Religion

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I'm completely serious about the "absence of belief" part though. I think it's a chicken stance that people use to feign rationality and avoid the "but you can't know either"-retort. Stand tall chumps, the conflict is already there regardless of how you pose.

This kind of comment is essentially just trolling. I mean it doesn't even take a high level of critical thinking to realize that such an absolute stance can't be logical. Taking your stance can't stand up to any arguments. It's essentially "I have a belief that there is no God and am 100% sure". I'm actually surprised as an Atheist you can hold that thought without evidence for it. Really the proof is on the person making the argument and you really need to provide proof there is no deities or side with the possibility that there could be one. If the irony isn't there, it's because you're willfully ignorant, or too arrogant in your assertions that you know everything.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

No, it's not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. Note the difference. Faith means believing something without evidence. Atheism is the lack of belief, therefore it is not faith. Strong atheists (those that do claim there is no god), however, do have faith.

You distinguish atheists who believe there is no god and those who don't believe in god. Are you saying some atheists believe he exists but simply do not entrust there faith in him? In that case they would be deists. Voltaire for example believed in god but believed he had no control over the world.The difference between not believing in god and not believing that he exists doesn't seem logical.
I believe the confusion lies with the term "believing in god": believing in god means you think he exists not that you trust him to guide you or control you.
It seems to me that if you don't believe in god, than surely you think he does not exist.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Believing that a claim is not true is the default position of a skeptical mind. If noteworthy evidence were supplied that there was a god, yet an atheist kept believing there was none, that would be faith. Until then, their belief that god doesn't exist it's just a strong belief founded on skepticism and the burden of proof.

It's like Russell's teapot. If I made a claim about an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun, you would be right and justified to believe I was wrong, even if there was no proof that I was wrong. I made the claim, and until I present some evidence to back it up, a lack of belief (semantics for believing the claim is false) is the default and reasonable position.

The only way you can truly be honestly 100% agnostic with no leanings towards theism or atheism is if you have some direct evidence for why there is a god and some equally compelling direct evidence for why there isn't. As far as I've seen, there is no such strong evidence either for a god or against a god. At best, there is strong evidence to doubt there needs to be a god for the universe to exist, but that's not direct evidence in and of itself.

Therefor, a person must either be an atheist because it's the default position of skepticism, or they must be a theist because they have some amount of faith to believe an unsubstantiated claim.

Nobody needs to commit to being an atheist or a theist 100%. You can still have that caveat that you don't know for certain and that your belief may change if more evidence is presented one way or the other. But everyone has a leaning one way or the other.

All agnostics either have a little faith that there may be a god despite the lack of evidence, or are technically atheists by default due to their skepticism.

Theism = making an unsubstantiated claim
Atheism = asking for some proof for that claim

I can't agree that it is the correct or scientific approach to just assume something is untrue until you get the evidence. That is in fact the essential quality of a good tactician: you must consider both possibilities. You make it sound like atheism is more justified than faith. Despite being an atheist myself, I can't agree with your claim. Unless you consider that god existing is an option (meaning you're an agnostic) then you're not asking for proof, you just have your own beliefs.

[ItsTheSheppy]

For a belief to not merely be faith, it doesn't have to have 100% knowledge. It just has to have the stronger reasoned position behind it.

I never suggested that it did. I was more referring to how proving negatives can be nearly impossible. That's something of a different sort of conversation.

The word 'belief' is often misused to be synonymous with 'faith'. Perhaps that's the source for a lot of confusion. I'm using it to work in place of the phrase "I have reason to think that..."

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Blues

You distinguish atheists who believe there is no god and those who don't believe in god.

If you want to really understand this you have to learn the difference between weak and strong atheism and their relationship with agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Blues

I can't agree that it is the correct or scientific approach to just assume something is untrue until you get the evidence. That is in fact the essential quality of a good tactician: you must consider both possibilities. You make it sound like atheism is more justified than faith. Despite being an atheist myself, I can't agree with your claim. Unless you consider that god existing is an option (meaning you're an agnostic) then you're not asking for proof, you just have your own beliefs.

