Atheistic Double Standard?

[Sonofason]

A person who doesn't KNOW if gods exist.

Thanks very much for the information Artie. Can you also categorize the person with regard to belief in God who is withholding judgement pending evidence. Would that not also be a person who is agnostic?

 

[Willamena]

You're drawing unnecessary implications from semantics. I lack a helicopter. This does not mean that I SHOULD have a helicopter but don't.

Actually, that is precisely what it implies.

If Donald Trump lacks the wits to be president, it implies that he should have them.

If an octopus is lacking a shopping trolley, it means an octopus doesn't actually have a shopping trolley. You're just getting lost in semantics.

Again, try real examples rather than fabrications and fantasy. It works better for argument.

Should an octopus lack tentacles? No. (That would be cruel.)

You don't "hold" a lack of belief, you just lack a belief. There is no obligation to believe implied or inferred beyond your imagination.

And there is no belief that you lack, at all. Except metaphorically, to mean that you don't believe.

False. To state "I don't believe x" is not equal to "I believe y". You're failing to grasp this concept at a basic level and using semantics to dodge around the issue.

Needless to say, I think you are misstating my position here.

That makes no sense. We can be informed by fiction, and we can have positions on subjects about which we still lack a belief.

People often form and offer opinions from a position of ignorance. That's not what I was talking about.

You're still confused.

 

[Sonofason]

Knowledge is a belief that just happens to be true, and if some imperative about whether it is to be clung to should arise, it is justified by strict rules of logic; else, it is justified by common sense rules.

The agnostic is the person who can honestly say that that restriction ("knowledge" as it is defined above) cannot apply for whatever reason.

We might agree on this.

However, I would love to see your classifications for the following sorts of beliefs.

There are no gods, of that I am sure.
I do not believe any gods exists.
I do believe that no gods exist.
I have no belief in a god or gods, because I have not seen any evidence of their existence.
I have no belief that any god exists, but then I have no belief that they do not exist. I need more evidence.
I cannot be certain, but I do not believe that a god exists.
I cannot be certain, but I do believe that a god exists.
I believe that a god or gods exist.
I do not believe that no god exists.
God exists, of that I am certain.
I don't know if any gods exist
I don't know if any gods exist...I need more evidence.

Feel free to add to this list if you feel I missed someone.

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks very much for the information Artie. Can you also categorize the person with regard to belief in God who is withholding judgement pending evidence. Would that not also be a person who is agnostic?

You can have both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists so you can't define an agnostic as a person who is withholding judgement pending evidence. Some agnostics do, some don't.

 

[Sonofason]

I think you're just getting confused.


I've already explained how that is wrong.. "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even" doesn't equal "I believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd".


You're drawing unnecessary implications from semantics. I lack a helicopter. This does not mean that I SHOULD have a helicopter but don't.


If an octopus is lacking a shopping trolley, it means an octopus doesn't actually have a shopping trolley. You're just getting lost in semantics.


You don't "hold" a lack of belief, you just lack a belief. There is no obligation to believe implied or inferred beyond your imagination.


False. To state "I don't believe x" is not equal to "I believe y". You're failing to grasp this concept at a basic level and using semantics to dodge around the issue.


That makes no sense. We can be informed by fiction, and we can have positions on subjects about which we still lack a belief.


You're still confused.

I tend to agree with what Wellamena is saying here. To lack is the state of being without or not having enough of something. To lack is to be without or deficient in. We can discuss hypotheticals that are absurd, and we can create ones that make sense. To say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley is quite absurd. While you can surely say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley and consider yourself correct, you would also be incorrect because an octopus has no need of any shopping trolleys. How many shopping trolleys would be enough for an octopus. Well, an octopus requires zero shopping trolleys, therefore if it has no shopping trolleys, it would therefore lack no shopping trolleys. It would have all the shopping trolleys it requires if it had no shopping trolleys at all.

