Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We were not even talking about that. You brought it up as a smoke screen to cover your earlier error.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think I am now an atheist
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..like I said .. most people are content wandering blindly on in their contumacy.
..anyhow, back to the OP "I think I'm now an atheist"
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have to prove that your make believe friend exists before you make such claims about others.
..like I said .. most people are content wandering blindly on in their contumacy.
..anyhow, back to the OP "I think I'm now an atheist"
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You can't prove anything to a person who doesn't acknowledge simple facts of history, and only wishes to make small talk about the "make believe".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you talking about yourself again? I acknowledge history. You seem to have the mistaken belief that it is evidence for your belief in Allah.
It is not a good sign when you have to make false claims about the person that you are debating with. You gave some random facts. You need more than that to have evidence.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Which random facts are you referring to?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, I am not going to dig up some of your nonsense from the past.Which random facts are you referring to?
Try to form a coherent argument. Right now you are only a touch above "Look at the trees!"
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
So you agree that rational beliefs require a reasonable justification, yet;
In other words, you believe X does not exist because you do not believe there is reasonable justification to believe in X,
therefore your entire statement is due to not believing in X.
You are justifying your stated belief, that gods don’t exist, by your not finding reasonable justification to believe that they do exist.
Can you prove that to anybody, including yourself, without that absence of a reasonable justification to believe?
If I have not been sufficiently convinced that something exists, but have no way to falsify it’s existence (meaning I understand that there may be a possibility I have overlooked or not yet uncovered), I do not then form a belief that it does not exist.
This is what is commonly known as the “Black Swan Fallacy”.
Instead I simply do not believe that it exists since I have no reasonable justification for believing that it does.
I don’t take the extra step to form a belief that it does not exist, because I don’t have a justification to do so.
If I formed that belief without justification that would be irrational.
One problem here is most pools are filtered and chlorinated in order to prevent just the sort of thing you’re alluding to.
Since the world is not a controlled setting such as your pool, let’s try a little more apropos analogy in the real uncontrolled world.
For years I lived near Lake Mead.
I went swimming there with family and friends for many years on multiple occasions all different times of the year and never had any problems
(much like your experience in your pool).
If someone asked me "are there any dangerous, invisible, formless predators in these waters?”,
I would have said; “We’ve never seen any or had any problems, so I don’t believe so.”……
Until one afternoon just like countless others, after swimming for much of the day, several of us began to get intense itching and a pimply rash and blisters caused by dangerous, invisible, seemingly formless predators in the water.
In order for this to happen required the right combination of the water being the right temperature, the wind being still enough to prevent waves from stirring up the water to prevent it from being flushed by other water coming from further off shore, the fact there were a sufficient number of infected birds to poop close enough to the shore to allow enough of the eggs to survive until they managed to get into the still, warm water in order to allow enough of them to hatch and not get carried off shore before being able to come upon a sufficient population of a specific species of snail in order to infect them and survive long enough to develop and then release another kind of larvae who then must survive long enough without being washed out of the area by any current in order to make it to near the surface in order to find their “prey” and successfully burrow into their skin.
In others words the conditions had to align in just the right combination that had not previously occurred in the countless other times through the years that we’d been going swimming there.
It turns out the parasite larvae that caused it are known as cercariae. The parasites that cause the itch originate from infected birds that live near water. The parasites lay eggs in the infected animal’s blood and then the eggs are passed through the infected animal’s poop.
If those eggs reach water, they hatch and release tiny, microscopic larvae. These larvae swim around the water looking for a certain species of snail, and if they come into contact with the snail, the larvae will multiply and further develop. Infected snails then release a different kind of larvae known as cercariae.
This kind of larvae then swims to the surface of the water looking for certain birds or mammals to continue the cycle.
Even though the larvae cannot survive in a human’s body, they can burrow into a swimmer’s skin and trigger an allergic reaction that causes an itchy rash, known as swimmer’s itch. The larvae soon die after they burrow into a person’s skin, but the itching and rash from the allergic reaction can last for several days.
So just because we may not have learned about something yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Likewise, since we are aware there are many things we don’t yet know about a great many things, and since we have been surprised on occasions to discover things we thought improbable, we know enough to know that we don’t know everything.
Thus the time to rationally believe something exists, or believe it doesn’t exist is when we have a reasonable justification to do so, not before.
Along with a deistic god, a god similar to the OP’s overseer/programer, a non-corporal “universal conscience god”, a super advanced alien life-form creator god, a “prime mover”, or any not yet conceived god.
When you say “I believe gods do not exist”, and/or “I believe no gods exist”, you have included any and all gods including those not specified or even yet conceived.
Of course this can’t be done, because you can’t prove a negative.
This is precisely what makes it an irrational belief.
It is rational, however, to not believe in any of these gods until those that propose them have presented sufficient reasonable justification to do so, or you discover sufficient reasonable justification somehow on your own.
Which is why I stipulated that the “strong atheist” position may well be justified in specific cases pertaining to specific gods, where they can be reasonably shown to not exist.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t carry over to a generalized all encompassing non-specific case.
That evidence is that there isn’t sufficient evidence to reasonably justify their existence.
In other words, you believe X does not exist because you do not believe there is reasonable justification to believe in X,
therefore your entire statement is due to not believing in X.
You are justifying your stated belief, that gods don’t exist, by your not finding reasonable justification to believe that they do exist.
Can you prove that to anybody, including yourself, without that absence of a reasonable justification to believe?
Herein lies the difference.
If I have not been sufficiently convinced that something exists, but have no way to falsify it’s existence (meaning I understand that there may be a possibility I have overlooked or not yet uncovered), I do not then form a belief that it does not exist.
This is what is commonly known as the “Black Swan Fallacy”.
Instead I simply do not believe that it exists since I have no reasonable justification for believing that it does.
I don’t take the extra step to form a belief that it does not exist, because I don’t have a justification to do so.
If I formed that belief without justification that would be irrational.
This is a classic example of the “Black Swan Fallacy”.
One problem here is most pools are filtered and chlorinated in order to prevent just the sort of thing you’re alluding to.
