Atheism and Faith

[PureX]

I can't speak for anybody else, but I, for one, consider that to be a substantially reasonable opinion. I'd have been frustrated, annoyed, and offended far less often, had the typical relativist response been: It works and has proven effective and useful in predicting outcomes, given our current technological limitations; or something along those lines.

What relativist doesn't agree to that?

I suspect that whether "faith can be a path to truth" or not calls for some kind of clarification of the domain of the truth that is sought.

Faith is clearly a pathway through ignorance (unknowing), but whether or not it's a pathway to truth depends on our criteria for truthfulness. For we humans, that all too often equates to functional predictability, which is a relative bias by it's own definition, and so is not that likely to lead to the "whole truth" (whatever that is).

 

[Left Coast]

No, it means you are undetermined. That you neither believe nor disbelieve.

"Undetermined" is unbelief. People who are undetermined don't believe, by definition. That's what unbelief is.

Definition of unbelief | Dictionary.com

This is really not that hard to grasp.

 

[PureX]

"Undetermined" is unbelief.

No, it's not. "Unbelief" isn't even a proper word.

People who are undetermined don't believe, by definition. That's what unbelief is.

People who are undetermined don't disbelieve (unbelieve), either. In fact, what is undetermined is their belief. So insisting that you are both undetermined and dis-(un)believing is inherently self-contradictory.

Let me ask you this: why do you INSIST on interjecting the word "belief" into the label you apply to your supposedly undetermined state of mind, when what is supposedly still undetermined is whether to believe or disbelieve?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Why you expect the universe to NOT be surprising, perplexing, and a pain to deal with isn't clear to me.

LOL! As Alfred Korzybski once wrote: "The map is not the territory"; Einstein's TSR is not the universe.

The question is still valid. And TSR is a very accurate approximation in any case.

And I say 'tisn't. Ergo, you and I have an irreconcilable difference which ends discussion on the matter.

Well, the simple fact that it can accurately predict the results of future observations is all that is required for science. You have even agreed that it does. And that *means* it is a very accurate approximation.

• F*** science.
• Your question asked why I expect the universe to NOT be surprising, perplexing, and a pain to deal with.
• Your question assumes facts not in evidence.
  • In fact, I believe that the universe is infinitely large, that it contains an infinite amount of stuff in motion, and that the universe, as a whole, has always existed, always will exist, and is never the same, ... ever. Consequently, I believe that the universe has been, is, and ever will be a realm filled with surprises, most of which would perplex me if I were aware of them because of the very few surprises that I am aware of most surprise me.
    
  • For the record, I believe that marvels abound in the universe. But, if the truth be known, there are no miracles.
  • Fortunately for me, at this moment, TSR and you are the most annoying pains I have to deal with.
    • TSR, thank God, can't type. Unfortunately for me, you can.
      
    • If science were a religion, I'd report you for over-the-top proselytization.
• nothing that pertains to me and is, therefore, not valid.
• I suspect that this may crush you, but Einstein's TSR is not my universe, much less "The Universe". It's a theory that is subscribed to by a minority of folks in the world at this time. I can live with that. I'm not sure how you can.

 

[Left Coast]

No, it's not.

Yes. It literally is.

"Unbelief" isn't even a proper word.

The dictionary disagrees with you. So do English translators of the Bible?

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 9:24 - New King James Version

People who are undetermined don't disbelieve (unbelieve), either. In fact, what is undetermined is their belief. So insisting that you are both undetermined and unbelieving is inherently self-contradictory.

No, wrong again.

If you haven't determined in your mind that X is true, then by definition you don't believe x is true. Which means by definition you are a non-believer in x. You are in a state of unbelief.

Again, I can't explain this any more simply to you.

Let me ask you this: why do you INSIST on interjecting the word "belief" into the label you apply to your supposedly undetermined state of mind, when what is supposedly still undetermined is what to believe?

We reference the word belief to indicate what we are not doing. We don't believe. Again, this is not complicated.

Let me ask you this - why do you insist on debating which words non-believers should use to describe their view instead of just giving us evidence for your god??

