Atheism vs Theism

footprints · Apr 13, 2010

ImmortalFlame said:
No they didn't. Both answers 2 and 4 are agnostic positions.

None covered my positon, sorry.

ImmortalFlame said:
Probability does not matter, you either believe the supposition to be true or you do not hold the supposition to be true.

Probability may not matter to you, it does to me. I believe they are both as true and false as each other, either guess could be right and either guess could be wrong.

ImmortalFlame said:
Hold on, what?

1) Evolution has nothing to do with either atheism or theism.

No need to tell me this, I have already said it has nothing to do with a deity position, theism and atheism both being deity positions of faith and belief.

ImmortalFlame said:
2) Two contrary views do not mean that they "cancel each other out". In the case of evolution/creationism, one is right and the other is wrong (the right one being evolution).

When both have equal value and are in opposing directions they do, that is just a mathematical and logical fact, when we combine -10 with +10 the end resultant is zero. LOL it is only your belief patterns feeding your perception which tells you that evolution is the right one. Time and evidence will be the judge of this.

ImmortalFlame said:
You don't have to, but you can't both believe a supposition and not believe a supposition at the same time. Nor can you make no claim either way. You can be an agnostic, but you cannot be an agnostic without also being either a theist or an atheist.

Of course I can believe something and not believe it at the same time, it is the very thing which gives my zero position, cannot logically say whether a deity exist or has ever existed, and I cannot logically say that a deity doesn't exist or has never existed. One cancels the other out to give me my agnostic position. I have made a claim either way, the probability is 50:50. Depending on how the discussion goes, which person attacks my post on which points, which cap I will put on, the theist or the atheist. Mostly it is non-believers, atheists and anti-theists who attack my initial post, in some might that they are right and what I have written is wrong. Like you have just done.

ImmortalFlame · Apr 13, 2010

footprints said:
Probability may not matter to you, it does to me. I believe they are both as true and false as each other, either guess could be right and either guess could be wrong.

It's a question of belief, not guesswork. You either believe the supposition that a God is true or you do not believe it - you cannot do both or neither.

footprints said:
No need to tell me this, I have already said it has nothing to do with a deity position, theism and atheism both being deity positions of faith and belief.

Then why did you posit evolution as "evidence" in this debate?

Your words:

Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

For most part one piece of evidence cancels another out.

Evolution (which isn't even part of the deity debate, but many will include it anyway) is cancelled out by Creationism with or without ID.

You clearly suggested that evolution is evidence for atheism and creationism was evidence for theism.

footprints said:
When both have equal value and are in opposing directions they do, that is just a mathematical and logical fact, when we combine -10 with +10 the end resultant is zero.

Except it's pretty-much impossible to conclude that two opinions based on a spectrum of facts can be reduced to simple numbers. Do you seriously believe that opinions can be quantified and played-off against each other so easily? Is all knowledge to you so... Binary?

footprints said:
LOL it is only your belief patterns feeding your perception which tells you that evolution is the right one. Time and evidence will be the judge of this.

Time and evidence have already judged it. Evolution is the founding principle of modern biology. Evolution won.

footprints said:
Of course I can believe something and not believe it at the same time, it is the very thing which gives my zero position, cannot logically say whether a deity exist or has ever existed, and I cannot logically say that a deity doesn't exist or has never existed.

Like I said before, it's a question of belief. I cannot logically say that a deity doesn't exist or never existed, but I still do not believe in one.

You either believe it or you do not believe it, make up your mind.

footprints said:
One cancels the other out to give me my agnostic position. I have made a claim either way, the probability is 50:50. Depending on how the discussion goes, which person attacks my post on which points, which cap I will put on, the theist or the atheist. Mostly it is non-believers, atheists and anti-theists who attack my initial post, in some might that they are right and what I have written is wrong. Like you have just done.

I've already explained that agnosticism is not a position in and of itself. Agnosticism deals with claims of knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief or lack of belief. With regards to a claim you can either believe it or not believe it - you cannot do bother or neither, that's logically impossible. You can believe it agnostically or you can not believe it agnostically, but you cannot have no stance on it and claim to be an agnostic.

I'm just trying to get you to be honest and clear about your position.

logician · Apr 13, 2010

Storm said:
:no:Sorry, but that's weak/ soft atheism.

Sorry, hard atheism is not about belief.

tumbleweed41 · Apr 13, 2010

Storm said:
Not so. Positive claim is a statement of fact, as opposed to one of belief or opinion. "There is no God" is every bit as much positive claim as "God exists."