Since the world is not a controlled setting such as your pool, let’s try a little more apropos analogy in the real uncontrolled world.
For years I lived near Lake Mead.
I went swimming there with family and friends for many years on multiple occasions all different times of the year and never had any problems
(much like your experience in your pool).
If someone asked me "are there any dangerous, invisible, formless predators in these waters?”,
I would have said; “We’ve never seen any or had any problems, so I don’t believe so.”……
Until one afternoon just like countless others, after swimming for much of the day, several of us began to get intense itching and a pimply rash and blisters caused by dangerous, invisible, seemingly formless predators in the water.
In order for this to happen required the right combination of the water being the right temperature, the wind being still enough to prevent waves from stirring up the water to prevent it from being flushed by other water coming from further off shore, the fact there were a sufficient number of infected birds to poop close enough to the shore to allow enough of the eggs to survive until they managed to get into the still, warm water in order to allow enough of them to hatch and not get carried off shore before being able to come upon a sufficient population of a specific species of snail in order to infect them and survive long enough to develop and then release another kind of larvae who then must survive long enough without being washed out of the area by any current in order to make it to near the surface in order to find their “prey” and successfully burrow into their skin.
In others words the conditions had to align in just the right combination that had not previously occurred in the countless other times through the years that we’d been going swimming there.
It turns out the parasite larvae that caused it are known as cercariae. The parasites that cause the itch originate from infected birds that live near water. The parasites lay eggs in the infected animal’s blood and then the eggs are passed through the infected animal’s poop.
If those eggs reach water, they hatch and release tiny, microscopic larvae. These larvae swim around the water looking for a certain species of snail, and if they come into contact with the snail, the larvae will multiply and further develop. Infected snails then release a different kind of larvae known as cercariae.
This kind of larvae then swims to the surface of the water looking for certain birds or mammals to continue the cycle.
Even though the larvae cannot survive in a human’s body, they can burrow into a swimmer’s skin and trigger an allergic reaction that causes an itchy rash, known as swimmer’s itch. The larvae soon die after they burrow into a person’s skin, but the itching and rash from the allergic reaction can last for several days.
So just because we may not have learned about something yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Likewise, since we are aware there are many things we don’t yet know about a great many things, and since we have been surprised on occasions to discover things we thought improbable, we know enough to know that we don’t know everything.
Thus the time to rationally believe something exists, or believe it doesn’t exist is when we have a reasonable justification to do so, not before.
You do in order to make a claim that “no gods exist.”…
Along with a deistic god, a god similar to the OP’s overseer/programer, a non-corporal “universal conscience god”, a super advanced alien life-form creator god, a “prime mover”, or any not yet conceived god.
When you say “I believe gods do not exist”, and/or “I believe no gods exist”, you have included any and all gods including those not specified or even yet conceived.
Of course this can’t be done, because you can’t prove a negative.
This is precisely what makes it an irrational belief.
It is rational, however, to not believe in any of these gods until those that propose them have presented sufficient reasonable justification to do so, or you discover sufficient reasonable justification somehow on your own.
That is a good start towards falsifying certain specific claims of some specific gods, but not necessarily many others.
Which is why I stipulated that the “strong atheist” position may well be justified in specific cases pertaining to specific gods, where they can be reasonably shown to not exist.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t carry over to a generalized all encompassing non-specific case.
Augustus
…
Where we differ is that I don't think there is an extra step. I think that actively disbelieving in the existence of gods is the same as believing they don't exist.
It's just a different grammatical formulation of the same cognitive reality.
It's only a fallacy if you don't consider that you could be wrong.
It would have been perfectly rational to believe that all swans were white while being open to the possibility that new evidence could change your position.
I accept I could be wrong, but my working hypothesis is that no gods exist (a belief).
That's not quite what I meant. I don't mean parasites/bacteria etc as I know these exist.
I meant invisible formless predators like sharks, lions, crocodiles, etc. I can't prove that there are no invisible, formless man-eating sharks in my pool, but I certainly believe that there aren't any.
It doesn't matter what other people view as gods, only what you yourself view as gods.
For example, you might believe that gods must exists, at least partially, outside of the laws of nature. You might also believe that nothing can exist outside of the laws of nature.
Some people think the sun is a god. I think the sun exists, but that doesn't make me a theist because I don't think the sun is a god.
But if you see the 2 positions as being the same and only grammatically different, then there is no greater burden of proof and it's no more rational to accept one than the other.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
This is the part you seem to be missing.
If you considered you could be wrong, (therefore the belief is not justified), it is irrational to hold
that belief.
Remember a rational belief requires a valid justification; without it the belief is irrational.
If you considered you could be wrong, you have not justified that belief.
If you can not justify that belief, it is rational to not believe.
By making the statement “I believe” you are declaring that, after consideration, you have weighed the possibilities and have decided (i.e. arrived at the conclusion) that “gods do not exist”.
By making the statement “I do not believe” you are declaring that, after consideration, you have weighed the possibilities and have NOT decided
(i.e. have NOT arrived at the conclusion) that gods DO exist.
If you actually consider you could be wrong about that belief, how can you rationally hold that belief?
If you have a 95% certainty that X doesn’t exist, you have fallen short of being certain that X doesn’t exist by 5%.
By then saying “I believe X does not exist”, you are masking that 5% of uncertainty.
By saying “I do not believe X exists”, you are acknowledging the fact that your certainty is incomplete.
It’s fully understood that, being human and therefore fallible, you could be wrong, that’s built in to any statement either for or against.
That’s the whole point.
You posed this as someone asking you:
“Are there any dangerous, invisible, formless predators in your swimming pool?”
Which you apparently take as “invisible formless predators like sharks, lions, crocodiles etc.”
But, they might well have completely different ideas of what “dangerous, invisible, formless predators” may entail, including parasites and bacteria.
The same is true when people speak of gods, they often have completely different concepts than the person they are conversing with.
In fact you can.
Sharks by definition are visible and have form, particularly any capable of eating a man.
This is a perfect example of where it can be possible to hold the “strong” position.