 

[PureX]

YWe reference the word belief to indicate what we are not doing. We don't believe. Again, this is not complicated.

It's also not an "undetermined" position. Which is the source of the dishonesty and confusion in all of this.

Let me ask you this - why do you insist on debating which words non-believers should use to describe their view instead of just giving us evidence for your god??

God is not an evidential proposition, so it requires no evidential verification. Also, you will (probably) demand "objective evidence" which by definition cannot exist. So your demands are logically incoherent and absurdly biased.

 

[Terry Sampson]

No. That is NOT a table of events. There *are* nine events:

I mispoke. My table was a chronological list of nine events from two different perspectives.
That said, the fact that you object to my Loedel diagrams persuades me to believe that any further attempt to explain their usefulness to me in my reasoning about TSR is useless. I have nothing more to say. But for the record, I still ain't gonna say "Uncle".

 

[Left Coast]

It's also not an "undetermined" position. Which is the source of the dishonesty and confusion in all of this.

I'm baffled that you're still accusing me of lying after I've repeatedly clarified my meaning and intent. Seriously?

What is undetermined is whether God exists. I'm not convinced he does. I'm also not convinced he doesn't. There are a wide variety of God concepts out there, including ones that are unfalsifiable, so I can never completely rule them out. Therefore, I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm an non-believer.

What is dishonest or unclear about any of that?

God is not an evidential proposition, so it requires no evidential verification.

What is an "evidential proposition?"

Also, you will (probably) demand "objective evidence" which by definition cannot exist.

Do you mean objective evidence for God can't exist, or objective evidence for anything?

 

[PureX]

I'm baffled that you're still accusing me of lying after I've repeatedly clarified my meaning and intent. Seriously?

That's because you've bought into your own lie. Sorry, but that's just what I'm seeing, here. You are not "undetermined", you are "unbelieving". These are not the same state of mind. Yet you have convinced yourself that they are. And now you're trying to convince me and everyone else.

What is undetermined is whether God exists.

No, what is being determined, here, is whether or not you believe that God exists, because we all agree that there is not enough evidence to verify or nullify God's actual existence. So, in the face of this lack of evidence, you either choose to remain undetermined, or you choose to either believe, or disbelieve that God/gods exists. It's the condition of your belief that is what's being determined, or left undetermined, not God's actual existence.

I'm not convinced he does. I'm also not convinced he doesn't.

That is not the issue. No one is "convinced" of either conclusion unless they forfeit reason, or they gain some access to truth that the rest of us don't have. The proposal being offered is hypothetical: that God/gods exist, and exists in some way that effects us. Being "convinced" is not an option, here, if you are sane. So the options are either to choose to believe, choose not to believe (disbelieve), or to withhold making a determination (to believe or not to believe). And each of these is a different and separate conceptual position. They are not synonymous.

There are a wide variety of God concepts out there, including ones that are unfalsifiable, so I can never completely rule them out. Therefore, I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm an non-believer.

The only definitions that matter in this instance, are YOURS. YOU decide for yourself what you think "God's existence" might possibly entail, and then you decide what conceptual stance you are taking in regards to it.

My point is that whatever stance you take, you must justify it (to yourself, if not to the rest of us). Withholding determination based on lack of information is a position and a justification rolled into one. Choosing to believe that God/gods exist is a position with a number of possible justifications one could offer. And choosing to "disbelieve" the God/gods exist is also a position with a number of possible justifications. But you can't logically or honestly proclaim the position of disbelief, and then try to avoid justifying it by claiming the position and justification of non-determination. It's confusing and dishonest.

What is an "evidential proposition?"

It's a proposition based on evidence. "God" is not a proposition based on evidence. It's a proposition based on theory.

Do you mean objective evidence for God can't exist, or objective evidence for anything?

