwise I wouldn’t hold the position I do. It necessitates a special exception, and that exception is a Creator God. If you want to characterize the blaring obvious exception as a contradiction :rolleyes:, well, knock yourself out.

So now you’re saying your “Creator God” need not be sentient?

You also said this:

I’m not impressed. There’s nothing there that hasn’t been offered on these boards. By the way, where did the particle come from? Your back to a Creator God.

So, the God doesn’t have to be sentient but It can’t be a particle or a universe (from another realm) that started this one, so what can your god be that’s not sentient?

@iamnotbatman

OK. Your logic is:

1. Everything needs a cause
2. God doesn’t need a cause

As others have pointed out, this is flatly a contradiction, and an obvious one at that. Even forgiving the logical blunder, it makes no sense from any sympathetic angle I can muster; it is incomprehensible to me what you could be thinking. I realize you use the word “special” as though anointing your exception with this adjective precludes the application of rational thought, but look you: if God doesn’t require a cause, then neither does the universe – the universe can just as well be “God” as anything else.

@magellan01

Nope. It’s simply un an unfair reading of what I’ve been saying.

How so?

[magellan01]

@x-ray_vision

Replace “universe” with “God” and your position is less rational than one involving there not having been a first cause by your own admission. Of course it’s much less rational than proposing that the universe was always here since we already know the universe exists. There’s zero evidence for your creator god.

So, if I walk into a room and see a cat on a sofa, it’s rational to assume that the cat is eternal, because we know the cat exists? How about if we look to a planet, or the sun, should we assume they are eternal, because we know they exist?

The evidence for a Creator is two-fold. 1) the universe exists, and 2) we can point to nothing that does not require a cause. In other words, of all that we are aware of, there is NO THING that we know to be causeless. There are a trillion trillion things that we know DO have cause, and NOT ONE THING that we know to not have a cause.

So, it seems to me that the much more rational position is that the universe, like everything else of of our realm, has a cause. Yes, this might turtle down, but eventually you will necessarily reach a cause that is the First Cause. That god, particle, thing, by definition, wold not be subject to the laws of our universe.

@x-ray_vision

I didn’t think you would be. I’m not arguing with you for your benefit; I’m doing it for anyone that may be swayed by irrational arguments.

Oh, what would all the little people do without you? :rolleyes:

@x-ray_vision

No, I’m not. I’m back to not knowing how the universe got here and still having no coherent argument from you why a creator god is a necessity. I’m fine not knowing.

So, you make room for the belief that there is a Creator God? As far as the last sentence, it doesn’t sound too believable.

@x-ray_vision

You said my posting of a refutation of the first cause argument was nothing new to this board but you’re not aware that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive?

No, I’m not. And I’ve been involved in quite a few threads like this. Unless you mean atheist in regard to God and agnostic in regard to Creation. But I don’t think that is a correct use of “agnostic”. But please, enlighten me.

[Nzinga_Seated]

I know it has been asked billions and billions of times over hundreds of years, but I still can’t help longing for an answer.

***If the universe needs a cause, why doesn’t ‘god’?? ***We can’t say "because, that’s a special case’ because plenty of folks believe that the universe is a special case!

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

I don’t see how, given that we’ve already come up with the notion that some things need not have a cause. IOW, if you could have a creator god without a cause, why not a universe?

Hi, Rev.

Well, explain to me how that might work? Where did all the energy/matter come from? If you have a theory I’d like to hear it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

Hi, Rev.

Well, explain to me how that might work? Where did all the energy/matter come from? If you have a theory I’d like to hear it.

I don’t believe I need to, given that we have no particular methodology for a god. The point of a creator god such as the one you’re talking about is that it is, essentially, designed to fulfil all the points that are required - certainly reasonable as far as that goes. Assuming that all things must have a cause, but that infinite regression doesn’t work, we must assume an uncaused cause. Given that we have seen no things which do not require a cause, we can’t really define uncausedness as anything other than that; we have no example of uncaused things (I fear I don’t understand quantum mechanics enough to go with that), so we can’t pin down the quality of uncausedness.

With that in mind, then, who is to say that a god may have that quality - indeed, that the only thing which can have that quality is a god - given that we have no idea what it would entail? With a god, we simply define it from itself; a godly being is capable of creation and without cause because we have defined it as something capable of creation and without cause. We don’t need to explain how it does that, or what it would entail - so why not define a universe as that?

If anything, since a creator god of no qualities other than those which are necessary for creation and uncausedness is inherently unknowable, and given that your argument is based, in part, on what we know of and see of the world, then it is odd to claim the existence of something we have no knowledge of to something that we do.

[magellan01]

@x-ray_vision

How so?

I think I’ll end our discussion with this post. It’s unfair, and childish, because you’re playing games with the word “everything”. It seems someone more interested in an actual debate than trying to score cheap points would accept that my use of the word “everything” goes to everything that we are aware of, everything of our knowledge base, everything of of our realm. Especially when I’ve explained it more than once.

But that’s just me.