When the particular thing in question has been specified, it may then be possible to be falsified,
at which time it is perfectly rational to believe that it does not exist.
From you hypothetical person’s question, it would be entirely plausible to presume they meant parasites or bacteria.
Particularly since they more accurately fit the description of what they asked; “dangerous, invisible, formless predators”
The same is true when the question is about gods.
Where a god is specified it may be possible to be falsified, and would then make it possible to rationally believe it doesn’t exist.
This is obviously false.
Particularly when used as a generalization in conversation with others, assuming you’re not purposely being misleading, since it is well known as exemplified all over this forum of the vast differences of interpretations of the word “god”.
Since you obviously understand that people you converse with have different interpretations of “god”, then surely you understand that unless you or they have specified and agreed on which interpretation of god you are discussing you could easily be talking about completely different interpretations of god (as different as worm larvae and man-eating sharks).
As result a blanket nonspecific generalized statement like “I believe gods do not exist” must take all interpretations into account.
Since not all interpretations may be known
(Black Swan) or be able to be falsified, and the inability to prove a negative, makes it unable to be justified; rendering that belief irrational.
As previously pointed out, specific interpretations may be individually falsified, making those specific interpretations rational to be believed to not exist, but not so when generalized to include any and all interpretations.
That is the problem……
It’s true they are grammatically different.
Unfortunately, that grammatical difference in this case renders them cognitively different.
I consider the difference between rational and irrational to be a cognitive difference.
Do you not?
Once again:….
Can you prove (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable) that no gods of any kind exist?
The phrases;
“I believe gods do not exist” and
“I believe no gods exist”
are only grammatically different and
cognitively the same.
The phrases;
“I believe no gods exist” and
“I do not believe any gods exist”
are not only grammatically different,
they are also cognitively different, in the same way
“I believe” and “I do not believe” are cognitively different, and also as “I am convinced” and “I am not convinced” are different.
This is really not that difficult.
Augustus
…
Now try it with a different framing, as yours is pretty misleading compared to what I have been saying. "Not believe" is a broader category than "disbelieve"
The more accurate framing is not between believe and do not believe, but between believe/not and disbelief.
I believe 2+2 ≠ 5
I disbelieve 2+ 2 = 5
I believe no gods exist
I disbelieve gods exist
My view is that things exist in your mind or they don't. Not accepting their existence (adopting the position there are no gods in your world) is the same as believing in their non-existence (adopting the position there are no gods in your world)
Rejecting their existence is assuming their non-existence.
The neuroscience article we discussed identified belief: things are true (positive view of the world), disbelief: things that are not true (negative view of the world) and uncertainty.
I believe 2+2 ≠ 5
I disbelieve 2+ 2 = 5
&
I believe no gods exist
I disbelieve gods exist
all fall into the "disbelief" category hence are not cognitively different.
I'm not missing that, I just don't think it is the most accurate way to describe reality.
From what I can judge our beliefs about the existence of gods are identical, we just use different words to describe them.
You think belief/not and disbelief are 2 different stances that require different justifications to be rational and I don't.
Anything believed inductively can be wrong, and so much of what we believe is via inductive reasoning.
Believing in these things is not irrational if we accept the philosophical possibility of being wrong.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe illnesses are caused by viruses and bacteria not malevolent spirits. I believe I won't get eaten by an invisible shark when I swim in my pool.
All these beliefs may be wrong, but none of them are irrational.
I disbelieve in the existence of gods because there is no evidence that I've seen that makes me believe they do exist. I may be wrong though and may reconsider if presented with new evidence.
I believe gods don't exist because there is no evidence that I've seen that makes me believe they do exist. I may be wrong though and may reconsider if presented with new evidence.
If it is obviously false then you must be a theist.
There was a poster here who viewed the sun as a god. Just the normal sun.
For her beliefs, she gets to decide on what a god is. So she saw herself as a theist, and so did I. Her belief is what matters, not mine.
I obviously believe the sun exists, but I don't think the sun is a god so I can still be an atheist. My belief matters, not hers.
The only way you can be an atheist is by deciding what you believe gods are as you certainly believe in the existence of things that other people see as gods.
Never seen that in any definition of shark. Surely it is based on genetics and evolutionary history, same with other taxonomical categories for animals.
Octopuses can change colour, some fish are transparent, perhaps some sharks evolved to be invisible and formless while still being genetically sharks and able to "reform" as a shark if they wish to do so.
You can't prove otherwise, but it would not be irrational to believe no such sharks exist.
This is a perfect example of why judgements are based on what we consider to be gods, predators, etc.
For me a predator is an animal, that kills and eats other animals.
Bacteria don't meet this, and parasites lives in or on their hosts for a period of time, and may or may not kill them eventually so do not meet this.
If I though bacteria were predators then I'd have to accept my pool contains many "invisible" predators. That you think bacteria are predators doesn't force me to accept that perspective though, so I can still see my pool as being free of invisible predators.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Sharks are a group of elasmobranch fish
(Elasmobranch: this subclass are characterized by having five to seven pairs of gill clefts opening individually to the exterior, rigid dorsal fins and small placoid scales on the skin.)
characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Shark - Wikipedia
All of these defining characteristics are quite visible, and it’s their form that makes them distinguishable.
So, in fact I could.
“It is easy to think of predation in the context of common sense. Predator eats prey. However, ecologically, predation is defined as any interaction between two organisms that results in a flow of energy between them [1]. This definition is applicable to both plants and animals. There are four commonly recognized types of predation: (1) carnivory, (2) herbivory, (3) parasitism, and (4) mutualism. Each type of predation can by categorized based on whether or not it results in the death of the prey. Carnivory is lethal to the prey, while herbivory and parasitism may or may not be lethal to the prey. Mutualism is not lethal to either predator or prey but, rather, benefits both organisms.” Ecology/Predation and Herbivory - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Actually, just the opposite.
This is an example of why judgements based on what any one person may consider to be gods, predators, sharks, etc. often don’t meet the actual criteria for determining what might be the actual case.