 

[Willamena]

We might agree on this.

However, I would love to see your classifications for the following sorts of beliefs.

There are no gods, of that I am sure.
I do not believe any gods exists.
I do believe that no gods exist.
I have no belief in a god or gods, because I have not seen any evidence of their existence.
I have no belief that any god exists, but then I have no belief that they do not exist. I need more evidence.
I cannot be certain, but I do not believe that a god exists.

Atheism.

I cannot be certain, but I do believe that a god exists.
I believe that a god or gods exist.
God exists, of that I am certain.

Theism.

I do not believe that no god exists.

Very clearly taking no side. Withholding belief.

I don't know if any gods exist
I don't know if any gods exist...I need more evidence.

Undecided.

Feel free to add to this list if you feel I missed someone.

I cannot say whether gods exist.
-Agnosticism

 

[ArtieE]

We might agree on this.

However, I would love to see your classifications for the following sorts of beliefs.

There are no gods, of that I am sure.

Gnostic atheist.

I do not believe any gods exists.

(Weak) atheist.

I do believe that no gods exist.

Strong atheist.

I have no belief in a god or gods, because I have not seen any evidence of their existence.

(Weak) atheist.

I have no belief that any god exists, but then I have no belief that they do not exist. I need more evidence.

(Weak) atheist.

I cannot be certain, but I do not believe that a god exists.

Agnostic atheist.

I cannot be certain, but I do believe that a god exists.

Agnostic theist.

I believe that a god or gods exist.

Theist.

I do not believe that no god exists.

(Weak) atheist.

God exists, of that I am certain.

Gnostic theist.

I don't know if any gods exist

Agnostic.

I don't know if any gods exist...I need more evidence.

Agnostic.

Feel free to add to this list if you feel I missed someone.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, that is precisely what it implies.

No, it doesn't. Again, this is semantics.

If Donald Trump lacks the wits to be president, it implies that he should have them.

He also lacks a robot called Jim, this doesn't mean he SHOULD have a robot called Jim.

Again, try real examples rather than fabrications and fantasy. It works better for argument.

It doesn't matter if it's fantasy or not - the logic applies the same in both instances.

Should an octopus lack tentacles? No. (That would be cruel.)

Should an octopus lack thumbs?

And there is no belief that you lack, at all. Except metaphorically, to mean that you don't believe.

Yes, you're defiitely confused.

Needless to say, I think you are misstating my position here.

I didn't state your position, I levelled an accusation.

People often form and offer opinions from a position of ignorance. That's not what I was talking about.

Nor was it what I am talking about. This should not be this difficult to grasp.

 

[ArtieE]

I tend to agree with what Wellamena is saying here. To lack is the state of being without or not having enough of something. To lack is to be without or deficient in. We can discuss hypotheticals that are absurd, and we can create ones that make sense. To say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley is quite absurd. While you can surely say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley and consider yourself correct, you would also be incorrect because an octopus has no need of any shopping trolleys. How many shopping trolleys would be enough for an octopus. Well, an octopus requires zero shopping trolleys, therefore if it has no shopping trolleys, it would therefore lack no shopping trolleys. It would have all the shopping trolleys it requires if it had no shopping trolleys at all.

Semantics. If this is so difficult for you just use "absence of" instead of "lack of".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I tend to agree with what Wellamena is saying here. To lack is the state of being without or not having enough of something. To lack is to be without or deficient in. We can discuss hypotheticals that are absurd, and we can create ones that make sense. To say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley is quite absurd. While you can surely say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley and consider yourself correct, you would also be incorrect because an octopus has no need of any shopping trolleys. How many shopping trolleys would be enough for an octopus. Well, an octopus requires zero shopping trolleys, therefore if it has no shopping trolleys, it would therefore lack no shopping trolleys. It would have all the shopping trolleys it requires if it had no shopping trolleys at all.

