Hereinafter is a discussion between myself and an Atheist, Tony H, which took place with regard to the video clip “Is atheism a worldview? An atheist philosopher challenges the assumption” by Alex Byrne via the Veritas Forum:
Of course, I have also posted my own video on this subject, see Is atheism a worldview?
I wrote:
I am not sure why Atheists deny that Atheism is a worldview when it so very clearly is just that. Some Atheists claim that Atheism is merely one view on one topic, that of God’s existence. However, when Atheists contemplate anything else—such as ethics, cosmogony, anthropology, epistemology, etc., etc., etc.—they make sure to not bring God into to, to not allow God to factor in, to not allow a diving foot in the door.
Thus, by doing so they prove that Atheism is their worldview as the view the whole world via that opinion that was supposed to be on one topic alone.
Tony H replied:
You seem to seriously misunderstand what a categorical error is. You are saying because no one is arguing against it then it is in another category, that is not what a categorical error is. Odin and Zues are both considered gods and considered real at one time, although they are not considered by many now, they were at one time considered just as seriously as the Abrahamic God is. This makes them fit into the same category when using them for analogous statements. Just because an atheist today is not worried about arguing against believers in Odin or Zues does not mean it is not analogous when defining what is and is not a world view. Same applies to fairies and genies. You also seem to almost intentionally avoiding the actual question, does my lack of belief in other super natural aspects of the world define my world view, no!, beliefs define world view not all the things you don’t believe unless everything would be defined as your world view. You would have to admit that all of the things you don’t believe define you. This is about world view which means it does not have to be substantiated in truth, just belief. If the argument was is God real that would be different than believing that God is real. You argue that being an atheist is a world view and I gave you a very real answer with explanations why it is not and you only come back to say …. well atheists are not talking about it. You seem to be woefully ignorant of either the term world view or steeped so far in your own dogma you won’t even recognize, response, or consider anything I am saying and still keep just returning to the same thing that I refuted many comments ago.
Now as I said before, how about you address anything I said, at all, anyplace. [ellipses in original]
I replied:
Sorry friend, but you are replying in an anachronistic manner. I did not claim that “because no one is arguing against it then it is in another category.” Rather, I first noted the category error and then used the fact that, even if only intuitively, Atheists know it which is why “no one is arguing against it” which I used as evidence for the claim that it is a category error. The error itself is that of placing dissimilar items within the same category. The Abrahamic God is within the category of that which philosophy would term a “necessary being” whilst Odin and Zeus are not. You cannot simply employ the category “god(s)” and then lump various dissimilar entities within that one category—that is a category error. Likewise, a “necessary being” cannot be claimed to fit into the same category of fairies and genies. Yet, it seems that you want to focus on whether your “lack of belief in other super natural aspects of the world define my world view” the answer to which is that it is the core of your worldview. You can massage the term “beliefs” but even if you narrowly define Atheism as a “lack of belief in god(s)” (which is only one option) you still believe that and do so based on prior beliefs and beliefs even prior to those. For example, one of your prior beliefs is something to the likes of that no one caused nothing to explode for no reason. That what you are stating to me is interpretations of bio-chemical neural reactions within your haphazardly evolved brain—which you can only believe evolved so as to accurately reflect truth due to a very long series of unguided random accidents. And that your attempts to hold me to some subjective standard of truth via logic is valid—which, of course, does not follow. In keeping with these facts, it is not at all surprising that you admit that your worldview does not have to be substantiated in truth, just belief. Indeed, how could you even begin justifying logic or truth based on everything in existence being one unguided accident leading to another unguided accident?
Thus, indeed, “all of the things you don’t believe define you” and the core thing which defines you is your lack of belief in god(s) which is your worldview.
Tony H
You seem to be willfully ignorant or incapable of understanding what I am saying. The conversation is about world views not if god(s) are true or false. You are making a claim that the lack of a belief is the same thing as a belief and therefore as an atheist that is my worldview. I use a simple analogous claim of other things you don’t believe in and ask you if that is part of your world view, which is not a categorical error because I am not categorizing the beings as the same but the lack of the belief in them as the same. It is a simple measure to show that not believing in something is not what shapes your view of the world. You want to argue this is a categorical error because you think your god is special, I don’t think your god is special and I can make a clause for why a faerie is a “necessary being” the same way you can make a clause where you god is necessary. That is what defines a world view, positive claims such as thinking something is a “necessary being”.