Therefore a generalized statement must also consider what may be unknown to that particular person and what any other person may be aware of or contend to be the fact.
This is precisely why generalized statements are so notoriously difficult to defend as there is so often a not previously accounted for error that the person making such a statement is unaware of.
The statement “I believe gods do not exist”, is a general statement which has not qualified “gods” so would rightfully be understood to encompass any and all concepts of gods.
While a privately held belief of “no gods exist” may only include what that particular person considers to qualify as a god, once it is proclaimed to any other person without qualifying which concepts of gods are included, it now is understood to include what the other person or persons conceive as god.
When stated in a public forum such as this it can and does then include any concept that anybody may hold.
Of course, because you can show that the sun is in fact not a god.
Correct, they are all rational because they are justified by being able to prove them.
Since I had drilled into me as a kid….
“Never ASSUME, it makes an @$$ of you and me.
(@$$-U-ME.
)I can’t quite get on board with this.
There are several concepts of gods in my mind.
Since I have not yet found a valid reason to accept any of them as true, I do not believe any of them.
But, I avoid assuming their nonexistence or the nonexistence of any I may be unaware of at present.
In “my world” …
“Not accepting their existence” is NOT the same as “adopting the position there are no gods”…..
That is your position.
In “my world” ….”not accepting their existence” is simply that…..”not accepting their existence”.
It requires an extra step to adopt the position
“there are no gods”, one I don’t take due to the fact that I can’t justify it.
Well, the statements in question are:
• I believe gods do not exist
• I do not believe gods exist
so I don’t see how it is not accurate framing.
When you write “believe/not” do you mean it as antiquated grammar equivalent to “not believe”?
As in “I believe not that a woman should show her ankles” being equivalent to “I do not believe a woman should show her ankles”.
Somehow I don’t think so, because that would mean a difference between “believe not” (meaning “do not believe”) and “disbelieve”
(also meaning “do not believe”.)
Or, do you mean it as an independent (main) clause “I believe” followed by a dependent (subordinate) clause “gods do not exist.”
That is the meaning of the phrase as written.
Examples:
- I believe (independent clause; declaring a positive, i.e. I believe.)
- gods do not exist (dependent clause; declaring a negative explaining what I believe, i.e. gods do not exist.)
- I do not believe (independent clause; declaring a negative, i.e. I do not believe.)
- that gods exist (dependent clause; declaring a positive explaining what I do not believe, i.e. that gods exist.)
The statement “I believe” begging the question…
What do you believe?
The answer being that “gods do not exist”.
The statement “I do not believe” (or if you prefer;
I disbelieve) begging the question….
What do you not believe? (What do you disbelieve?)
The answer being that “gods exist”.
In order for the “I believe” to be rational,
the “gods do not exist” must be justifiable.
The “I do not believe” (or if you prefer
“I disbelieve”) is rational because there is no evidence that you’ve seen that makes you believe they do exist and it would be irrational to believe if there were no evidence to justify the belief.
In the same way, it is irrational to believe that
“gods do not exist” if there is no evidence to justify that belief (that gods do not exist).
I’ve asked you this before.
Can you prove (present sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to judge it as most probable),
that gods do not exist?
If you could, you would be the first, since you can’t prove a negative.
All the reasons you’ve given so far has been
The not having seen evidence to convince you is good rational reason to not believe, but not sufficient evidence to believe gods do not exist.
That is the classic “Black Swan Fallacy”
Just as never having seen a black swan is a rational reason to not believe there are black swans, but not a rational reason to believe black swans do not exist.
Do you believe there is a cognitive difference between “I believe” and “I disbelieve”?
The statement “I believe gods no gods exist”
means you have a belief; that belief being that no gods exist.
The statement “I disbelieve no gods exist”
means you have a disbelief; that disbelief being that no gods exist. The double negative here would cancel out leaving it to mean that you believe gods exist.
Obviously, there is a cognitive difference between a belief and a disbelief.
So while it’s true….
- I believe no gods exist
- I disbelieve gods exist
both fall into the “disbelief” category concerning whether gods exist; but one has stopped at disbelief.
The other has then added an assumption that therefore no gods exist committing the “Black Swan Fallacy” with an unjustifiable statement of belief; which is a cognitive difference.
Augustus
…
I just explained why it is not accurate, these do not always mean the same thing:
Dogs do not believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus.
Dogs disbelieve in the prophecies of Nostradamus.
We have established we are both talking about active disbelief, not passive absence of belief (ignorance/unawareness).
Changing this framing to "do not believe" which is different as it includes ignorance is misleading as I've already accepted these terms can mean different things.
I mean it in the context of "I believe gods do not exist", the negative form of belief (i.e. disbelief).
I believe that for the same reason you don't believe they do exist, as I think you are creating a "textbook" or "classroom" distinction between things that our brain does not perceive differently.
I believe this makes far more sense from an evolutionary perspective regarding how we view reality.
When I cross the road, I believe there is no invisible train from another dimension that could kill me, I only look out for cars, bikes, etc.
I cannot prove there is no invisible train from another dimension, but I believe there is not one.
You propose that the layer of theoretical philosophical doubt that exists in your "classroom" distinction reflects a cognitive difference. I believe it only does so if it has the potential to factor it into our decision making or view of the world.
For example, if I were uncertain about the existence of interdimensional trains, I might consider running across the road just to be safe.
But the "believe interdimensional trains do not exist" and "disbelieve they do exist" positions are functionally identical.
This difference is purely linguistic and relies on us speaking a language that has the specific linguistic features that enable us to make such a distinction. If we spoke a language that did not have these features, we wouldn't even be able to conceptualise such a difference.
I believe there is a cognitive difference between positive and negative beliefs. I do not believe there is a difference between disbelieve and believe/not in the context we are discussing.
The neuroscience article we discussed identified belief: things are true (positive view of the world), disbelief: things that are not true (negative view of the world) and uncertainty.
These are all forms of "belief" in the broad sense though.
I believe 2+2 ≠ 5
I disbelieve 2+ 2 = 5
&
I believe no gods exist
I disbelieve gods exist
all fall into the "disbelief" category hence are not cognitively different. Do you think there should be an additional category to differentiate disbelief from believe/not?