To lack can also simply mean "to be without". These implications are really just semantic distractions. It doesn't matter whether I use the term "lack" or "not have" or "couldn't have" or "absence of". The concept is what matters.

 

[1137]

How, exactly? And also, how is that a claim?


The fact that you can invent claims and attribute them to atheists doesn't mean that atheism in and of itself is a claim.

Hahaha wow, how many time do I have to remind you that you're the one who stated beliefs = claims? I feel like I tell this to at least one atheist every day, but when you want to reject logic or doesn't the logic was invented. Do you really not see the disconnect between "I see no reason to believe in gods" and "I believe it is more likely that there are no gods than one or more god?"

Do you understand how logical analogies work? It's quite simple:

Saying "atheism is a belief" is like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby".

It's a comparison of the logic being employed, not a red herring or change of subject. Do you understand?

Alrighty, so beliefs and verbs are logically equivalent. #atheistlogic

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't matter if it's fantasy or not - the logic applies the same in both instances.

It matters for rational argument.

Should an octopus lack thumbs?

Absurdity does not make for a good example unless it IS the example.

I didn't state your position, I levelled an accusation.

I fail to be accused by straw men flapping in the wind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We might agree on this.

However, I would love to see your classifications for the following sorts of beliefs.

There are no gods, of that I am sure.

(Strong, possibly gnostic) Atheist.

I do not believe any gods exists.

Atheist.

I do believe that no gods exist.

(Strong) Atheist.

I have no belief in a god or gods, because I have not seen any evidence of their existence.

Atheist.

I have no belief that any god exists, but then I have no belief that they do not exist. I need more evidence.

(Weak or agnostic) Atheist.

I cannot be certain, but I do not believe that a god exists.

(Agnostic) Atheist.

I cannot be certain, but I do believe that a god exists.

(Agnostic) Theist.

I believe that a god or gods exist.

Theist.

I do not believe that no god exists.

Indeterminate (they could still be either an atheist or theist, but we cannot tell which from this statement).

God exists, of that I am certain.

(Gnostic) Theist.

I don't know if any gods exist

Indeterminate (see above).

I don't know if any gods exist...I need more evidence.

Also indeterminate.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

How is it a silly thing to say? Name one thing other than their atheism that ALL atheists have in common.


Or maybe you should understand that definitions only provide descriptive, not prescriptive, definitions of terms. Don't blame me if you choose to use a nebulous definition of the term when it is clear what definition is being intended by the initial request - in the case of evidence for God, obviously an atheist isn't asking for "personal, subjective" evidence, they are asking for objective, empirical evidence. For example, scientific evidence (Scientific evidence - Wikipedia).


I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you.


"There is no evidence of God" can be falsified by presenting evidence of God. What is confusing to you about that?

"Name one thing other than their atheism that ALL atheists have in common."

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you.


"Or maybe you should understand that definitions only provide descriptive, not prescriptive, definitions of terms. Don't blame me if you choose to use a nebulous definition of the term when it is clear what definition is being intended by the initial request - in the case of evidence for God, obviously an atheist isn't asking for "personal, subjective" evidence, they are asking for objective, empirical evidence."

You can drop that act, as I in no way recognize you as an authority on English.

"For example, scientific evidence (Scientific evidence - Wikipedia)."'

In academic standards the OED beats Wikipedia, beside the context in which we have been discussing has clearly been a more inclusive take on evidence then the narrower focus you are now taking. I even said at the start of our exchange, "That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards". But I understand your desire to redefine the context as without doing so you don't really have a leg to stand on.

But I want to just take a look at this statement of yours here: "Evidence is necessarily an objective fact that lends credibility to a given conclusion."

If that is so, then how were facts ever established in the first place? There would be no evidence to validate a fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hahaha wow, how many time do I have to remind you that you're the one who stated beliefs = claims?

And you never had to remind me, because I never said anything contrary to that.