You're getting close. Weak atheism holds a lot in common with agnosticism. However, it can be argued that agnosticism still has a belief mechanism to it. It's more than just simple evidence or facts for most agnostics. They might have come from a religious background and are stuck in the middle with their faith and what they've learned that conflicts with it.

Weak atheism on the other hand simply notices that while there is no evidence for an event, it would be silly to take an absolute stance against it. The Russel's Teapot example was brought up before explaining that a claim however illogical can be assumed (very strong assumption) to not exist by default until the claim is proven. The example simply tries to remove any questions from the system. It would be akin to saying "on the other side of the wall is a basketball". It's reasonable to assume if you have no assumed trust with the individual that they could be lying until you had evidence. On the other hand because the example is logical (you know basketballs exist and they are fairly common) that you could take the stance that there is a basketball on the other side of the fence. The whole idea of a default stance really depends on the likelihood and evidence for the event to occur. In the case of a deity Xyntech's claim of a default skeptical weak atheist stance is the generally preferred approach over agnosticism.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I am not 100% sure, that's why it's called a belief :]


For example, I am holding a box. Inside of this box is a 30cm tall dwarf playing the world's smallest violin. Look at it both ways: Prove there exists a 30m tall dwarf inside the box I'm holding, OR the inverse, prove there is NOT a dwarf inside. So you open the box and find out there's no dwarf, at least not one that's 30cm and plays the world's smallest violin. There could be an even smaller dwarf, but those kinds of dwarfs don't count towards the claim that was made. You have thus proven both that the positive claim is false, and that the negative claim is true.

For God, the same thing applies. God as defined as "the one that created the universe 5000 years ago", can easily be proven false regardless of whether you phrase it positively or negatively. That's because we know the world is older than 5000 years without a doubt, so that God can't have existed.

Then, the more vaguely you define God, the harder it becomes to prove either a positive or negative statement about its existence. A teapot is pretty thoroughly defined. In theory you could send hordes of satellites to Saturn and scan every inch of empty space within its gravitational field. You could thus prove there is no such thing. With God? Nobody even knows what it means anymore. So what are we dealing with here? What do you consider more likely; that there is indeed such a thing of which nobody knows what it is, or that the fact that we're even discussing such a ludicrous concept is the result of 5000 years of philosophical confusion?

Once you accept the latter, you are officially an atheist. Until then, you're still confused.


↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑� �↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

We are talking about the concept of God, not necessarily the christian god. An omnipotent being can exist outside of the Christian faith.
As to your point, God, if he exists, is a concept that is beyond our comprehension : "nobody knows what it is". However, you have no evidence to suggest the fact that he is not real is less likely than his existence. You are actually demonstrating as much assumption as a believer when completely rejecting the concept.
There are not 2 options : being an atheist or being confused. You are either coherent or incoherent, both of which are possible wether you believe or not.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

If you want to really understand this you have to learn the difference between weak and strong atheism and their relationship with agnosticism.


You're getting close. Weak atheism holds a lot in common with agnosticism. However, it can be argued that agnosticism still has a belief mechanism to it. It's more than just simple evidence or facts for most agnostics. They might have come from a religious background and are stuck in the middle with their faith and what they've learned that conflicts with it.

Weak atheism on the other hand simply notices that while there is no evidence for an event, it would be silly to take an absolute stance against it. The Russel's Teapot example was brought up before explaining that a claim however illogical can be assumed (very strong assumption) to not exist by default until the claim is proven. The example simply tries to remove any questions from the system. It would be akin to saying "on the other side of the wall is a basketball". It's reasonable to assume if you have no assumed trust with the individual that they could be lying until you had evidence. On the other hand because the example is logical (you know basketballs exist and they are fairly common) that you could take the stance that there is a basketball on the other side of the fence. The whole idea of a default stance really depends on the likelihood and evidence for the event to occur. In the case of a deity Xyntech's claim of a default skeptical weak atheist stance is the generally preferred approach over agnosticism.