The authors view 2 + 2 = 5 to be something that falls into the "disbelief" category, even you would agree that it is correct to say "I believe 2 + 2 does not = 5".
That we are unaware of does not influence us, so some unknown definition of god matters not one bit to our beliefs regarding the existence of gods. Even if it could matter in future once we became aware of it.
Not if you use her definition, and that seems to be what you are proposing: we must accept all other usages rather than using that which we personally think is correct.
You certainly can not prove them (see the problem of induction), just believe them to a high degree of confidence.
It is not the case that beliefs are only rational when they can be proved, they are rational when there is sufficient reason to believe them based on what we know at that time and factoring in any uncertainties.
What was it you were saying about black swan fallacies?
Maybe the shark can exist between dimensions or evolved to rely on some unknown property of physics that means you can't see these features, even though they exist.
Which goes back to different usages of language, as that notes.
The one that matters regarding your beliefs is the one you are using (as you did with the sun).
This is also clear in a different context. One of the hallmarks of bad faith debate (for example, modern US politics) is to try to weaponise the inherent polysemy of language where people play a game to find the worst possible interpretation of language used and act as if this was what the speaker meant (or the opposite where they try to defend what was said by their side using the best possible interpretation).
But honest communication relies on us trying to understand what the speaker meant, not to think of all the other ways someone else could have used to use words to mean something different and deeming them all equally "correct".
That words can have other meanings, or that there are additional usages that someone might be unaware of doesn't change what someone believed at the time of speaking.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Perhaps the don’t “always” mean the same thing, but in this context they do.
Regardless of dogs, we both have an awareness and understanding of Nostradamus’s prophecies and in this context “do not believe” and “disbelieve” are fully synonymous.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Here you admit that you know we are not talking about unawareness or ignorance.
After having stated;
And yet you keep coming back to…..
Once again, as you admit;
You surely recall when you said:
This definitely applies here.
______________________________________
So, as I speculated: you mean it as an independent (main) clause “I believe” followed by a dependent (subordinate) clause
“gods do not exist.”
Which leaves us with the statement “I believe” begging the question…
What do you believe?
The answer being that “gods do not exist.”.
When I asked if you agree that for a belief to be a rational one it must have a reasonable justification,
you answered in the affirmative……
In order for the “I believe” to be rational,
the “gods do not exist” must be justifiable.
Recall you stated;
The not having seen evidence to convince you is good rational reason to disbelieve gods exist;
but not sufficient evidence to believe that gods do not exist.
What is your reasonable justification to believe that gods do not exist without resorting to a “Black Swan Fallacy”?
Augustus
…
They can be synonymous, but can also mean something different as my example shows.
It is the opposite of disingenuous to favour the more precise term and explain why it is more precise.
But on a public forum, other people can misunderstand and often take words out of context. On this topic especially, people use these terms in different ways, so I used the more precise term when describing my views to avoid misunderstanding.
Using term disbelieve clears up any ambiguity, and I answered your question using the term disbelieve (which you see as synonymous anyway), so you have your answer.
Is that really disingenuous or just a perfectly normal part of good-faith communication?
I've explained this, but you tend to skip past that bit and go back to grammatical distinctions:
I believe that for the same reason you don't believe they do exist, as I think you are creating a "textbook" or "classroom" distinction between things that our brain does not perceive differently.
I believe this makes far more sense from an evolutionary perspective regarding how we view reality.
When I cross the road, I believe there is no invisible train from another dimension that could kill me, I only look out for cars, bikes, etc.
I cannot prove there is no invisible train from another dimension, but I believe there is not one.
You propose that the layer of theoretical philosophical doubt that exists in your "classroom" distinction reflects a cognitive difference. I believe it only does so if it has the potential to factor it into our decision making or view of the world.
For example, if I were uncertain about the existence of interdimensional trains, I might consider running across the road just to be safe.
But the "believe interdimensional trains do not exist" and "disbelieve they do exist" positions are functionally identical.
This difference is purely linguistic and relies on us speaking a language that has the specific linguistic features that enable us to make such a distinction. If we spoke a language that did not have these features, we wouldn't even be able to conceptualise such a difference...
I believe there is a cognitive difference between positive and negative beliefs. I do not believe there is a difference between disbelieve and believe/not in the context we are discussing.
The neuroscience article we discussed identified belief: things are true (positive view of the world), disbelief: things that are not true (negative view of the world) and uncertainty.
These are all forms of "belief" in the broad sense though.
I believe 2+2 ≠ 5
I disbelieve 2+ 2 = 5
&
I believe no gods exist
I disbelieve gods exist
all fall into the "disbelief" category hence are not cognitively different. Do you think there should be an additional category to differentiate disbelief from believe/not?
The authors view 2 + 2 = 5 to be something that falls into the "disbelief" category, even you would agree that it is correct to say "I believe 2 + 2 does not = 5".
That we are unaware of does not influence us, so some unknown definition of god matters not one bit to our beliefs regarding the existence of gods. Even if it could matter in future once we became aware of it.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Yet again, you have admitted…..
When explained…..
You replied…..
The difference between belief and disbelief is a cognitive one, as you have said yourself…..
The not having seen evidence to convince you is good rational reason to disbelieve gods exist;…..
(disbelief as you have admitted is cognitively different than belief.)
but not sufficient evidence to believe that gods do not exist.
(belief as you have admitted is cognitively different than disbelief.)
So, yet once again……
What is your reasonable justification to assert an explicit believe that gods do not exist without resorting to a “Black Swan Fallacy”?
Look, I can copy and paste too…..
Perhaps if you actually read it this time you’ll come to understand……
So, as I speculated: you mean it as an independent (main) clause “I believe” followed by a dependent (subordinate) clause
“gods do not exist.”
Which leaves us with the statement “I believe” begging the question…
What do you believe?
The answer being that “gods do not exist.”.
When I asked if you agree that for a belief to be a rational one it must have a reasonable justification,
you answered in the affirmative……
In order for the “I believe” to be rational,
the “gods do not exist” must be justifiable.
