In Opposition of a the "Negative Claim" Argument in Respects to Theism and Atheism

[Animore]

Likewise, as an a-naturalist, I only lack belief in naturalistic explanations for the universe and life. It's not reasonable to suggest that this implies any other beliefs whatsoever... that would be unreasonably adding beliefs to my non belief

Without saying, however, if there are better words or definitions to better categorize your beliefs, that should be prominent. Such as, I'm assuming you may be a spiritualist? If you have the beliefs of one, you are one. "If it walks like a duck" and all that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine, I'll restate my example.

There are some in the Pagan category who accept Gods as wise eternal beings, but do not worship them. By your logic they should be not included. Except that's not the case, because they are still considered gods. They are simply not worshiped.

Also the point is, some do not worship them. By your logic, they should be not included.

The fact that one particular pagan doesn't worship the gods of their religion doesn't mean that nobody has ever worshipped them.

Yes, I know. You defined the existence of God as such. That is what I'm saying. They are not always worshiped, so they apparently should be dis-included.

I didn't say that a god has to always be worshipped. A god that has only ever been worshipped by a single person is still an object of worship.

Just because someone rejects, denies, or does not believe in something, does not mean that there is no possibility of no Gods existing. Even professor Dawkins admits there is a 0.01% chance that a God exists.

But that's based on a particular definition of god. You gave a different one.

I can justify "the King of the United States does not exist" by rejecting the idea that the US is a monarchy. I can justify "no higher being exists" by rejecting the idea that beings fall into a hierarchy where beings are "higher" and "lower."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Without saying, however, if there are better words or definitions to better categorize your beliefs, that should be prominent. Such as, I'm assuming you may be a spiritualist? If you have the beliefs of one, you are one. "If it walks like a duck" and all that.

Exactly, of course I'm a theist, I believe in God.

Point being re-labeling my belief as a non belief, does nothing to change my beliefs. So too with atheists. We all recognize the walk of that duck when we see it. Even if it calls itself a non-cow!

 

[Animore]

The fact that one particular pagan doesn't worship the gods of their religion doesn't mean that nobody has ever worshipped them.

Yet they are not worshiped by these people.

That's another point. What do you mean by "worshipped?" Do you mean worshiped by the majority? Worshiped by only a few?

I didn't say that a god has to always be worshipped. A god that has only ever been worshipped by a single person is still an object of worship.

That's the problem though. I know you've stated this before but I feel it has some validity. By your definition, anyone can be a God. If we're trimming it down to "a being of worship," not a supreme being, then kings would be Gods. Delusional cultists would be Gods, if they demanded worship and God it. Once again, such a thing is too vague, and does not represent every God.

But that's based on a particular definition of god. You gave a different one.

Then one can say that there is no one good definition of a God in general without disagreement arising.

 

[Animore]

Exactly, of course I'm a theist, I believe in God.

Point being re-labeling my belief as a non belief, does nothing to change my beliefs. So too with atheists. We all recognize the walk of that duck when we see it. Even if it calls itself a non-cow!

Then in that case, you have no idea how many times I've gone over this.

I will now direct you to Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

Definition of Strong Atheism

and http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Weak-Atheism.htm

if you do not wish to read these on your own, I will give you the info needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet they are not worshiped by these people.

That's another point. What do you mean by "worshipped?" Do you mean worshiped by the majority? Worshiped by only a few?

I mean worshipped by at least one person.

That's the problem though. I know you've stated this before but I feel it has some validity. By your definition, anyone can be a God. If we're trimming it down to "a being of worship," not a supreme being, then kings would be Gods. Delusional cultists would be Gods, if they demanded worship and God it. Once again, such a thing is too vague, and does not represent every God.

Please go back a few posts and read what I said: being worshipped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a thing to be a god. Not everything that is worshipped is a god, but everything that is not worshipped is not a god.

Then one can say that there is no one good definition of a God in general without disagreement arising.

