Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

@Thumper provided me a perfect example: "If one considers a scale where 1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is 100% certainty in the non existence of God. Then Richard Dawkins considers himself - "The probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9." ... "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""

As I've said, this isn't a claim to certainty, that's NEVER been what I'm discussing and I've clearly illustrated that for all who can read. Rather, it's a belief that the universe is probably without gods. Were Dawkins agnostic, he would be a 3.5, but he believes 0 gods to be far more likely than 1+. But if he admitted this openly he'd have a "burden of proof," oh no

How do you know what anyone else should "admit openly"? Are you psychic?

The reason atheists don't claim to know that gods don't exist is simply inductive reasoning. Have you never heard the fairies quote? "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -- Douglas Adams

I am probably the strongest atheist you'll find and I can't say for absolute certainty that deities don't exist. I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist. But tell me the detailed properties of a deity you want me to consider and I'll consider such.

 

[Thumper]

"The probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low" is a claim with a burden of proof.

Thus far, there is zero evidence for such a being. But give me something to consider?

Are you arguing that everything that is created must have a creator? Then who created God? Did he have parents?

If you want to claim an un-caused creator, then where is your evidence that such a thing is possible? Is there such a thing as "outside the universe"?

Isn't it more honest to say we don't know?

Again, atheism is not a claim of belief, it is a claim that there is no reason for belief in deities. Give me some evidence to consider if you expect better probabilities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thus far, there is zero evidence for such a being. But give me something to consider?

Are you arguing that everything that is created must have a creator? Then who created God? Did he have parents?

If you want to claim an un-caused creator, then where is your evidence that such a thing is possible? Is there such a thing as "outside the universe"?

Isn't it more honest to say we don't know?

Again, atheism is not a claim of belief, it is a claim that there is no reason for belief in deities. Give me some evidence to consider if you expect better probabilities.

I think you're operating from some serious misunderstandings about my position.

 

[Thumper]

I think you're operating from some serious misunderstandings about my position.

Perhaps I do. It has happened.

 

[Curious George]

I think you're operating from some serious misunderstandings about my position.

Some see challenges in every shadow.

 

[Koldo]

@Thumper provided me a perfect example: "If one considers a scale where 1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is 100% certainty in the non existence of God. Then Richard Dawkins considers himself - "The probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9." ... "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""

As I've said, this isn't a claim to certainty, that's NEVER been what I'm discussing and I've clearly illustrated that for all who can read. Rather, it's a belief that the universe is probably without gods. Were Dawkins agnostic, he would be a 3.5, but he believes 0 gods to be far more likely than 1+. But if he admitted this openly he'd have a "burden of proof," oh no

What burden of proof ?

 

[viole]

duplicate

 

[viole]

Yep. Which is why atheism is a belief, but not a certainty claim. As I've repeated many times.

Sure.

Atheism is a belief in the same way abstinence is a sexual position.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Falvlun]

The reason atheists don't claim to know that
I am probably the strongest atheist you'll find and I can't say for absolute certainty that deities don't exist. I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist. But tell me the detailed properties of a deity you want me to consider and I'll consider such.

Absolute certainty isn't required for belief. 1137 isn't even talking about a claim of absolute certainty, as he made clear in the post you replied to. Would you say that you believe gods don't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I do. It has happened.

My own position is that atheism entails no claims at all, and anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

At the same time, my position is that individual atheists can make claims about all sorts of things. An atheist might actively believe that some god does not exist; it's just that this isn't what makes him an atheist.

In the post I was responding to, @1137 claimed that atheists try to avoid making claims so that they don't have a burden of proof. I was pointing out that Dawkins made a claim - and therefore took on some sort of burden of proof - in the quote.

IOW, I was pointing out that if @1137 had read what he was quoting more carefully, he would have realized that it actually spoke against the point he was trying to make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure.

Atheism is a belief in the same way abstinence is a sexual position.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- viole

I have to quibble with the analogy:

Atheism is a belief the way that "not missionary" is a sexual position.

And if someone is doing "not missionary", you need to do some more investigation to tell whether they're having sex or not.

 

[Thumper]

Absolute certainty isn't required for belief. 1137 isn't even talking about a claim of absolute certainty, as he made clear in the post you replied to. Would you say that you believe gods don't exist?

You would need to define what you mean by belief.

There are things I "believe" such as I believe that I'll have a nice dinner tonight with my wife.