It’s irrelevant how it may or may not be distinguished in any other language; we are using English.
I’m sorry if you don’t like the way the English language works, but since it’s the language we are conversing in we are stuck with conforming to the way it works.
And how it works I demonstrated before, and I’ll run through once again, this time using only your preferred verbiage of belief/believe and
disbelief/disbelieve which you have admitted are cognitively different.
An independent (main) clause “I believe” followed by a dependent (subordinate) clause “gods do not exist.”
That is the meaning of the phrase as written.
It indicates an assertion in an explicit belief that gods do not exist.
Examples:
- I believe (independent clause; declaring a positive, i.e. I believe.)
- gods do not exist (dependent clause; declaring a negative explaining what I believe, i.e. gods do not exist.)
- I disbelieve (independent clause; declaring a negative, i.e. I disbelieve.)
- that gods exist (dependent clause; declaring a positive explaining what I disbelieve, i.e. that gods exist.)
The statement “I believe”; begging the question…
What do you believe?
The answer being that “gods do not exist”.
The statement “I disbelieve”; begging the question….
What do you disbelieve?
The answer being that “gods exist”.
In order for the “I believe” to be rational,
the “gods do not exist” must be justifiable.
The “I disbelieve is rational because there is no evidence that you’ve seen that makes you believe they do exist and it would be irrational to believe if there were no evidence to justify the belief.
In the same way, it is irrational to believe that
“gods do not exist” if there is no evidence to justify that belief (that gods do not exist).
You appear to be too wrapped up in your dogmatic adherence to your Spinozan hypothesis to be able to concede the way the english language works.
I’m sorry if the two don’t jibe in your mind.
However, this is your hang up.
As you have conceded:…
It is apparently your dogmatic adherence to your Spinozan hypothesis that prevents you from either recognizing or accepting the fact that not being able to find sufficient evidence to justify a proposed idea can and generally is expressed as failure to believe, or lack of belief, or not believing,
or nonbelief, or absence of belief, or disbelief;
all of which indicating that the proposed idea was weighed against factual evidence which failed to justify the belief.
Thus leading to rejection of the proposed idea, and leading them to be unable to hold that proposed idea as a belief, because they do not believe it to be true, since it is not reasonably justified.
It’s not only the most atheists you refer to
(including myself) but also all the dictionaries I quoted in post# 209 (which was just a small sampling) along with multiple others, whose purpose is to clearly and succinctly define words.
If you find them to be misleading, …..
I’m afraid that’s on you.
Augustus
…
I know there is a grammatical difference, you don't need to keep explaining it while ignoring my explanation of why I understand the difference yet didn't see it as important.
I'll express the crux of my view as concisely as possible in blue anything not in blue is supplementary and you can pay less attention to it if you like.
In a nutshell:
- Atheism is a stance regarding the proposition "god(s) exist"
- We can a) believe this b) disbelieve it or c) be uncertain about it
If we look at the neuroscience article we discussed regarding belief (nothing to do with Spinoza) they tested for a) belief: things are true (positive view of the world) b) disbelief: things that are not true (negative view of the world) and c) uncertainty.
If you look at the methodology, it contains the questions asked. Some are basic maths, other simple facts, others relate to the existence of gods.
The authors view 2 + 2 = 5 to be something that falls into the "disbelief" category. There is no distinct believe/not category that is different form disbelief.
Do you believe 2+2 does not equal 5?
I'll assume the answer is yes, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Is there a functional cognitive difference between seeing the sum and believing 2+2 ≠ 5 and disbelieving 2+2 = 5? Does one require a greater burden of proof than the other?
I say no.
And that's it. Disbelief and believe/not are functionally identical regrading the proposition "god(s) exist".
I do not care about other grammatical formulations as these reflect linguistic differences rather than our view of reality.
If you want an example related to existence specifically:
I believe this makes far more sense from an evolutionary perspective regarding how we view reality.
When I cross the road, I believe there is no invisible train from another dimension that could kill me, I only look out for cars, bikes, etc.
I cannot prove there is no invisible train from another dimension, but I believe there is not one until such philosophical doubt alters my view of reality.
For example, if I were uncertain about the existence of interdimensional trains, I might consider running across the road just to be safe.
But the "believe interdimensional trains do not exist" and "disbelieve they do exist" positions are functionally identical.
Just to clarify, as you seem to have my position wrong, our current discussion has nothing to do with the Spinozan hypothesis, let alone a "dogmatic" adherence to it, and I haven't mentioned or assumed or even thought about it at all for the last 10 or so posts as, for reasons already discussed, it is not relevant. It is only relevant regarding the idea often espoused on RF that atheism is the absence of a belief, not an active stance taken.
It is also not about having a problem with "the way the English language works" as I don't think such an elementary aspect of cognition (judgements regarding existence) can be entirely dependent on grammatical quirks.
Mine is not an argument about what various grammatical structures mean, but how we view reality (see invisible train example above).
If your response to the proposition "God(s) exist" is disbelief or believe/not you have consciously adopted a godless view of reality and that is what matters. Both are the same negative belief about reality.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Here is how it is different.
If you say “I disbelieve in gods”, you indicate that you reject the claim that gods exist.
If you say “I believe gods do not exist” it is of course inferred that you do not believe in gods (it would be nonsensical to believe in something you do not believe exists).
In that sense it indicates a disbelief in gods similar to saying “I disbelieve in gods”.
However, if you say “I disbelieve in gods”, that is all it indicates .
If you say “I believe gods do not exist”, while it does infer (as described above) that you disbelieve in gods, that is not all it indicates;
it is also in fact an assertion of an explicit claim….
that no gods exist, that is not inferred in the statement “I disbelieve in gods”.
It goes a step beyond rejecting the claim that gods exist, and makes a counter claim that gods do not exist.
Just as the claim “gods exist” needs to be justified;
the claim “gods do not exist” needs to be justified.
2+2 is a math problem; not a belief….but I’ll go with it.
Yes I believe 2+2 does not equal 5.