I feel like I tell this to at least one atheist every day, but when you want to reject logic or doesn't the logic was invented.

You tell atheists a sentence that makes no sense?

Do you really not see the disconnect between "I see no reason to believe in gods" and "I believe it is more likely that there are no gods than one or more god?"

Do you not understand that an atheist need not state either position?

Alrighty, so beliefs and verbs are logically equivalent. #atheistlogic

Do you not know how logical analogies work?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Interesting that you only appear to be here to insult and not defend your own ignorance.

So calling you a theist was an insult?

 

[Sonofason]

Agnosticsm is a position of not knowing (or, to some, a position of being unable to know with any degree of certainty). Depending on the definition of knowledge, of course, it can tend to vary. Atheism and theism deal with believe (which is accepting or not accepting a claim as being true - separate from how certain you are with regards to the proposition), while agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge (which can be said to be a sub-section of belief).

The most simple way of explaining it is to imagine it like a scale:

1) Gnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe that there is a God and claims to know that there is no God.
2) Agnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe that there is a God but doesn't claim to know that there is no God.
3) Agnostic theist - someone who believes that there is a God but doesn't claim to know that there is a God.
4) Gnostic theist - someone who believes that there is a God and claims to know that there is a God.

Of course, none of these are really set in stone. You'll find these definitions vary between people a lot, and there are a lot of people who use the term agnosticism to a refer to a kind of moderate position "between" atheism and theism, but since I use the broad definition of atheism there is no such position for it to occupy to me.

Personally, I get pretty tired of debates over definitions these days, because words simply shouldn't matter as much as the concepts they're supposed to represent.

I suppose then that you would classify a truly agnostic person quite simply as an agnostic atheist. Since they do not actually believe in a god or gods, they are indeed atheists. Okay...I can appreciate that point of view. thanks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not sharpest tool in the shed are you.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually give an answer.

You can drop that act, as I in no way recognize you as an authority on English.

Personal allusions are not arguments.

In academic standards the OED beats Wikipedia, beside the context in which we have been discussing has clearly been a more inclusive take on evidence then the narrower focus you are now taking. I even said to the start of our exchange, "That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards". But I understand your desire to redefine the context as without doing so you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Actually, we're talking entirely in the context of the evidence being requested by atheists that you alluded to. Obviously those atheists aren't asking for evidence that isn't convincing to them, or is of an entirely personal or subjective nature. They are asking for empirical facts that lend credibility to the claim. You can't simply change which definition of evidence you are using when the initial one being used was very clear.

But I want to just take a look at this statement of yours here: "Evidence is necessarily an objective fact that lends credibility to a given conclusion."

If that is so, then how were facts ever established in the first place? There would be no evidence to validate a fact.

You got it the wrong way around, grasshopper. Facts lend credibility to conclusions - you don't use facts to validate facts, that makes no sense.

 

[Sonofason]

Gnostic atheist.
(Weak) atheist.
Strong atheist.
(Weak) atheist.
(Weak) atheist.
Agnostic atheist.
Agnostic theist.
Theist.
(Weak) atheist.
Gnostic theist.
Agnostic.
Agnostic.

Thanks Artie. What would you say is the difference between a weak atheist and an agonstic atheist?

I just want to get my definitions clear, since it often appears to me that people are all over the board on this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I suppose then that you would classify a truly agnostic person quite simply as an agnostic atheist.

Not necessarily. I don't think that "truly agnostic" is really a meaningful term, but there are definitions of atheism/theism/agnosticism that allow for a "true agnostic" position in the middle that is neither atheistic nor theistic. Though, I don't subscribe to such definitions personally. To me, an agnostic theist a is just as "true" an agnostic as an agnostic atheist. They are both without the claim knowledge and/or certainty, and that's all that's really meant by agnosticism.

Since they do not actually believe in a god or gods, they are indeed atheists. Okay...I can appreciate that point of view. thanks.

You're welcome!