Well then I guess I'm a weak atheist!
One thing about your example. You take into account many variables to determine your default stance : your trust in the person, the common nature of basketballs etc. However a deity is by definition unique and imperceptible. Therefore the likelihood of it being there cannot be determined by experience. Essentially taking the stance it's not there is speculation and does not encompass all possibilities. I understand the thought process, but it's no more logical than agnosticism.
And yes agnostics sometimes have faith, but that's only because they are categorized as agnostics somewhat incorrectly. They should be considered deists if they believe in god.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Blues

You distinguish atheists who believe there is no god and those who don't believe in god. Are you saying some atheists believe he exists but simply do not entrust there faith in him? In that case they would be deists. Voltaire for example believed in god but believed he had no control over the world.The difference between not believing in god and not believing that he exists doesn't seem logical.
I believe the confusion lies with the term "believing in god": believing in god means you think he exists not that you trust him to guide you or control you.
It seems to me that if you don't believe in god, than surely you think he does not exist.

No, re-read what I posted. The difference is between strong and weak atheism. There is a difference between those that claim there is no god and those who lack belief in a god. Most theists assume an atheist is a strong atheist (claims there is no god), when, in fact, the vast majority of atheists are weak atheists (lack belief in a god).

Strong atheists are subjected to the same burden of proof as theists, because they are making a positive claim. Weak atheists have no burden of proof.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Indeed, a concept. So, would you consider us holding this concept to the test the result of its own existence, of which we know nothing, and of which we can say nothing sensible, or would you consider it a result of thousands of years of philosophical confusion, goofy metaphysics and lack of development?

I believe our ancestors got tangled up in a web of vague definitions and incomprehensible or sometimes completely absent logic, and it then follows that I also believe there's no such thing as gods of any kind. I believe we made it all up, like we make up so many things.

I wouldn't consider it a result of those things, but a cause.
And yes, that's what both believe but not what we know. The difference is key.

[Blues]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

No, re-read what I posted. The difference is between strong and weak atheism. There is a difference between those that claim there is no god and those who lack belief in a god. Most theists assume an atheist is a strong atheist (claims there is no god), when, in fact, the vast majority of atheists are weak atheists (lack belief in a god).

Strong atheists are subjected to the same burden of proof as theists, because they are making a positive claim. Weak atheists have no burden of proof.

Please explain what the difference is between lacking belief in god and claiming there is none. There only difference I can see is that strong atheists make their disbelief known. Enlighten me

[Blues]

Actually that post was missing a "we both believe". I do believe there is no god. so yeah.
Also no predictions are scientifically accurate.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Blues

Please explain what the difference is between lacking belief in god and claiming there is none. There only difference I can see is that strong atheists make their disbelief known. Enlighten me

Claiming there is no god is a positive claim. Positive claims can be investigated by evidence, and the person making such a claim has a burden of proof to say why their claim is valid.

Lacking a belief in a god is a negative claim. Such a person does not believe there is evidence to support a god or not. They can't disprove anything, but they see no evidence to believe, so they don't. This is the default position for everything (like the teapot example).

[Quovatis]

Elfailo, was that post in response to mine? I think you forgot to read the second paragraph of my post.

You only have the burden of proof if you say "with 100% certainty, there is no god" or "there is a god". Few people hold the first position though.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

By the way, the answer to that question implies a belief, don't even dare to try to twist it.

No, it implies doubt and uncertainty.

Doubt and uncertainty are not believes or convictions, they are in the order of "could be, judge is out". However, this would imply one could lean either way.

If one is skeptic, one would be inclined to lean towards atheism. If one is inclined to believe there's something greater, but unsure what, one would be a theist, possibly deist.

Even for an agnostic, it is very unlikely one is exactly in the middle and gives both sides equal credulity.



What probably illustrates Goku's position best, is trying to avoid the behaviour of the people in "the boy who cried wolf". He's trying to keep answering the boy's cries and not denounce him by default, even if they've been lies and cries for attention till then. There might still one day be a wolf or other large predator, even if they're believed extinct in the area. That doesn't mean the boy is believed every time either, it just gives the boy a chance to prove himself.

That's not a horrible stance to take.

[Baneblade]

Is Schrodinger's Cat alive or dead?

I believe he is alive.

I believe he is dead.

I think he is alive.

I think he is dead.

I don't know.



You can't open the box.