Shifting more towards atheism

[TagliatelliMonster]

a-theism is the belief that there isn’t a god, plain and simple

You know how dictionaries work, right?
Read the first definition.

This isn’t weak atheism… this is an agnostic.

How many times must this be explained......
(a)theism pertains to beliefs
(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge

They are not mutually exclusive.

agnostic /ăg-nŏs′tĭk/

noun​

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Funny how your own dictionary definition refutes your very own claims.
1 shows that it pertains to knowledge
2 makes explicit mention of "true" atheism, which refers to definition number 2 of my screenshot above. AKA "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism"
3. shows how the mere word (a)gnosticism doesn't even necessarily pertain to god claims. For example: "Java is a platform agnostic programming language"

 

[Augustus]

Not exactly.

Take a court case. The proposition being debated there is the supposed guilt of the defendend.
If the case is weak, the jury might rule "not guilty". This does not mean that they believe the defendend is innocent. It just means that the case being brought forward was not enough to convince them that the defendend is guilty.

For all practical intents and purposes, off course, the result is that the defendend will be treated as if he is innocent: he will not have to go to jail, will not get fined, will be free to travel etc. But innocense has not been established at all. Nor has it been debated or discussed. While the defended is treated as if he is innocent, he still COULD be guilty. There just wasn't sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

Not guilty and innocent are different to exists/does not exist though.

You don't make this assumption because you have evidence of "no such truck".
Instead you make this assumption because the proposition of "yes such truck" fails to provide sufficient evidence to believe it.

Yes, and thus there is no practical difference as, for you, that truck does not exist.

If someone asks me "Is there an invisible truck that is about to kill you?" I believe that there is not because there is no reason to believe there is. I don't simply "lack belief there is a truck".

 

[Kenny]

Scientist Explains God | By MichaelFacebook

www.facebook.com

interesting viewpoint - but beyond my pay-grade

 

[Kenny]

Yes you can. On all kinds of issues we have beliefs that we think are true, even while accepting it is possible they may be wrong.

I believe no gods exist (on balance of probabilities). I still accept there is some chance I might be wrong about this, but it's what I believe.

To be certain no god exists would be a statement of knowledge, not simply belief, and to be an atheist does not require me to know no gods exist.

I didn’t say “you can’t” - I am saying that it is a politically correct statement that is contrary to the definition of atheism.

 

[Augustus]

I didn’t say “you can’t” - I am saying that it is a politically correct statement that is contrary to the definition of atheism.

Can you find a single dictionary that states atheism is the knowledge that gods don't exist?

I've only seen definitions related to the belief, disbelief or lack of belief gods don't exist.

Unlike most of my fellow atheists on RF, I consider atheism to be a specific belief not simply a 'lack of belief', but it is ridiculous to consider that beleifs must be held with absolute certainty before they can be considered beliefs.

And if beliefs can be held without absolute certainty, then your argument falls down.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

View attachment 89870


You know how dictionaries work, right?
Read the first definition.



How many times must this be explained......
(a)theism pertains to beliefs
(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge

They are not mutually exclusive.

View attachment 89871


Funny how your own dictionary definition refutes your very own claims.
1 shows that it pertains to knowledge
2 makes explicit mention of "true" atheism, which refers to definition number 2 of my screenshot above. AKA "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism"
3. shows how the mere word (a)gnosticism doesn't even necessarily pertain to god claims. For example: "Java is a platform agnostic programming language"

@Kenny do you consider marking the above post as "creative" to be any kind of an argument?

 

[F1fan]

There are several definitions of agnostic.

For me an atheist is someone who believes no gods exist,

Do you "believe no Santa exists"? Do you "believe no Easter Bunny exists"? How many other things do you "believe in the non-existence of things not known to exist"?

But no atheist claims to "believe no gods exist". Look at the language here. Your definition is that what atheists judge true is the concept "no gods exist". This is limited to strong atheists who can argue that a certain claim is flawed and contrary to fact. The claim of the Creator God from Genesis can be said to not exist as claimed due to facts making a literalist interpretation incorrect.

Atheists tend to respond to established religious dogmas and specific claims by believers. These claims are notoriously baseless and thus rejected. That means atheists don't believe religious claims that Gods exist.

and an agnostic is someone who believes we have insufficient grounds to hold either the belief gods exist or the belief gods do not exist.