Sorry, I disagree.
Saying, "I believe God exists" is a statement of faith.
Saying "God exists" is a positive statement of fact. If I am to posit such as a fact, it is up to me to show the evidence.
Saying "God does not exist" is merely based on the lack of such evidence. One does not need to provide evidence of a negative. If the evidence does not exist for the existence of something, then the resulting conclusion is that it does not exist.
But if one bases their belief on faith, then no evidence is necessary, and the only truly unreasonable position of faith is to ignore contradictory evidence of a specific concept of God.
For instance, the Literalistic Biblical Genesis concept of God is contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence. And it would be unreasonable to believe by faith such a contradiction.
On the other hand, and forgive me if I get this wrong, your belief in the Universe as a maturing deity, where all matter and energy form the substance of this deity is a perfectly reasonable faith. Unless you were to make a positive claim such as, "The deity I believe in is provable". Then it would be up to you to provide evidence to support such a claim. I can say, in the lack of such evidence, that your deity does not exist. I am not required to provide any evidence to prove this negative statement.

Just as I can say I believe in the "First Cause" deity. But if I posit that I can prove not only the existence, but also the necessity of such a deity, it would be up to me to provide the evidence. The fact that I am unable to do so makes the negative stance that such a deity does not exist due to lack of evidence acceptable. And no evidence of that negative is necessary.

Falvlun · Apr 13, 2010

footprints said:
You left agnosticism out of the vote. Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

For the record, agnosticism wasn't meant to be part of the vote. I merely wanted to know whether those who labeled themselves as theists and atheists were more likely to make the positive claim or the probable claim.

9-10ths_Penguin · Apr 13, 2010

Falvlun said:
For the record, agnosticism wasn't meant to be part of the vote. I merely wanted to know whether those who labeled themselves as theists and atheists were more likely to make the positive claim or the probable claim.

And I think the results have been interesting.

Kay · Apr 13, 2010

Alceste said:
All I'm saying is that pantheists, who believe that the universe is alive and aware, call that quality of liveliness and awareness "god".

All I'm saying is I can relate to the sentiment that inspires people to perceive an underlying force driving nature (jaw-dropping wonder at the diversity and proliferation of life) and I'm agnostic about that particular definition of "god". I am an atheist about all other definitions of "god".

To me, it's a valid definition only because that's what some people (Natives, for example) call "god" and the object of belief is defined by the believer.

:yes:

I answered the poll as a "probable theist" (one of only 4 so far). I lean towards God existing, but my "theism" is of the sort you describe above. My only caveat is that I would call that pan-en-theism rather than pantheism, but basically that is semantics.

Storm · Apr 13, 2010

tumbleweed41 said:
Sorry, I disagree.
Saying, "I believe God exists" is a statement of faith.
Saying "God exists" is a positive statement of fact. If I am to posit such as a fact, it is up to me to show the evidence.
Saying "God does not exist" is merely based on the lack of such evidence. One does not need to provide evidence of a negative. If the evidence does not exist for the existence of something, then the resulting conclusion is that it does not exist.
But if one bases their belief on faith, then no evidence is necessary, and the only truly unreasonable position of faith is to ignore contradictory evidence of a specific concept of God.
For instance, the Literalistic Biblical Genesis concept of God is contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence. And it would be unreasonable to believe by faith such a contradiction.
On the other hand, and forgive me if I get this wrong, your belief in the Universe as a maturing deity, where all matter and energy form the substance of this deity is a perfectly reasonable faith. Unless you were to make a positive claim such as, "The deity I believe in is provable". Then it would be up to you to provide evidence to support such a claim. I can say, in the lack of such evidence, that your deity does not exist. I am not required to provide any evidence to prove this negative statement.

Just as I can say I believe in the "First Cause" deity. But if I posit that I can prove not only the existence, but also the necessity of such a deity, it would be up to me to provide the evidence. The fact that I am unable to do so makes the negative stance that such a deity does not exist due to lack of evidence acceptable. And no evidence of that negative is necessary.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Willamena · Apr 13, 2010

ImmortalFlame said:
It's a question of belief, not guesswork. You either believe the supposition that a God is true or you do not believe it - you cannot do both or neither.

You can. Many do.

Kilgore Trout · Apr 13, 2010

ImmortalFlame said:
It's a question of belief, not guesswork. You either believe the supposition that a God is true or you do not believe it - you cannot do both or neither.

People jump off bridges and out of planes for entertainment. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that logic is neceesary for all human beings.

Jeremiah · Apr 13, 2010

footprints said:
You left agnosticism out of the vote. Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

I would like see those calculations, please.