However, there are other things where "confidence in" would be more accurate, such as I have confidence in the current theory of evolution.

As far as belief in gods are concerned, that term is too vague to respond to. Please define what you mean to the point that I can make a

 

[Thumper]

You would need to define what you mean by belief.

There are things I "believe" such as I believe that I'll have a nice dinner tonight with my wife.

However, there are other things where "confidence in" would be more accurate, such as I have confidence in the current theory of evolution.

As far as belief in gods are concerned, that term is too vague to respond to. Please define what you mean to the point that I can make a

determination. (sorry, dog hit the keyboard with his paw.)

 

[Thumper]

I have to quibble with the analogy:

Atheism is a belief the way that "not missionary" is a sexual position.

And if someone is doing "not missionary", you need to do some more investigation to tell whether they're having sex or not.

“Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life." ― Jack Huberman

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

 

[Falvlun]

You would need to define what you mean by belief.

There are things I "believe" such as I believe that I'll have a nice dinner tonight with my wife.

However, there are other things where "confidence in" would be more accurate, such as I have confidence in the current theory of evolution.

I see no reason why that wouldn't be considered a belief. In both common speech, and philosophical musings, a belief is something that is accepted or considered to be true; an opinion; or a state of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in someone or something.

As far as belief in gods are concerned, that term is too vague to respond to. Please define what you mean to the point that I can make a determination. a

Hm. Just a couple posts prior, you were saying this:

I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist.

It seems you have a clear concept of what you'd accept as a god, and are clear that no such being has ever been satisfactorily shown to you to exist.

 

[Thumper]

I see no reason why that wouldn't be considered a belief. In both common speech, and philosophical musings, a belief is something that is accepted or considered to be true; an opinion; or a state of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in someone or something.

Because I have often had the displeasure of people saying that scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution as if their confidence in the theory carries no more weight that a belief. There is a huge difference.

Hm. Just a couple posts prior, you were saying this: It seems you have a clear concept of what you'd accept as a god, and are clear that no such being has ever been satisfactorily shown to you to exist.

And I caveated my statement with the idea of "god" as a "being". As has been noted, "god" has been defined as "love" or as "nature" (such as Spinoza's God).

But again, give me a clear set of properties you would consider necessary to claim that a being is "god" and we can discuss it. This is what I mean by not 100% -- there's always the possibility that you could come up with a viable set of properties for such a being.

 

[Koldo]

My own position is that atheism entails no claims at all, and anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

And who is a theist ?

 

[Thumper]

And who is a theist ?

Let me Google that for you. -- LMGTFY

 

[Koldo]

Let me Google that for you. -- LMGTFY

I am afraid that doesn't answer my question.

 

[1137]

How do you know what anyone else should "admit openly"? Are you psychic?

The reason atheists don't claim to know that gods don't exist is simply inductive reasoning. Have you never heard the fairies quote? "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -- Douglas Adams

I am probably the strongest atheist you'll find and I can't say for absolute certainty that deities don't exist. I can say that I have never found a cogent set of properties for a being which could fairly be called a "god" to even possibly exist. But tell me the detailed properties of a deity you want me to consider and I'll consider such.

I couldn't be more clear, or point out any more often, that I'm not talking about certainty. Why can you guys not comprehend this? How many times do I have to say this? I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

What burden of proof ?

To support that the universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.

Sure.

Atheism is a belief in the same way abstinence is a sexual position.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- viole

Lol if you don't think 0 gods are less likely than 1+ then you are not an atheist by definition. If you do, you believe that 0 is more likely than 1+ even if you're not absolutely certain. Again, I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

Absolute certainty isn't required for belief. 1137 isn't even talking about a claim of absolute certainty, as he made clear in the post you replied to. Would you say that you believe gods don't exist?

I'm so happy at least one person is capable of reading and understanding basic statements

My own position is that atheism entails no claims at all, and anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

At the same time, my position is that individual atheists can make claims about all sorts of things. An atheist might actively believe that some god does not exist; it's just that this isn't what makes him an atheist.

In the post I was responding to, @1137 claimed that atheists try to avoid making claims so that they don't have a burden of proof. I was pointing out that Dawkins made a claim - and therefore took on some sort of burden of proof - in the quote.

IOW, I was pointing out that if @1137 had read what he was quoting more carefully, he would have realized that it actually spoke against the point he was trying to make.

Lol it's not against the point out all, it's a massively clear example of a famous atheist figurehead making a claim of belief.