Of course, but that's not the issue here. There are plenty of mainstream understandings of the word "god" that would let a person justify the position "god does not exist" without having to scour every corner of the entire universe to check if a god is hiding there... including the definition that YOU gave and said was better than mine.

 

[Animore]

I mean worshipped by at least one person.

Fair enough.

Please go back a few posts and read what I said: being worshipped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a thing to be a god. Not everything that is worshipped is a god, but everything that is not worshipped is not a god.

Fair enough.

Of course, but that's not the issue here. There are plenty of mainstream understandings of the word "god" that would let a person justify the position "god does not exist" without having to scour every corner of the entire universe to check if a god is hiding there... including the definition that YOU gave and said was better than mine.

This would require a concept added to the general idea of a God. I have conceded on the matter that a God is a supreme being of worship. The problem remains that the concept is too vague to be proven or disproven, and it would be a waste of time trying. But if one added another factor, then sure, such a concept could be falsifiable. As I said, however, it would be adding concept to a God, and that's not fair when speaking of a general idea of all deities.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then in that case, you have no idea how many times I've gone over this.

I will now direct you to Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

Definition of Strong Atheism

and Definition of Weak Atheism

if you do not wish to read these on your own, I will give you the info needed.

Yes, we talked about this in another thread- here's Dawkins' version

The spectrum of theistic probability

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

And here it is in reverse

The spectrum of atheistic probability

1. Strong atheist. 100 per cent probability of accident. In the words of Dawkins: “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
2. De facto atheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in coincidences and live my life on the assumption that it explains everything."
3. Leaning towards atheism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in spontaneous flukes creating everything
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "the existence of a naturalistic mechanism for all creation, and it's non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards theism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether this materialist model exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto theist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think naturalism is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it does not account for reality'
7. Strong theist. "I know there is no naturalistic lotto machine, with the same conviction as Dawkins knows there is one."

See? works just as well both ways- two sides of a coin, no default.

We all believe in something, the important thing is to acknowledge those beliefs as such.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[Animore]

Yes, we talked about this in another thread- here's Dawkins' version

The spectrum of theistic probability

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

And here it is in reverse

The spectrum of atheistic probability

1. Strong atheist. 100 per cent probability of accident. In the words of Dawkins: “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
2. De facto atheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in coincidences and live my life on the assumption that it explains everything."
3. Leaning towards atheism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in spontaneous flukes creating everything
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "the existence of a naturalistic mechanism for all creation, and it's non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards theism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether this materialist model exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto theist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think naturalism is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it does not account for reality'
7. Strong theist. "I know there is no naturalistic lotto machine, with the same conviction as Dawkins knows there is one."

See? works just as well both ways- two sides of a coin, no default.

We all believe in something, the important thing is to acknowledge those beliefs as such.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

Ugh. Listen.

There is validity in the concept of you being, for all intents and purposes, an a-naturalist, and yes, everyone believes in something, like materialism, etc. But you did not speak of this. You're not playing fair. You cannot speak of concepts that are not atheism. The basis of atheism is the lack of belief in something, just as you are an a-naturalist. If you are implying that all atheists believe that there is no God, that is simply not true. Such beliefs require justification, and I have none.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ugh. Listen.

There is validity in the concept of you being, for all intents and purposes, an a-naturalist, and yes, everyone believes in something, like materialism, etc. But you did not speak of this. You're not playing fair. You cannot speak of concepts that are not atheism. The basis of atheism is the lack of belief in something, just as you are an a-naturalist. If you are implying that all atheists believe that there is no God, that is simply not true. Such beliefs require justification, and I have none.

Are you an atheist?

 

[Animore]

Are you an atheist?