Jeremiah · Apr 13, 2010

stephenw said:
mmmm I don't find it so easy. How do you know the solidity of the wall is not constituted by the fabric of a dream? Merleau-Ponty wrote of how "the rags of the dream can, before the dreamer, be worth the close-woven fabric of the true world....the fact remains that if we can lose our reference marks unbeknown to ourselves we are never sure of having them when we think we have them; if we can withdraw from the world of perception without knowing it, nothing proves to us that we are ever in it, nor that the observable is ever entirely observable, nor that it is made of another fabric than the dream"
Einstein, concluded that "reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". You may indeed be correct that it does exist, and indeed from where I sit, for you it does, if you believe that to be the case.
I on the other hand cannot lie comfortably in a postivist position. I believe in reality - but to my mind reality is to be found, as Husserl suggested, in lived experience rather than objects.
I especially like the tale told about him by Levinas (which Husserl also apparently told about himself) inwhich he recounted his receipt of a penknife as a present when he was a young boy. THe story is that in pursuit of a perfect edge for his new blade the boy kept sharpening until there was no blade left. Husserl thought this symbolised his philosophy. I think there's a lot in that short story.

Take another look at what I said...

Jeremiah said:
Reason, you assess what is most reasonable and the most reasonable way to interact with the position you find yourself in. It does not take faith for me to believe that there is a wall in fort of me (if I am taking the time to consider the possibilities) but after considering the alternatives I find that, at least, the most reasonable course is to act as if the wall is there (since the evidence indicates this the most likely of possibilities) and walk around it instead of trying to walk through it.

Calling reality a dream or illusion is really just semantics. Solidity is solidity whether is said to be manifested out of a dream, illusion, or reality.

TheKnight · Apr 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
To take that sort of position, you have to assume quite a bit, IMO.

I would disagree. There are a number of valid reasons to begin questioning whether or not there is a Creator.

One reason that I find personally convincing is the fact that man has "developed" a God-concept in the first place. As far as evolution and survival of the fittest is concerned, there is no need for man to have developed an idea of God (especially if He really does not exist), there is no need for man to have begun to probe into the sciences as they aren't immediately relevant to survival.

Sure, it could be argued otherwise, but I think that it is enough to at least make the question of God's existence a valid question.

That, in essence, is the difference between the concept of God and other fairy-tale like ideas. I have no reason to even question whether or not there is a unicorn outside of my window. However, I think that a study of human history and mankind's consistent desire to have a deity are enough to question whether or not there is a deity.

9-10ths_Penguin · Apr 13, 2010

TheKnight said:
I would disagree. There are a number of valid reasons to begin questioning whether or not there is a Creator.

One reason that I find personally convincing is the fact that man has "developed" a God-concept in the first place. As far as evolution and survival of the fittest is concerned, there is no need for man to have developed an idea of God (especially if He really does not exist), there is no need for man to have begun to probe into the sciences as they aren't immediately relevant to survival.

Sure, it could be argued otherwise, but I think that it is enough to at least make the question of God's existence a valid question.

First: none of this is "existence itself", which you gave as the reason to believe in God.

Second: darn skippy it can be argued otherwise. There are very good cases to be made for the evolutionary advantage of the components of false religious belief, including favouring type I errors over type II errors, attribution of agency, and inference of "purpose" to inanimate objects. Once you have all three of these, it's only a small step to falsely believing that an intelligent agency created everything we see for a purpose.

Anyhow, you did move the goalposts a fair bit. And yes, you do have to assume quite a bit to take the position you did. To get from "existence" to "therefore X", you need to make a number of leaps:

- "existence" is explainable by a deity.
- a deity is a better explanation for "existence" than alternatives involving no deity.
- God-concept "X" is a better explanation than the alternative god-concepts.

It's only after you make all those leaps that you can infer that "existence" suggests the truth of "X". IOW, you have to assume quite a bit to take the position you did... just as I said.

footprints · Apr 14, 2010

ImmortalFlame said:
It's a question of belief, not guesswork. You either believe the supposition that a God is true or you do not believe it - you cannot do both or neither.

LOL says who, you? Please get a grip on yourself.

ImmortalFlame said:
Then why did you posit evolution as "evidence" in this debate?

Your words:

Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

For most part one piece of evidence cancels another out.

Evolution (which isn't even part of the deity debate, but many will include it anyway) is cancelled out by Creationism with or without ID.

You clearly suggested that evolution is evidence for atheism and creationism was evidence for theism.

Simply becase it is used in deity debates, do you want to deny this too?

ImmortalFlame said:
Except it's pretty-much impossible to conclude that two opinions based on a spectrum of facts can be reduced to simple numbers. Do you seriously believe that opinions can be quantified and played-off against each other so easily? Is all knowledge to you so... Binary?

Numbers, evidence which can go one way or the other, all amount to the same thing. A non-believer may say evolution, a believer may say ID, as the evidence is the same in each, albeit in opposite directions, one cancels out the other, for each has equal weight value.

ImmortalFlame said:
Time and evidence have already judged it. Evolution is the founding principle of modern biology. Evolution won.

LOL a court judged it, court decisions can always be challenged and overturned. Nothing is over whilstever there is evidence still coming in, no game is over until it is over.