Both, but for different reasons. Objective evidence for God's existence can't exists because God is not an object. God is a concept, like truth, or beauty, or justice, or love. What objective evidence can there be for the existence of truth? Or of beauty? Or of justice? Or of love? Sure, there is objective evidence to support that the concept exists in the human mind, and thereby effects "objective reality" through the human's actions in the world. But that's not really the question, here. The question is of the objective existence of the concept, itself. And there simply isn't any. Because concepts are not objects, they are effects, effecting objects.

Also, the very definition of "objectivity" as being beyond and apart from the human mind contemplating it makes it an incoherent condition. What exists beyond human cognition remains, by definition, beyond human cognition. And is therefor, by definition, unknowable. Which renders the whole proposition moot. Sure, there's probably something "out there" beyond the ken of human cognition, but so what? Whatever it is will forever remain (by definition) beyond the ken of human cognition. So what's the point of even pretending to contemplate it?

 

[Polymath257]

I mispoke. My table was a chronological list of nine events from two different perspectives.
That said, the fact that you object to my Loedel diagrams persuades me to believe that any further attempt to explain their usefulness to me in my reasoning about TSR is useless. I have nothing more to say. But for the record, I still ain't gonna say "Uncle".

OK, you don't have to say 'Uncle'. And if you ever want to learn how to actually read and use a Loedel diagram, let me know. You did have one that was correct, by the way.

 

[Polymath257]

• F*** science.
• Your question asked why I expect the universe to NOT be surprising, perplexing, and a pain to deal with.
• Your question assumes facts not in evidence.
  • In fact, I believe that the universe is infinitely large, that it contains an infinite amount of stuff in motion, and that the universe, as a whole, has always existed, always will exist, and is never the same, ... ever. Consequently, I believe that the universe has been, is, and ever will be a realm filled with surprises, most of which would perplex me if I were aware of them because of the very few surprises that I am aware of most surprise me.
    
  • For the record, I believe that marvels abound in the universe. But, if the truth be known, there are no miracles.
  • Fortunately for me, at this moment, TSR and you are the most annoying pains I have to deal with.
    • TSR, thank God, can't type. Unfortunately for me, you can.
      
    • If science were a religion, I'd report you for over-the-top proselytization.
• nothing that pertains to me and is, therefore, not valid.
• I suspect that this may crush you, but Einstein's TSR is not my universe, much less "The Universe". It's a theory that is subscribed to by a minority of folks in the world at this time. I can live with that. I'm not sure how you can.

Hey, you were the one that asked if you did your diagrams appropriately. I pointed out where you did, where you did not, and how to read them. If you don't want to learn how to use them, then don't ask. You then went on to ask me to fill in some numbers on a diagram and asked a question that made no sense in context. I asked for clarification and showed how to fill in the boxes appropriately with a certain designation of the relevant events.

I'm not sure why anything I have said is 'over the top'.

 

[Left Coast]

That's because you've bought into your own lie.

I've bought into my own lie - about what I believe and don't.

For a guy who wants to insist what's rational and what's not, you realize how completely f****** ridiculous that claim is, right?

Sorry, but that's just what I'm seeing, here. You are not "undetermined", you are "unbelieving". These are not the same state of mind.

Yes. They literally, by definition, are. You either grasp this or you don't.

Yet you have convinced yourself that they are. And now you're trying to convince me and everyone else.

From what I can see, you're the only guy on your side of this fence in this thread. No other theist has been silly enough to tell us atheists what we believe.

No, what is being determined, here, is whether or not you believe that God exists, because we all agree that there is not enough evidence to verify or nullify God's actual existence.

If by "we all" you mean all theists and atheists, no we definitely do not all agree to that. I'd wager that the vast majority of theists on this planet are convinced that there is sufficient evidence to confirm God's existence. I say this as a guy who used to be one.

But I'm glad to hear you admit there's not enough evidence to verify or nullify God's existence. Because this means that rationally you are never justified in believing he exists, ie theism is bunk. Thank you.

So, in the face of this lack of evidence, you either choose to remain undetermined, or you choose to either believe, or disbelieve that God/gods exists.

Correct (with a caveat about "choosing" because we don't choose our beliefs, but that's another story). Atheists are mostly of the undetermined variety, with a minority who actively disbelieve (ie believe God does not exist).