Have you ever heard of the law of noncontradiction ? You managed to violate it here, A cannot both be A and not A at the same time, nothing can contradict itself. So a lack of belief can not both be a belief and a lack of belief at the same time. When someone claims there is a god I say prove it and no one has met a necessary burden of proof to prove it. The same way if someone says aliens exist and are abducting people I say prove it. This goes back to the last paragraph that the category is world views and not truth right now. The argument of truth is another category which means in all reality you are having the issue with categorical errors and not understanding your own argument.
You try to define my beliefs, awesome thanks, I wasn’t aware I thought that because I don’t. Using the Kalam Cosmological argument is just a god of the gaps ignorance. Not understanding and misrepresenting evolution only shows how you are dishonest or ignorant. I have beliefs on the topic but they are weak beliefs and easily swayed with evidence. I understand my gap in knowledge on these topics and instead of inserting “something did it” because that is what I think instead I withdraw from taking a stance on it till I have more evidence. This again makes my case that atheism is not a world view because nothing about atheism defines anything about the world. You are trying to clump atheists together to all believe the same thing, something came from nothing, bio-chemical reactions when nothing about not believing in your god defines this.
I did NOT say my beliefs are not based on truth, this is being intentionally misrepresentative and manipulative. This shows your character and how you will stoop to any level to try to win an argument instead of trying to find the truth. I said “This is about world view which means it does not have to be substantiated in truth, just belief. ” Your world view does not have to be true to be your world view, it is the way you view the world, other things define if it is true or false. For example your world view is false but you still insist on holding it as a world view.
My reply:
Friend, I am afraid that you are breaking things down to a level that is too simplistic. For example, it is semantical to assert that your lack of belief in god(s) is not a belief since you believe that you lack that belief (which Atheists invented as a fallback position), your hold to that based on previous beliefs, and it is your belief about reality aka your worldview. It is not a standalone but has attachments.
Now, friend, unless you can read my mind you cannot possibly know whether I am being dishonest but could only subjectively conclude that I am wrong—that is a huge difference. Likewise, you cannot know whether I am being “intentionally misrepresentative and manipulative” for you do not know my intentions. This shows your character. Moreover, upon what basis do you condemn dishonesty, intentional misrepresentation or manipulation? Why is not doing those things an imperative? Why are you holding me to your moral standard?
Likewise, why are you holding me to standards of logic? Upon what basis do you condemn violations of logic?Now, you authoritatively assert that my “world view is false” to which I would ask for your proof. I would imagine that you assert as much because your lack of belief in god(s) worldview demand that my “world view is false.” Yet, perhaps it is because my worldview has, as per your subjective standards, failed to meet “a necessary burden of proof.” But just what is that necessary burden of proof, what is the “a”?
For the Atheist everything about Atheism defines the world since, for example, when it comes to every and any issue you employ your lack of belief in god(s) and thus ensure that you come to lack of belief in god(s) conclusions based on a lack of belief in god(s) premise. Take an issue such as the origins of life: you will not come to theistic conclusions due to your lack of belief in god(s) and so will pick some other option. As Richard Lewontin put it, “we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”
I may not have done so within this comment section but have elsewhere noted that even though Atheists turn whatever their preferred definition of “Atheism” may be into a worldview this does not mean that I am or can “clump atheists together to all believe the same thing” since beginning with the same or similar premise does not necessarily lead to their same conclusions on various and sundry issues. This is why when I specified that “one of your prior beliefs” note the qualifying term “is something to the likes of…” (and it appears that I was accurate on that point of your view).I would say that of course, “not believing in something” does indeed shape my “view of the world” since, for example, I do not believe that I can fly by flapping my arms and thus, I would never jump off of buildings without a parachute.
The concept of a “necessary being” has been philosophically discussed for a long time and simply asserting that fairies can qualify as necessary beings does not make it so—nor will inventing some excuses for why they really could qualify to be such.
Tony H
Again you assert things with never addressing my counter arguments and only claim that things are your way because you assert they are. You say that being an atheist is the thing that defines all of my actions even though I have explicitly said earlier that I don’t make choices in my life based on not believing in a god. You saying that my reality is not believing your god is the same thing as me defining your reality for you by saying you not believing in flying spaghetti monster defines your world view because of your previous beliefs lead you to this. I will clarify one thing in my stance, I have said “atheism is not a world view” where I should be saying “atheism does not have to be a world view even if you are an atheist.” The reason why is I know people that are atheist that do things because they are an atheist and use that as their basis for action. I on the other hand never consider being an atheist until theism is brought up. My morality, truth of the world, view of the good life, etc… are not shaped by me not believing in your god or anyone else’s. Asserting that I do when I say I don’t is just obviously dishonest tactic to win a debate and not find the truth. If you can prove I do that is different but you have done nothing but assert I do.