But not because I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that it equals 5, but rather that I have a justification to believe it doesn’t equal 5.
So my believing that 2+2 does not equal 5 is not based on my not having a reason to believe that 2+2 equals 5, as your belief that gods don’t exist is based on not seeing evidence that gods exist.
It’s based on my being able to prove that it doesn’t equal 5.
Can you prove that gods do not exist?
2+2 does not equal 5 could be more closely related to a claim about a specific god.
2 and 2 are specific numbers representing specific things not a generalized statement equivalent to
no gods exist.
As I said before it may be possible to falsify a specific god, but not gods in general without proving a negative.
Then why not stop at saying “I disbelieve gods exist”?
Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods.
The lack of a belief in gods.
The disbelief in gods.
Just as most atheists have told you and the definition in multiple dictionaries attest to.
It is an active stance taken on the claim that gods exist; the stance that they do not accept the claim and therefore do not believe the claim.
The fact remains this dialogue started with my explaining that expressing “I belief that gods do not exist” requires a justification of that belief
(that gods do not exist) in order to be rational.
You claimed that saying atheism is a lack of belief in gods was misleading, despite the fact that it’s the dictionary definition.
This is your hang up.
It was specified that it was not “unawareness” and you have admitted as much…
Words have meanings.
The way they are arranged in phrases and sentences within the English language affects their meanings.
As described above, if one person says
“I disbelieve in gods” or “I do not believe in gods”, etc., they are explicitly conveying the fact that they do not hold a belief in gods, and that is the full extent of the comment.
It is a rational statement if they have not discovered evidence that would justify the existence of gods.
If another person says “I believe gods do not exist”, they are implicitly conveying that they do not hold a belief in gods, but that is not the full extent of the comment.
They are explicitly conveying that they hold a belief that no gods exist.
That belief, in order to be rational, requires a justification.
Even if they have not discovered evidence that would justify the existence of gods, that falls short of justifying the belief that non exist.
That would be a “Black Swan Fallacy”.
They would need to prove the negative (that no gods exist) in order to justify the belief and make it rational, due to it’s being a generalized statement.
If it were a specified statement; i.e. “I believe Thor the god of lightning does not exist”, Thor could be falsified, thus justifying the belief and making it rational.
Augustus
…
When faced with a statement we can comprehend (gods exist), the choice is to adopt a (positive) belief that gods exist or adopt a (negative) belief that gods don't exist.
Either way, it's a belief: a propositional attitude with regard to something.
A belief they do exist or a belief they do not.
But it seems like our conversation is stuck in a loop:
A: The difference is grammatical rather than cognitive with regard to the proposition "gods exist"
DH: But, look at the grammatical difference
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality.
DH: But, look at the grammatical difference with bold font and underlines.
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality.
DH: But, look at the grammatical difference with bold font and underlines in a different context.
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality.
*rinse/repeat*
The point being that this was the the fMRI was not differentiating between "disbelief" and "belief/not", even though the questions asked would create this distinction.
It showed positive views of the world, negative views of the world and uncertainty, and no functional difference between disbelief/believe not.
From my perspective it is misleading, and this is a perfectly rational belief, whether you share my subjective opinion or not.
1) It is contrived (perhaps backwards from the faulty a-theist etymology, or from a normative stance that not holding god beliefs shouldn't impact us). Can you find natural examples of anyone using "lack of belief" to mean "disbelief" in any other context? I don't ever recall seeing any. I've already demonstrated (and you didn't attempt to dispute) that the terms are clearly not fully synonymous and using lack sounds very odd.
2) It causes some people to think it is not a stance, and thus babies, rocks, etc. are "atheists". They believe they have not adopted a position regarding gods, and their atheism has no impact on any other aspect of their worldview as it is literally nothing.
It is a fact that some people on RF (and beyond) do this, and seeing as it is only possible by using a contrived, unnatural linguistic formation, for me, it is better to use more common, and less ambiguous terms that better reflects reality.
Hence we don't describe (negative) beliefs we hold as actually being a "lack" of belief
But more seriously, we can express all kinds of things with words that don't correlate directly to our experience of the world and we can contrive distinctions that don't exist in the real world too.
We generally experience the world positively based on what exists and what is true (that is a snake, it is dangerous). Less commonly (and using greater cognitive load), we experience it negatively, by what something is not (phew, that stick is not a snake).
When we developed complex languages we created a linguistic layer between us and the world, and the possibility to mediate the world in different ways that previously didn't exist. Different languages allow us to mediate the world in different ways, some more so, other less so.
But underpinning it is the basic positive and negative view of the world.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
How do you reconcile this statement:
A: The difference is grammatical rather than cognitive with regard to the proposition "gods exist"
DH: But, here is why it’s a cognitive difference
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (again your Spinozan hypothesis)
DH: But, once again, here is why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines.
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (at least according to me)
DH: But, again detailed examples of why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines in a different context.
A: (once again not addressing the previous examples with anything other than….) Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (Spinozan?)
(While not answering any of the direct questions.)
*rinse/repeat*
For the “disbeliefs”, a different section of the brain would light up (in a different file, so to speak)…
And for the “uncertainty”, yet another section of the brain would light up (in a third file, so to speak),
being held back until it would be determined which of the files (areas of the brain) it belonged in.
Plainly showing that “beliefs” and “disbeliefs” were processed in different brain regions and therefore
not the same.
We describe cases where there is not sufficient evidence to hold those beliefs as “lack” of belief;
You know, the way it’s defined in a dictionary.
Definition of lack
1: the fact or state of being wanting or deficient:
lack of evidence
2: something that is lacking or is needed
Synonyms & Antonyms for lack
Synonyms: Noun
absence,
dearth,
want
Antonyms: Noun
presence
Definition of LACK
Once again, I’m sorry if you don’t like the way the English language works or the way the words are defined.
You’ll notice;
Nothing about “unaware”
” Lack of self-confidence or lack of belief in ourselves means we are less likely to act, to change, or to push to make things better. As a result, when we expect to fail, we are actually more likely to fail (Bénabou & Tirole, 2002).”