ImmortalFlame said:
Like I said before, it's a question of belief. I cannot logically say that a deity doesn't exist or never existed, but I still do not believe in one.

So you go against your own logic, that is what your belief pattern is telling you.

ImmortalFlame said:
You either believe it or you do not believe it, make up your mind.

I believe that probablity is 50:50, that is my belief position.

ImmortalFlame said:
I've already explained that agnosticism is not a position in and of itself. Agnosticism deals with claims of knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief or lack of belief. With regards to a claim you can either believe it or not believe it - you cannot do bother or neither, that's logically impossible. You can believe it agnostically or you can not believe it agnostically, but you cannot have no stance on it and claim to be an agnostic.

LOL you gave me your opinion, you didn't explain anything to me other than your own perception.

A neutral position, I am sorry to say, is logically possible. Perhaps just not possible to you.

ImmortalFlame said:
I'm just trying to get you to be honest and clear about your position.

LOL, No you want me to lie about my position. My position is clearly established, and I have put it in words to you. LOL your belief patterns just won't let you believe it.

footprints · Apr 14, 2010

Jeremiah said:
I would like see those calculations, please.

Far too involved and too in-depth to post on the internet. If I started talking to you pertaining to the Biami Line, would you understand what I was talking about, it isn't something which can be looked up on the internet?

I gave some basic examples, without the facts and details in my opening post.

dust1n · Apr 14, 2010

Storm said:
Again, not comparable. Also, why do you keep assuming I'm dumb enough to make positive claim? Or are you just trying to belittle the things I DO have faith in?

I would never belittle you or your faith.

But if you are persistent that a hard atheist is making a leap of faith, because

Storm said:
As I said, hard atheism is not mere denial. It's assertion of non-existence.

and if I take this for truth, then either you are a FSM agnostic or you are making the same leap of faith I am.

Storm · Apr 14, 2010

dust1n said:
I would never belittle you or your faith.

OK, then. Sorry for getting testy. :hug:

But if you are persistent that a hard atheist is making a leap of faith, because

and if I take this for truth, then either you are a FSM agnostic or you are making the same leap of faith I am.

Nah, because the FSM is, like Santa, able to be reasonably disproven. We know it was just made up because it's a parody. We even know who made it up.

I am, however, a weak atheist toward many specific God-concepts. The Abrahamic, for instance. Not hard, though, because I accept the fact that it's unprovable.

A couple of things I'd like to point out:
1) I don't think there's anything wrong with having faith.
2) Hard atheists are, imx, rather rare, and I'm certainly not saying that weak atheists have faith.

Jeremiah · Apr 14, 2010

footprints said:
Far too involved and too in-depth to post on the internet. If I started talking to you pertaining to the Biami Line, would you understand what I was talking about, it isn't something which can be looked up on the internet?

I gave some basic examples, without the facts and details in my opening post.

"Far too involved and too in-depth to post on the internet. If I started talking to you pertaining to the Biami Line, would you understand what I was talking about, it isn't something which can be looked up on the internet?"

Where I came from we have a saying, "Put up or shut up."

dust1n · Apr 14, 2010

Storm said:
OK, then. Sorry for getting testy. :hug:

Hehe, not a problem. I don't communicate well sometimes.

Nah, because the FSM is, like Santa, able to be reasonably disproven. We know it was just made up because it's a parody. We even know who made it up.

I am, however, a weak atheist toward many specific God-concepts. The Abrahamic, for instance. Not hard, though, because I accept the fact that it's unprovable.

Really, I won't claim there isn't any kind of God.. the concept it too far reaching. The Abrahamic God, or the Hindi conept of God or other mythologies... that's were I verge.

IMO - The virgin birth, and the resurrection, and the dogma, and the logical fallacies of the omnimax God serve as the same foundation of disbelief as I would share with the concept of FSM.

Really, I can't disprove God - but for some reason, others sometimes see this as a validation of a thousand other beliefs (whether it be the Bible, or other concepts like the spirit, or free will), and their connection of those other beliefs just because of the existence of God is the real leap of faith.

A couple of things I'd like to point out:
1) I don't think there's anything wrong with having faith.

I agree.

As long as their is morality, as long as their is an open-mind.

2) Hard atheists are, imx, rather rare, and I'm certainly not saying that weak atheists have faith.

They are rather rare. It's just at some point.. whether or not a God exists or not.. no one will ever been receiving any divine information anytime soon. But we can always hope!

Atheism vs Theism

I am a:

Theist because God exists.

Theist because it is more probable that God exists.

Atheist because God does not exist.

Atheist because it is more probable that God does not exist.

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Earthbending Lemur

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Towards the Sun

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Just me

Misanthropic Humanist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Guardian of Life

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Zindīq

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Well-Known Member

Zindīq