You know, these discussions always devolve one way or another. Sometimes it’s someone’s insistence in using terms like FSM, other times, like this, it’s due to someone being more interested in semantic games of gotcha.

Onward.

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

I don’t believe I need to,

You don’t. Though it might have been helpful in this, what do you call this again…discussion.

[magellan01]

@Nzinga_Seated

I know it has been asked billions and billions of times over hundreds of years, but I still can’t help longing for an answer.

***If the universe needs a cause, why doesn’t ‘god’?? ***We can’t say "because, that’s a special case’ because plenty of folks believe that the universe is a special case!

Because, as my thinking goes, the universe would be subject to the laws that apparently govern the universe. And from what we know, there are no causeless events. A “God” would, by definition, be able to operate outside of those constraints.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

You don’t. Though it might have been helpful in this, what do you call this again…discussion.

A hilarious point which is in no way contradictory to the tone of your prior post. And to further a discussion, one might assume it would be courteous to respond to more than a single point in someone’s argument.

By and large, I could provide many potential explanations - the problem is highlighting which is actually possible, or likely. In this sort of situation, that’s kind of a murky process. The basic question, I would argue, is not the methodology, but whether we can come up with a methodology which is solely unique to creator gods.

[CurtC]

@magellan01

… and 2) we can point to nothing that does not require a cause. In other words, of all that we are aware of, there is NO THING that we know to be causeless. There are a trillion trillion things that we know DO have cause, and NOT ONE THING that we know to not have a cause.

How many kinds of things are we aware of that come into existence? Your example was a cat on a sofa, but that’s not something new coming into existence; it’s simply a rearrangement of parts that were already here.

It seems to me that the only things that come into existence are 1) subatomic particles, and 2) the universe. Now we know that subatomic particles are completely causeless, and we’re not sure about how the universe came into existence. So using your method of basing our assumption about the cause of the universe on what we already know, you’d have to assume first that the universe itself was uncaused.

@magellan01

@iamnotbatman

OK. Your logic is:

1. Everything needs a cause
2. God doesn’t need a cause

I think I’ll end our discussion with this post. It’s unfair, and childish, because you’re playing games with the word “everything”. It seems someone more interested in an actual debate than trying to score cheap points would accept that my use of the word “everything” goes to everything that we are aware of, everything of our knowledge base, everything of of our realm. Especially when I’ve explained it more than once.

I thought his summary of your argument was completely fair. It’s just taking your previous posting and boiling it down to its essence. You seem to object, and people have repeatedly asked you what’s the basis of your objection, but you avoid the question and now you’re getting all huffy.

I’ll ask it again: why is iamnotbatman’s summary different from what you’ve been saying all along?

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Because, as my thinking goes, the universe would be subject to the laws that apparently govern the universe. And from what we know, there are no causeless events. A “God” would, by definition, be able to operate outside of those constraints.

So would a genie, a leprechaun, Superman, Matter Eater Lad, Santa Claus, and millions of other imaginaries that are all more probable than your Causeless Event that must exist because Causeless Events cannot exist.
ouch It hurt my brain to even type that out.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Well, explain to me how that might work? Where did all the energy/matter come from? If you have a theory I’d like to hear it.

Well, explain to me how that might work? Where did your “Creator” come from? If you have a theory I’d like to hear it. Without a definition, your “solution” is just a fuzzy. Could you please give us a definition of “Creator” that doesn’t involve circular reasoning?

[Galileo]

@magellan01

No, I’m not [aware that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive]. And I’ve been involved in quite a few threads like this. Unless you mean atheist in regard to God and agnostic in regard to Creation. But I don’t think that is a correct use of “agnostic”. But please, enlighten me.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief. Someone can be agnostic and atheist, depending on how those words are defined.

Perhaps these two excerpts from Wikipedia will help:
Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims — especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims — is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Atheism:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Some atheists in this thread have the belief that the only correct definition of “atheism” is the third one: simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. I suggest that it can be (and often actually is) one of the other two.

Here are some definitions of belief:

From: Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
[ul]
[li]an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof[/li][li]something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion[/li][/ul]
From: BELIEF Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
[ul]
[li]something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group[/li][li]conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence[/li][/ul]
From: Home : Yahoo Academy Learning Center
[ul]
[li]Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something[/li][li]Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.[/li][/ul]For those atheists in this thread, which of the definitions of “belief” do you accept and do you think are relevant in the current discussion? I’m okay with any of them. And, if you don’t accept any of them, please offer your own definition, along with your reasons for rejecting dictionary definitions.

BTW, if atheism is “simply the absence of belief that any deities exist” then theism is “simply the presence of belief that any deities exist”. In other words, theism has nothing to do with religion, or with any concepts related to the origins of the universe, or to humanity’s role in the universe, or to any moral or ethical ideologies. Theism begins and ends with “I believe in the existence of God or gods”. Do atheists here agree with that conclusion, and, if not, why not?

One more quote, from Theism:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God’s relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.

Do atheists in this thread agree on the definitions of atheism, theism, and belief?