I am an atheist in the sense that I do not find the evidence or reasons needed to believe in a God. I do not claim 100% certainly, and on a more personal level of discussion, I do not claim even 99%. It is a huge misrepresentation to say that I know, or that I assert, or that I claim. I do none of that. What I do, though, is respond to the claim that a God exists with skepticism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am an atheist in the sense that I do not find the evidence or reasons needed to believe in a God. I do not claim 100% certainly, and on a more personal level of discussion, I do not claim even 99%. It is a huge misrepresentation to say that I know, or that I assert, or that I claim. I do none of that. What I do, though, is respond to the claim that a God exists with skepticism.

And I am an a-naturalist in the sense that I do not find the evidence or reasons needed to believe in a naturalistic mechanisms creating the universe. I do not claim 100% certainly, and on a more personal level of discussion, I do not claim even 99%. It is a huge misrepresentation to say that I know, or that I assert, or that I claim. I do none of that. What I do, though, is respond to the claim that these natural mechanisms exist with skepticism.

So between God or naturalistic/ materialistic mechanism of some kind,

whaddya think? what's your best bet?

 

[Animore]

And I am an a-naturalist in the sense that I do not find the evidence or reasons needed to believe in a naturalistic mechanisms creating the universe. I do not claim 100% certainly, and on a more personal level of discussion, I do not claim even 99%. It is a huge misrepresentation to say that I know, or that I assert, or that I claim. I do none of that. What I do, though, is respond to the claim that these natural mechanisms exist with skepticism.

So between God or naturalistic/ materialistic mechanism of some kind,

whaddya think? what's your best bet?

The problem with your analogy is you believe in something. It is not a valid position to take if there is a definition that suits much better in ways of categorizing your beliefs. But you don't seem to get that, do you?


My best bet is that the world appeared through ways that do not require blind faith, such as evolution by way of natural selection.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem with your analogy is you believe in something. It is not a valid position to take if there is a definition that suits much better in ways of categorizing your beliefs. But you don't seem to get that, do you?


My best bet is that the world appeared through ways that do not require blind faith, such as evolution by way of natural selection.

Blind faith does not recognize itself as faith, it does not question itself, it just assumes something to be true unquestionably by default.

I openly acknowledge my beliefs, my faith, and am willing to defend them on their own merits, how 'bout you?

Likewise, My best bet is that the world appeared through ways that do not require this blind (default) faith, such as intelligent design, God

 

[Animore]

Blind faith does not recognize itself as faith, it does not question itself, it just assumes something to be true unquestionably by default.

I openly acknowledge my beliefs, my faith, and am willing to defend them on their own merits, how 'bout you?

Likewise, My best bet is that the world appeared through ways that do not require blind faith, such as intelligent design.

Please explain to me how intelligent design is as probable as proven, observable science.

Intelligent design explains how a sky wizard created man out of dust and women out of the ribs of dust men.

Evolution explains how humans and every other species on Earth share a common ancestor, and how they gradually evolved, with the majority of the ways they did such being a process called natural selection.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please explain to me how intelligent design is as probable as proven, observable science.

Intelligent design explains how a sky wizard created man out of dust and women out of the ribs of dust men.

Evolution explains how humans and every other species on Earth share a common ancestor, and how they gradually evolved, with the majority of the ways they did such being a process called natural selection.

Natural selection of what?

 

[Animore]

Natural selection of what?

Of species.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of species.

You said they evolved by 'natural selection'

what exactly was nature 'selecting'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This would require a concept added to the general idea of a God.

What's "the general idea of a God"?

I have conceded on the matter that a God is a supreme being of worship.

Actually, I said that a god is an object of worship. You said that a god is a supreme being.

The problem remains that the concept is too vague to be proven or disproven, and it would be a waste of time trying.

If that's the case, then ignosticism ("god isn't defined enough to even talk about it as a concept", effectively) is justified, which is a subtly different rejection of theism, but still a rejection.

But if one added another factor, then sure, such a concept could be falsifiable. As I said, however, it would be adding concept to a God, and that's not fair when speaking of a general idea of all deities.

I don't think that there's such a thing as "a general idea of all deities."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of species.

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” Darwin

Why should I believe in something so superstitious that a book filled with contradictions is the main grabber?