To continue from the first part "The 5 Myths Of Atheism Uncovered":

Before mentioning the Myth No. 2 we have to agree first on a simple "model" of reality so that we use the same terminology.

Let us consider this Universe as an abstract mathematical philosophical object. Don't worry. I will not introduce any weird theories or freak assumptions. I will just employ common sense. It is necessary to define few words. Otherwise there might be millions of side discussions about unrelated topics.
The details of the Universe, its structure, size, extension, principles, what it is, etc. are all irrelevant here. Let's assume that this object "Universe" has an abstract boundary. Again, no attempt to explain or understand anything is made here. The "boundary" is no physical boundary, it only signifies that this Universe is some abstract object.

Because science does not know if there is only one Universe or may be multiple ones, let's generalize this object "Universe" to all possible existing real Universes and still call it "Universe" (Of course: concepts like "real", "existing", etc. are highly interesting topics, which are far from being solved. But this is not considered here).

Can we agree on this picture? If not, the next step will be impossible to do.

Next step would be:

There are basically three possible cases:

1. There is the Universe and that's it. (Here the question arises, what caused it, because if some natural law caused the Universe then per definition this cause must be a part of the Universe as defined above. But may be nothing needed to cause it.)

2. There is the Universe and outside the Universe there is God. God created the Universe. (Then of course the question arises: who created God? - but this is another thread in the Nairaland-Forum about that. I would say: Nobody created God. Then the question arises: what caused God? But may be nothing needed to cause him.)

3. There is the Universe and outside are many Gods or Energies or whatever. This case is not further considered here.

The point here is to state: When there is a being outside the Universe, then this is "God". If there is anything inside(!) the Universe, it is per definition not "God". With other words: the primary criterion for a being God or not is to be outside the Universe.

I want to stress that the question "who created the Universe" is not a "proof" of God or similar! Case 1 or 2 are philosophically identical, one is only shifting the question of origin from Universe to God or vice versa.

Can we agree on these points so far?

Can you not just state the myth of atheism instead of this convoluted idea you are presenting here?

LordReed:
Can you not just state the myth of atheism instead of this convoluted idea you are presenting here?

It is not convoluted. It's a simpe ad hoc definition of God. If there is a God then he is outside the Universe. If there is only a Universe then there is no God.

Myth No. 2:
------------------

Many atheists claim that atheism is free of "additional" assumptions. See e.g. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ , e.g. they state: "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

The underlying myth is subtle but still clear to observe. To keep in the pseudo-humorous analogy used at this web page (see above): They state: to believe in a God means to do something actively, something "in addition". And not to believe in a God simply means not to do it or not to assume anything "in addition". With other words: atheism is the "default" perspective.

This sounds, on the first glance, convincing, and also in tune with Immanuel Kant's statement: to assume the existence of a God is an additional assumption. This is certainly correct. But why it is still a myth?

The myth lies in the underlying subtle redefinition of what is "default".

They illustrate it with the analogy of collecting stamps or not collecting stamps. It sounds simple and convincing and funny. But who says that this analogy is the correct one? This question is neither discussed nor analyzed.

Two other possible analogies:

(a) There is a person who has a mother and a father. He does not know who his father is. He has never seen him and has no idea where he is. So, not-believing in the existance of his father is not the "default" position clearly.

(b) There is a person who can see things which other people cannot see. He might be crazy but it also might be that he has a special gift. To stay completely unbiased here and to include all possibilities, let's say it could be that a person can see Bigfoot, or another person claims that he talks to God and God answers, another one says that he has seen UFOs and another one says that he can know what other people feel. Whether the person is crazy or whether he can really see things which others do not see is irrelevant here. This rather refers to the discussion about "evidences, facts, etc." and is discussed elsewhere.
Anyway, not-to-believe that such a person can see things which others cannot is not the "default" position. It is one of two possible assumptions!