More awkward language. Agnostics "believe we have insufficient knowledge"? No, they acknowledge that they lack adequate knowledge about gods so won;t make a judgment either way. Frankly I suggest we are all agnostic since it's a fact that there's no adequate evidence for any of the many thousands of gods concepts. Those who believe do so despite a lack of evidence, and don't believe via a logical conclusion.

Reserving the label atheist for only those who insist they know gods don't exist would certainly not reflect any current or historical common usage afaik.

This isn't accurate use of language and meaning. Remember, in logic, debate, and law all claims are by default deemed untrue UNTIL evidence can show they are true, or t least likely true. This is why defendants are considered innocent before trial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not guilty and innocent are different to exists/does not exist though.

I disagree.
God exists = Gotti is guilty
God does not exist = Gotti is innocent.


These are two different propositions. And only one outcome is mutually exclusive (= where you believe both).
You can not believe both.
You can believe the first and not the second.
You can believe the second and not the first.
You can disbelieve both.
You can't believe both (that would be self-contradictory).


The theist / atheist debate is essentially about the first proposition only.

As an atheist, I rule god "not guilty" of existing.

Yes, and thus there is no practical difference as, for you, that truck does not exist.

For practical intents and purposes, there isn't, indeed. But the debate here isn't about practical intents and purposes. It's about convictions and beliefs.

If someone asks me "Is there an invisible truck that is about to kill you?" I believe that there is not because there is no reason to believe there is.

Consider the bolded part.
Now consider the opposite question.
"Is there no invisible truck that is about the kill you?"
Would you consider it valid to reply "I believe there is because there is no reason to believe there is not"?

Likely, you will not.
This is so because the negative version is a valueless claim. It's the positive claim of existence that is the subject of discussion.

Nobody goes to court to sue for innocense.
We discuss guilt (existince).
We don't discuss innocense (non-existence).

Off course, if you CAN demonstrate / prove innocense / non-existence, all the more power to you. But you'll still be doing it in response to a claim of guilt / existence.

Someone needs to claim the existence of a god before we will even contemplate that god's non-existence. Atheism (both weak and strong, in fact) thus is a reactive position. Not a stand alone assertion by itself. As a stand alone assertion by itself, it is entirely meaningless.

It would be like me completely out of the blue starting a thread to demonstrate that I did NOT rape Cameron Diaz last night.
Why would I bother, if nobody accused me of doing that?

 

[F1fan]

Not guilty and innocent are different to exists/does not exist though.



Yes, and thus there is no practical difference as, for you, that truck does not exist.

If someone asks me "Is there an invisible truck that is about to kill you?" I believe that there is not because there is no reason to believe there is. I don't simply "lack belief there is a truck".

Why believe anything? Once you hear someone claim there's an invisible truck you know to dismiss it immediately, it's absurd. It requires no judgment or belief on your part.

 

[Augustus]

Do you "believe no Santa exists"? Do you "believe no Easter Bunny exists"?

Yes, of course I believe they don’t exist.

 

[Augustus]

Why believe anything? Once you hear someone claim there's an invisible truck you know to dismiss it immediately, it's absurd. It requires no judgment or belief on your part.

Of course it requires judgement and belief, that is how you dismiss it as absurd.

 

[Augustus]

Someone needs to claim the existence of a god before we will even contemplate that god's non-existence.

And we live in a reality where people have done exactly that since time immemorial.

So we adopt a position as to their claims.

For practical intents and purposes, there isn't, indeed. But the debate here isn't about practical intents and purposes. It's about convictions and beliefs.

Not for me.

There is no functional or cognitive difference imo.

Some people want to create a grammatical difference for rhetorical purposes, but it’s not something I consider particularly worthwhile.

If we understand that some people believe in gods, we have beliefs regarding their existence.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, of course I believe they don’t exist.

That's a lot of belief you have there. So if I make a list of thousands of imaginary characters you believe in thousands of ideas. Oddly, you believe in the negation of them being real. That's a lot of belief that you have to manage.

Atheists like myself just dismiss ideas that are not based in fact, and that cleans up a lot of head space, and is more efficient. My approach is to believe in as few things as evidence requires.

