"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I read it in an old book, and the old book said it was true.

Author of "the old book"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
He is not saying that this proves God's existence. He is just saying that atheism/materialism gives you no ground to trust your own thinking. However, Christianity/theism (if true) would give you that grounding to trust your thinking, as God has created you to be a rational, thinking being.

That's right, "he is just saying that atheism/materialism gives you no ground to trust your own thinking", an assertion simply plucked out of his religionist version of thin air, and then he simply asserts that unless someone believes in God, they can't believe in thought.

It's just an assertion based on the previous assertion, with one assertion being assumed to be a given and making the other assertion a given too: circular logic [if I am not mistaken over the terminology].

I know why such warm and fuzzy logically fallacious games appeal to Christians (albeit not all Christians), perhaps when nattering with each other, but I am always baffled when you wheel them out as 'arguments' with which to engage people with different beliefs from you.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When would we have a better basis to trust our reasoning? If it is the product of blind chance or if God created it with the purpose of being rational?

You attributing our faculty for reasoning to the intervention of a supernatural being is as good a candidate for the entirely spun and loaded term "blind chance" as any other. You are settling for a prepackaged curiosity-deactivating set of answers to profound questions that has been served up to you by religion.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Author of "the old book"?

Well it's difficult to say for sure, but it's definitely true because it says so in it.

Originally posted by FMF
That's right, "he is just saying that atheism/materialism gives you no ground to trust your own thinking", an assertion simply plucked out of his religionist version of thin air, and then he simply asserts that unless someone believes in God, they can't believe in thought.

It's just an assertion based on the previous assertion, with one assertion being assum ...[text shortened]... n you wheel them out as 'arguments' with which to engage people with different beliefs from you.

As an atheist, what grounds do you have to trust your own thinking?

If you believe in God you are at least assuming that your brain was designed for the purpose of rational thought.

If you don't believe in God you are assuming your brain came about by random chance with no specific preordained purpose. Tell me then how can you trust your own thinking?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
As an atheist, what grounds do you have to trust your own thinking?

Because it works.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you believe in God you are at least assuming that your brain was designed for the purpose of rational thought.

If this "assuming" helps religious/superstitious people ~ like yourself ~ cope with living their lives, then good luck to them. I can't see how you are going to convince people to share your need for this supernatural narrative that you have subscribed to/conjured up by quoting the likes of C.S. Lewis.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you don't believe in God you are assuming your brain came about by random chance with no specific preordained purpose. Tell me then how can you trust your own thinking?

If you need to tell yourself there is some kind of "specific preordained purpose" in order to give your life purpose, then good for you. Neither you nor C.S. Lewis has given me any reason not to "trust my thinking". It is quite possible to ponder our capacity to think without subscribing to ancient mythology or folklore about Jesus Christ "saving" us.

Originally posted by FMF
Because it works.

Of course you would think it works, but how does that follow logically from the assumptions you are making?

When thinking about the process of thinking, you assume that your brain can be relied upon to give good answers. In a universe of philosophical materialism (the idea that the physical is all that exists), there’s no good reason to assume that our brains are trustworthy in that way. In fact, Darwinian evolution would suggest otherwise, because our brains are then the result of many random mutations and natural selection. In other words, our brains contribute to the survival and spread of our genetic information…and everything else is “gravy”. Any other function our brains might perform could be eliminated after another mutation.

If our brains are simply biochemical and not the creation of some greater mind; if our brains are not connected to an immaterial mind; if the physical is all that truly exists, we can’t trust in reason to get us anything but grandchildren. The only way to speak meaningfully about reliable ideas is to presuppose that our brains function as something more than a blob of DNA-spreading goo.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you would think it works, but how does that follow logically from the assumptions you are making?

If you want to base your estimation of your ability to think on the assumption that it was created for you by a supernatural being without any actual evidence to that effect then I think that's OK, if it suits you. What you happen to imagine doesn't really affect me and doesn't affect whether I "trust" my thinking or not. For me to be utterly unconvinced of what you are putting forward does not constitute an "assumption" on my part.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If our brains are simply biochemical and not the creation of some greater mind; if our brains are not connected to an immaterial mind; if the physical is all that truly exists, we can’t trust in reason to get us anything but grandchildren.

Yes I know that this is what you believe. It's also what C.S. Lewis believed.

Originally posted by FMF
If you want to base your estimation of your ability to think on the assumption that it was created for you by a supernatural being without any actual evidence to that effect then I think that's OK, if it suits you. What you happen to imagine doesn't really affect me and doesn't affect whether I "trust" my thinking or not. For me to be utterly unconvinced of what you are putting forward does not constitute an "assumption" on my part.

Of course you may feel that you are allowed to make assumptions and then ignore the logical conclusions that follow.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes I know that this is what you believe. It's also what C.S. Lewis believed.

And you believe otherwise based on what?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you may feel that you are allowed to make assumptions and then ignore the logical conclusions that follow.

Have you presented "logical conclusions that follow" from your assumptions? Is that what you think C.S. Lewis did?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And you believe otherwise based on what?

The issue is whether you have substantiated your fantastic claims about supernatural agency as it relates to your ability to "trust" your thinking. Until you do, it is your notions that constitute the "otherwise" thing as far as I am concerned.