Believe in Yourself: Why It's Important and How to Do It
[Granted in this context it generally means more a lack of confidence than lack of existence, but definitely not unawareness of ourselves.]
People who hunt for 'the truth' must be getting pretty exasperated at the public's lack of belief in aliens. UFO Hunters Believe They’ve Captured Military Planes Fighting Aliens
Religion, education and industrialization were suggested as some of the causes for a lack of belief in fairies as well as for the reasons fairies were not as popular or numerous in numbers as in earlier centuries.https://www.amazon.com/Fairy-Faith-Celtic-Countries-Library-Mystic/dp/0806511605
Such things were thought to be the simple stories of foreigners, farmers, and superstitious Catholics.Despite lack of belief in witches, however, art depicting supernatural beings became very popular at the time.
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Three Witches/en-en/
Ripleys.com was able to speak to noted skeptic Brian Dunning and Sasquatch aficionado Patrick Epistemon to develop a clearer picture of those who want to leave a big footnote on if maybe the widespread lack of belief in Bigfoot ever Sas-squashes its self-esteem?Bigfoot: The True Believers Vs The Hoaxers
In total, 31.0% of all men and 33.5% of all women lack belief in the possibility to influence their own health. Lack of belief in possibility to influence health was positively associated with both low social participation and low trust, although stronger for social participation than for trust.
Social capital and lack of belief in the possibility to influence one's own health: a population-based study - PubMed
You’ll notice all these mean disbelief in something and non of these in any way mean “unaware”.
I have a feeling you may well be misconstruing their actual intended meanings.
I’m sorry if you are not content with it’s structure or the definition of it’s words.
Now that we’ve dispensed of your side track of not liking the phrase “lack of belief”; perhaps you could honestly address what I explained to you in the last post……
You’ll note; nowhere in this explanation is the phrase “lack of belief”.
It is all with your preferred, and previously approved use of the word “disbelief”.
Can you honestly address this?….
With this statement;?
Here, allow me to rectify that to the actual conversation:
A: The difference is grammatical rather than cognitive with regard to the proposition "gods exist"
DH: But, here is why it’s a cognitive difference
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (again your Spinozan hypothesis)
DH: But, once again, here is why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines.
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (at least according to me)
DH: But, again detailed examples of why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines in a different context.
A: (once again not addressing the previous examples with anything other than….) Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (Spinozan?
)(While not answering any of the direct questions.)
*rinse/repeat*
Except that for “beliefs”, one section of the brain would light up (in one file, so to speak)…
For the “disbeliefs”, a different section of the brain would light up (in a different file, so to speak)…
And for the “uncertainty”, yet another section of the brain would light up (in a third file, so to speak),
being held back until it would be determined which of the files (areas of the brain) it belonged in.
Plainly showing that “beliefs” and “disbeliefs” were processed in different brain regions and therefore
not the same.
You’re right; we don’t describe beliefs we hold that way.Hence we don't describe (negative) beliefs we hold as actually being a "lack" of belief
We describe cases where there is not sufficient evidence to hold those beliefs as “lack” of belief;
You know, the way it’s defined in a dictionary.
Definition of lack
1: the fact or state of being wanting or deficient:
lack of evidence
2: something that is lacking or is needed
Synonyms & Antonyms for lack
Synonyms: Noun
absence,
dearth,
want
Antonyms: Noun
presence
Definition of LACK
Once again, I’m sorry if you don’t like the way the English language works or the way the words are defined.
You’ll notice;
Nothing about “unaware”
” Lack of self-confidence or lack of belief in ourselves means we are less likely to act, to change, or to push to make things better. As a result, when we expect to fail, we are actually more likely to fail (Bénabou & Tirole, 2002).”
Believe in Yourself: Why It's Important and How to Do It
[Granted in this context it generally means more a lack of confidence than lack of existence, but definitely not unawareness of ourselves.]
People who hunt for 'the truth' must be getting pretty exasperated at the public's lack of belief in aliens. UFO Hunters Believe They’ve Captured Military Planes Fighting Aliens
Religion, education and industrialization were suggested as some of the causes for a lack of belief in fairies as well as for the reasons fairies were not as popular or numerous in numbers as in earlier centuries.https://www.amazon.com/Fairy-Faith-Celtic-Countries-Library-Mystic/dp/0806511605
Such things were thought to be the simple stories of foreigners, farmers, and superstitious Catholics.Despite lack of belief in witches, however, art depicting supernatural beings became very popular at the time.
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Three Witches/en-en/
Ripleys.com was able to speak to noted skeptic Brian Dunning and Sasquatch aficionado Patrick Epistemon to develop a clearer picture of those who want to leave a big footnote on if maybe the widespread lack of belief in Bigfoot ever Sas-squashes its self-esteem?Bigfoot: The True Believers Vs The Hoaxers
In total, 31.0% of all men and 33.5% of all women lack belief in the possibility to influence their own health. Lack of belief in possibility to influence health was positively associated with both low social participation and low trust, although stronger for social participation than for trust.
Social capital and lack of belief in the possibility to influence one's own health: a population-based study - PubMed
You’ll notice all these mean disbelief in something and non of these in any way mean “unaware”.
We’ve already covered this:
I suppose you would be in a better position to know what impact their atheism has on any other aspect of their worldview?
Since it’s been shown (see multiple examples above) that it is in fact not a “contrived, unnatural linguistic formation”, and you’ve demonstrated several instances of not adhering to common use of language and it’s meanings; perhaps you could cite some examples of what you’re talking about here.
I have a feeling you may well be misconstruing their actual intended meanings.
Again, were are conversing in English, the only common tongue between us.
I’m sorry if you are not content with it’s structure or the definition of it’s words.
Now that we’ve dispensed of your side track of not liking the phrase “lack of belief”; perhaps you could honestly address what I explained to you in the last post……
You’ll note; nowhere in this explanation is the phrase “lack of belief”.
It is all with your preferred, and previously approved use of the word “disbelief”.
Can you prove that gods do not exist?
Can you honestly address this?….