Remember, to BELIEVE is to make a judgment about an idea. These many negative beliefs you hold are atypical in language. How many discussions are "no gods exist" or "no Santa exists"? To "believe no Santa exists" there must have been someone who apvroached you with the idea "no Santa exists" and you sat back and assessed it and agreed, and you "believe no Santa exists". But why? You don;t have to judge this idea because Santa is known to be a fictional character. The only claim open for judgment is "Santa exists", and then we can assess this affirmative claim and judge it. Of course we default to the fact that Santa is fictional.

The same applies to gods. How many debates focus on the idea "no gods exist"? Very few if any. Factually no gods are known to exist, so why would anyone need to "believe no gods exist"? It's a natural default in debate.

Un less an atheist has an argument to assert "no gods exist" there's no need for any atheist to make a judgment that they have to defend, like asserting "no gods exist" and then a believer asking you to ustify your belief. How do you argue the truth of your belief that "no gods exist"? As an atheist I want to hear it.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it requires judgement and belief, that is how you dismiss it as absurd.

False, I already understand language and that trucks are visible. The claim goas against reality. The nature of the language is automatically invalid and can be dismissed without any thought.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Expecting to be given evidence to convince you that a religious myth is factual is a very stupid thing to expect. And it's even more stupid to reject the myth because it's mythical.

Then it would, of course, be stupid to suppose that Zeus did not turn himself into a swan and, in that guise, rape and impregnate the Spartan Queen Leda, or in the form of a shower of gold, impregnate the Argive Princess Danaë, thus fathering Theseus?

 

[metis]

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion delusion? Ironically, the theists were less fooled than the atheists. This tells me the mirror of atheism only applies to the ethereal gods, but not to the man-made gods of this world; teen idol worship.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And we live in a reality where people have done exactly that since time immemorial.

So we adopt a position as to their claims.



Not for me.

There is no functional or cognitive difference imo.

Some people want to create a grammatical difference for rhetorical purposes, but it’s not something I consider particularly worthwhile.

If we understand that some people believe in gods, we have beliefs regarding their existence.

There's no "rhetorical purpose".
This has to do with the burden of proof.

The distinction is made because theists insist that somehow disbelieving theistic claims carries a burden of proof. This is nonsensical.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

In court, that claim is the claim of "x is guilty". Nobody gets taken to court for NOT causing an accident.

This is true for both weak and strong atheism.
Someone needs to claim a god exists before I can disbelieve it.
Someone needs to claim a god exists before I can believe there is no such thing.

I don't wake up in the morning saying to myself "I don't believe gooblydockblobo exists" or "I believe no gooblydockblobo exists", unless someone first claims that there is such a thing.

All this translates into a very simple concept:

The theist makes a god-claim.
The atheist is unconvinced of said claim because the theist fails to make a sufficient case FOR his claim.

It is as you said of the invisible truck: I believe that there is not because there is no reason to believe there is.

One requires reasons for accepting a (positive) proposition as true. One does not require such reason to do the opposite. Having no reason to accept the positive claim as true, is enough to disbelieve.

Period. There is no need at all to take it any further then that.
So the way I see it, theists who insist on taking it further then that are merely trying to distract from the fact that they are unable to meet their burden of proof.

In actuality, them failing to meet their burden of proof already ends the debate right there.
There is absolutely no need to go further. There is no need to "demonstrate" or "argue the case" of "no invisible truck" or "no god".

The mere fact that there is "no reason to believe there is", is enough.

 

[metis]

I tend to use these definitions:
atheism: a belief there are no deities.

agnosticism: uncertain as to whether there are any deities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I tend to use these definitions:
atheism: a belief there are no deities.

agnosticism: uncertain as to whether there are any deities.

What do you believe?

Psychological scientists explore the causes and effects of atheism.

www.apa.org

Nonbelief comes in many varieties. Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.


I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are several definitions of agnostic.

Yes, but I do not consider the definition of agnosticism: agnostic - Google Search

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

For me an atheist is someone who believes no gods exist, and an agnostic is someone who believes we have insufficient grounds to hold either the belief gods exist or the belief gods do not exist.

OK

Reserving the label atheist for only those who insist they know gods don't exist would certainly not reflect any current or historical common usage afaik.

I would substitute "know"with "believe."