That is not the issue. No one is "convinced" of either conclusion unless they forfeit reason, or they gain some access to truth that the rest of us don't have. The proposal being offered is hypothetical: that God/gods exist, and exists in some way that effects us. Being "convinced" is not an option, here, if you are sane. So the options are either to choose to believe, choose not to believe (disbelieve), or to withhold making a determination (to believe or not to believe). And each of these is a different and separate conceptual position. They are not synonymous.

This, again, is where you're confused. If you haven't made a determination whether God exists, then by definition you don't believe he exists. The choice is binary. You either believe or you don't. If you're undecided, you don't believe. I really don't know how else to say this to you. If you're undecided whether Bob is guilty, then by definition, you don't believe he's guilty. This is so basic it's almost tautological.

The only definitions that matter in this instance, are YOURS. YOU decide for yourself what you think "God's existence" might possibly entail, and then you decide what conceptual stance you are taking in regards to it.

I don't decide on my conceptual stance about anything. I have a previous thread on this, I think it was titled: "Do We Choose Our Beliefs?"

My point is that whatever stance you take, you must justify it (to yourself, if not to the rest of us). Withholding determination based on lack of information is a position and a justification rolled into one. Choosing to believe that God/gods exist is a position with a number of possible justifications one could offer. And choosing to "disbelieve" the God/gods exist is also a position with a number of possible justifications. But you can't logically or honestly proclaim the position of disbelief, and then try to avoid justifying it by claiming the position and justification of non-determination. It's confusing and dishonest.

If "disbelief" means "believe the opposite," then I agree. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Whatever claim you stake, yes you need to demonstrate that.

It's a proposition based on evidence. "God" is not a proposition based on evidence. It's a proposition based on theory.

I assume you don't mean theory in the scientific sense, so you'll have to elaborate.

Both, but for different reasons. Objective evidence for God's existence can't exists because God is not an object. God is a concept, like truth, or beauty, or justice, or love.

If your God is merely conceptual or metaphorical, then to be honest I really don't care about it. You might as well say you believe in Harry Potter or Gandalf or Father Time. I'm fine with that, as long as we're crystal clear that you acknowledge that God is just an idea in your head that isn't actually real.

What objective evidence can there be for the existence of truth? Or of beauty? Or of justice? Or of love? Sure, there is objective evidence to support that the concept exists in the human mind, and thereby effects "objective reality" through the human's actions in the world. But that's not really the question, here. The question is of the objective existence of the concept, itself. And there simply isn't any. Because concepts are not objects, they are effects, effecting objects.

Truth, love, justice, etc. are labels we use to describe objectively verifiable conditions. If I say, "my name is Nicholas," and we verify on my driver's license or birth certificate that it lists my name as Nicholas, then my statement is accurately described as true. We may not always agree on the definitions (we might disagree, say, on what actions are loving) but we can at least come up with our own. If we can't - if a concept is so devoid of content that no objective condition in the world corresponds to it - then what good is it?

Also, the very definition of "objectivity" as being beyond and apart from the human mind contemplating it makes it an incoherent condition.

That is a very weirdly phrased definition.

What exists beyond human cognition remains, by definition, beyond human cognition. And is therefor, by definition, unknowable. Which renders the whole proposition moot. Sure, there's probably something "out there" beyond the ken of human cognition, but so what? Whatever it is will forever remain (by definition) forever beyond the ken of human cognition. So what's the point of even pretending to contemplate it?

"Beyond human cognition?" Who said anything about things "beyond human cognition?" Objectivity pertains to concrete, mundane things you and I can both fully cognize.

Is this conversation happening right now? Or is it just a figment of your imagination? How do you know?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Belief" and "disbelief" (even when hidden behind "unbelief") are both asserted positions. Only "undetermined" can stand as a non-assertion.

Disbelief is Sigma 5, i.e., 99% possibility. Not the slightest evidence of God and soul anywhere.

Thanks @Polymath257 , I do not understand all this completely, but I get the drift. Your answers are very precise and illuminating. You know the subject while we are amateurs.