The same for God. To assume that he exists or that he does not exist is not a question of a "non-default" versus a "default" position. It is only a decision between two possible assumptions. To "define" one of both as "default" and the other as "extraordinary" (and implicitly as unnecessary) contains an unsound additional(!) assumption, that is: a hidden evaluation of the quality of the two possibilities, or to say it clearly: it as biased position.

With other words: atheists should admit that they believe:
1. We do not assume the existance of a god, gods, etc.
2. We assume that our position is on a qualitatively higher level compared to the opposite position.

Then, many people on this planet would be more happy. Instead many atheists (not all) rather like to omit the second assumption. They maintain the statement that they have the "default" position and it is intrinsically the better one.

alxb19:


It is not convoluted. It's a simpe ad hoc definition of God. If there is a God then he is outside the Universe. If there is only a Universe then there is no God.

Myth No. 2:
------------------

Many atheists claim that atheism is free of "additional" assumptions. See e.g. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ , e.g. they state: "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

The underlying myth is subtle but still clear to observe. To keep in the pseudo-humorous analogy used at this web page (see above): They state: to believe in a God means to do something actively, something "in addition". And not to believe in a God simply means not to do it or not to assume anything "in addition". With other words: atheism is the "default" perspective.

This sounds, on the first glance, convincing, and also in tune with Immanuel Kant's statement: to assume the existence of a God is an additional assumption. This is certainly correct. But why it is still a myth?

The myth lies in the underlying subtle redefinition of what is "default".

Default with respect to the human experience, babies neither come claiming they know or believe in a god nor do they proclaim the non-existence of a god or a lack of belief. There is no redefinition going on, that part is totally in your head.

They illustrate it with the analogy of collecting stamps or not collecting stamps. It sounds simple and convincing and funny. But who says that this analogy is the correct one? This question is neither discussed nor analyzed.

Two other possible analogies:

(a) There is a person who has a mother and a father. He does not know who his father is. He has never seen him and has no idea where he is. So, not-believing in the existance of his father is not the "default" position clearly.

(b) There is a person who can see things which other people cannot see. He might be crazy but it also might be that he has a special gift. To stay completely unbiased here and to include all possibilities, let's say it could be that a person can see Bigfoot, or another person claims that he talks to God and God answers, another one says that he has seen UFOs and another one says that he can know what other people feel. Whether the person is crazy or whether he can really see things which others do not see is irrelevant here. This rather refers to the discussion about "evidences, facts, etc." and is discussed elsewhere.
Anyway, not-to-believe that such a person can see things which others cannot is not the "default" position. It is one of two possible assumptions!

The same for God. To assume that he exists or that he does not exist is not a question of a "non-default" versus a "default" position. It is only a decision between two possible assumptions. To "define" one of both as "default" and the other as "extraordinary" (and implicitly as unnecessary) contains an unsound additional(!) assumption, that is: a hidden evaluation of the quality of the two possibilities, or to say it clearly: it as biased position.

You just imagine things and attribute them to atheists. If these are the things you held as an atheist then you misunderstood the position. Nobody claims that he exists or that he does not exist is a question of a "non-default" versus a "default" position. The default position to not assume either position. That is the definition of default, the thing that exists or happens if you do not change it intentionally by performing an action.

With other words: atheists should admit that they believe:
1. We do not assume the existance of a god, gods, etc.
2. We assume that our position is on a qualitatively higher level compared to the opposite position.

Then, many people on this planet would be more happy. Instead many atheists (not all) rather like to omit the second assumption. They maintain the statement that they have the "default" position and it is intrinsically the better one.

I have never heard an atheist say the atheist position is the superior position or that the default position is the superior. That would be a judgement call that has no basis. If we are talking about the ideas that either position foster then yes you can make a value call but thats an entirely different argument.

I was really hoping for things that would resonate but all you keep bringing is weak sauce.

alxb19 where are you? Come back, I was enjoying our discuss.