I don’t have to read your mind to have reasonable case that your actions are dishonest, misrepresentative and manipulative. If I supply a rational reason without other more logical answers then I can assert it with good reason. You don’t even bother to say they are not dishonest, misrepresentative, or manipulative in your response, you just say I can’t say that. You’re right that my claim of this does speak to my character as the type of person that doesn’t like dishonest manipulative liars that want to hold up strawman attacks to win arguments. Is it your stance that these are ok, it seems based on your response you are ok with this. If you are not then your point is void because we both agree that these are bad things and our moral scope is the same on this topic. If you think that this is ok and our moral scope is different then I would say let it be known and hold that stance that you are ok with being a dishonest liar. If you say I can’t account for logic this is a completely different topic that I have addressed before with other presuppositionalists like you before and I am not going to diverge to a new topic till this one is addressed. You do what most do in situations like this and try to diverge the conversation to solipsism so you don’t have to argue your stance.
I did assert your world view as being false because of your inert dishonest response as a obvious satirical comment. I don’t properly know your full world view but my statement about it not needing to be true to be a world view is correct is it not?
You defining your god as “necessary being” does not mean I have to agree to this and does not prevent me from defining something else the same by your terms. This again is just an assertion that does not have any evidence. My parents are necessary beings to my existence and I can prove this because if they didn’t exist I wouldn’t have and I can prove they do/did exist with a high confidence because there has never been an example of a human that didn’t have a parent. You don’t fill any condition for being necessary outside of an assertion, you can’t prove god is real, you can’t show examples of other universes that have gods, you can’t explain why this is necessary without using even more assertions. Defining something on your own terms does not mean I have to agree with your terms to argue against it. I obvious do not view a god as necessary because I don’t believe you when you say there is even a god.
You asserting that any and every issue I implore my lack of a belief in god goes back to my initial first comment that religious people think atheist even consider god when we do anything. I never think “because don’t believe in god” I should do anything. This is a obvious assertion that is just false.
As far as evolution you are reversing the logic in an obvious manipulative way to try to put yourself in a position where you don’t have to prove or defend your religion. My belief in evolution is not because of theism, it is because of other factors, your belief is because of theism. Is this something hard for you to understand? Again I don’t make choices because I don’t believe in your god, I can believe anything at all and as long as I don’t use a god(s) as a reason it has nothing to do with theism. My world view on this has nothing to do with atheism at all, yours does.
You keep making a statement that based on a prior belief I am an atheist. Please define what prior belief makes someone an atheist. If you are using causality as a logical reason to how I got to where I am then that can be used for literally everything and doesn’t have any explanatory factor. There are no required beliefs to be an atheist, nothing at all.
I think your flying example is a perfect example of how you misunderstand how the lack of a belief is not a world view. When you go to a high location do you not jump because you don’t believe you can fly or is it because you believe you will fall. You believe in gravity, yes believe in because we don’t have a true explanation of gravity and only ways to measure what seems to be the effects from it, so you don’t jump. When I go through life I don’t do anything do things because I don’t believe in your god the same way rational people don’t use the lack in belief in flying as a reason for not jumping off buildings. It is the positive beliefs that define us not the lack of.
This conversation is fairly long and should be to an end. You are doing nothing to support your points and spending an extended amount of time making assertions and manipulating arguments to try to win a debate instead of interest in finding out truth. I don’t go into a debate to prove I am right, I can benefit from being wrong and correcting my position but you obviously have no interest in this world view. You believe in your god from what I can tell, I don’t believe in your god like all other gods because no one has shown me a reason to. You keep edging on some of the more dishonest debating techniques that people like Sye and Matt Slick implement so they don’t have to defend their religion by saying I can’t account for logic or reality. Using techniques like this show religion is getting to the end of it’s debating techniques by using philosophical puzzles to try to prevent having to defend their stance and I have zero interest in entertaining someone that doesn’t even want to defend their stance. If I wanted atheism to win the debate I would implore more people to use this technique, it doesn’t do you any favors and just makes you look like a politician trying to get out of answering question. I am more interested in truth and if there is truly a god(s) I am interested in talking to people that want to defend their claim and not ones that simply want to try to use riddles to win a debate.
My reply:
Friend, this is turning into one of those never ending, round and round, ever expanding discussions.
Thus, if I may, just what is your point and I mean with any of it? Is it something to the likes of nothing caused nothing to explode, very long series of happy accidents, we end up with haphazardly evolved brains that experience bio-chemical neural reactions which we call thoughts, you consider your bio-chemical neural reactions to more accurately reflect reality (and subjectively view that as a virtue or imperative) and so you demand that people with differing bio-chemical neural reactions change their to fit yours?
And due to a lack of reply that was the end of that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.