 

[Terry Sampson]

What relativist doesn't agree to that?

In principle: none. And yet, ...

There was a thread, here in RF, not so long ago, that addressed the question: Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion? Some say "a philosophy". But I well remember my days in Vietnam, during my tour of duty in 1968, when I observed a majority of the Vietnamese population who prayed at their home and store "altars" and put food offerings on plates on the altars. To them, Buddhism was a religion. By analogy, there are a good number of relativists who, although they don't set up altars to Einstein, speak of relativity as if it's a sacrosanct revelation and take great offense if anyone suggests that relativity is less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Faith is clearly a pathway through ignorance (unknowing), but whether or not it's a pathway to truth depends on our criteria for truthfulness. For we humans, that all too often equates to functional predictability, which is a relative bias by it's own definition, and so is not that likely to lead to the "whole truth" (whatever that is).

"Functional predictability is a relative bias"? LOL! Are you looking to get yourself stoned for heresy?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's both deliberately confusing, and dishonest, to pretend to have taken no position when one has taken the position of "disbelief" ("unbelief"), rather than "undetermined".

"Belief" and "disbelief" (even when hidden behind "unbelief") are both asserted positions. Only "undetermined" can stand as a non-assertion.

Who has said that disbelief isn't a position?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it means you are undetermined. That you neither believe nor disbelieve.

You can't neither believe nor disbelieve. They are binary and mutually exclusive. If you don't believe something, then you disbelieve it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then there is no honest reason to assert one's disbelief (unbelief) when what they purport to be is undetermined.

Yes, there is. Because you disbelieve the claim.

Are you suggesting that it is dishonest to be honest?

And the logical result, then, is that their guilt remains undetermined.

And, if that's your determination, then you do not believe they are guilty.

If however, the defense has show with sufficient evidence that the accused IS innocent (couldn't have or almost certainly didn't do the deed), then the logical result is that they are presumed to be innocent.

That can also be a determination. But you don't have to determine an individual is innocent in order to not determine that they are guilty. This is why courts these days don't determine "guilty or innocent", they determine "guilty or not guilty" - because the claim that is being tested is "the defendant is guilty" not "the defendant is innocent", as the defendant is presumed innocent to begin with.

No evidence does not equate to no gods, and so does not justify "disbelief (unbelief) in the existence of gods. In fact, no evidence does not justify ANY kind of belief.

Disbelief is not a kind of belief. It is a lack of belief.

Which why it's both deliberately confusing and dishonest to be proclaiming one's "unbelief" and then pretending that they are "undetermined". If they were really undetermined, they would not believe, or disbelieve (unbelieve).

That makes no sense. To disbelieve is to NOT believe.

What do you think disbelief means?

 

[PureX]

You can't neither believe nor disbelieve. They are binary and mutually exclusive. If you don't believe something, then you disbelieve it.

Belief is not an inescapable condition. There is an alternative, and that alternative is to remain undetermined. Many atheists choose to disbelieve and then claim to be undetermined so that they don't have to justify their choice, as if these were one and the same state of mind (as you are doing). But it's not.

 

[PureX]

"Functional predictability is a relative bias"? LOL! Are you looking to get yourself stoned for heresy?

Relativity implies that every perspective is biased.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Belief is not an inescapable condition. There is an alternative, and that alternative is to remain undetermined.

But if you have yet to determine that a claim is true (belief) then you do not yet believe it is true (disbelief). To be undetermined of a claim's truth is still not to believe it because you are yet to reach a state where you accept the claim as true. That is disbelief.

Many atheists choose to disbelieve and then claim to be undetermined so that they don't have to justify their choice, as if these were one and the same state of mind (as you are doing). But it's not.

The only justification required for disbelief is that there is either a lack of evidence to justify belief, or otherwise the evidence is flawed. It is not a positive claim that requires justification beyond that.

I see atheists justifying their position by explaining the above all the time. You see atheists explaining why they reject proposed evidences and arguments for theism constantly on these forums. What do you think they are avoiding?