Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[ArtieE]

I'm still having problems with this idea of "actively believes".

A person who clearly states "I believe gods don't exist" actively believes. It's just an expression we use.

 

[Willamena]

Please define "grammatical subject".

The subject is the person or thing about whom a statement is made.

Please elaborate what subject of atheism you refer to.
Please elaborate what stance, and "any stance" you refer to.

The subject I refer to is "God or gods."
The stances I refer to are the ones mentioned in post #531, each of which are about God or gods. To allow them to become about negating theism is to change the subject of what atheism is about from "God or gods" to "belief in God or gods."

Atheism isn't about negating belief, it's about not believing in God or gods.

 

[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.

This is unintelligible. What do you mean with 0 being more or less likely than 1+? You mean like n probability theory?

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.

Even though absolute certainty does not require belief, that does not entail that lack of absolute certainty does require it.

The problem is obvious. With the exception of a few tautologies, I am not absolutely certain of anything. For what I know, I could be a brain in a vet operated by some evil aliens. I am not absolutely certain that this is not the case.

So, if that requires belief, then I believe in basically everything. Everybody will believe in basically everything. And belief would lose its meaning. It would become an empty word reprsenting something that virtually everybody has, like having a nose.

That is why we need a discriminating word. Something like knowledge. That does not require belief nor absolute certainty. Like scientific knowledge. Nobody says scientific belief. And nobody says scientific absolute certainty, in general.

But if you insist, fine. I believe that there is no God in same way I believe there is no Mother Goose in my kitchen. Which entails that I believe that it is more likely that there are 0 Mother Gooses than 1+ In my kitchen. The same with blue fairies, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and all other beings that share the same plausibility from my point of view. Including God.

Better?

Ciao

- viole

P.S. I will officially complain with the unfair "nonbeliever" label that religious people associate with atheists.

 

[Pudding]

The subject is the person or thing about whom a statement is made.

Okay.

The subject I refer to is "God or gods."
The stances I refer to are the ones mentioned in post #531, each of which are about God or gods.

I can understand what you are talking about.

To allow them to become about negating theism is to change the subject of what atheism is about from "God or gods" to "belief in God or gods."

I cannot understand what you're talking about.

Atheism isn't about negating belief

I haven't say otherwise.

it's about not believing in God or gods.

I agree that atheism is about not believing in God or gods. Atheism means absence the beliefs that at least one deity/God/god exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The subject is the person or thing about whom a statement is made.

More specifically, the subject is the thing taking the action referred to with a verb.

The problems here:

- "atheist" is a noun, not a verb.
- for God to be the subject, God would be the one doing some action that we're referring to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhist: "There is a box. Unfulfilled speculation about the box or its contents disturbs my serenity, so I choose to not concern myself with it."

And does not benefit me in any way.

I think the box is old, and made of flimsy, poorly constructed material.

And what was there in the box has been appropriated by the atheists.

 

[Willamena]

I haven't say otherwise.


I agree that atheism is about not believing in God or gods. Atheism means absence the beliefs that at least one deity/God/god exist.

No worries.

And that is correct. Yet so easily drawn off the track.

 

[leibowde84]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

In this analogy, the atheist would hold the opinion that there isn't enough evidence that suggests anything is in the jar. Due to this lack of evidence, they "lack belief" that anything is in the jar.

 

[Willamena]

More specifically, the subject is the thing taking the action referred to with a verb.

The problems here:

- "atheist" is a noun, not a verb.
- for God to be the subject, God would be the one doing some action that we're referring to.

Believing and its negation are the predicates of theism and atheism, respectively. The subject is the person or thing about whom a statement is made. Believing, and its negation, is done about "God or gods."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wait, do you not actually believe dogs came from wolves or am I misunderstanding you?

Correct

Also, evidence for extraordinary claims? Aren't you a theist? Lol?

Again I acknowledge my faith as such, I do not declare them as undeniable fact as some do evolution

having said that I believe I have extraordinary evidence yes!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I dont need to acknowledge that im taking a leap of faith, im making no absolute claims about the origins of our Universe as theists are. I do however read about possibilities and find them interesting, but that is all they are, possibilities.

I disapprove of the word "created", per your initial post, because something being created assumes something exists to create. You are leading the argument to your own bias and its really, really obvious. If you want to make an absolute claim then you need to show how you got there and....ahem... like you mentioned earlier "evidence for extraordinary claims" wasn't it? Until then, if you actually want to speak honestly, all you can say is I don't know until such a time that you have that evidence. Pretending in an honest debate is kind of rude imo.

No need for the personal attacks Blackdog, I always assume everyone here is honest and capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a far more interesting debate than name calling.

That only betrays that a person's position is based largely on passion rather than reason

 

[Valjean]

"Do god(s) exist?"

1. Yes they do I know they do. (Gnostic theist).
2. No they don't I know they don't. (Gnostic atheist).
3. Yes I believe so. (Theist).
4. No I don't believe so. (Weak atheist).
5. No I believe they don't. (Strong atheist).

#s 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of overlap, they seem to be saying the same thing.
How about: #5: No, they don't.
#4 is provisional belief, #5 settled 'knowledge'.

I'm confusing about the definition for weak atheist. I'll need to think about it.

A definition -- as opposed to an explanation -- is a lowest common denominator, a single feature common to all members of a set and never found in any non-member. Atheism's LCD is lack of belief in God/Gods (however you define them). There are atheists with a lot more philosophical baggage, and these may be distinguished by adding modifiers the basic "atheist."

 

[Falvlun]

I am not trying to change the definition, just ensure we are using the word in the same way. But if we can't come to an agreement about how we use a particular word within our discussions, then it is better to find other words to express our meaning.

the problem is that your argument hinges upon you denying normal senses of the word "belief".

Using a different word is exactly what you want. Just because you refuse perfectly valid and common uses of a word should not force me to concede that the word shouldn't be used, or aquiesce to using only the words you approve of.

To be clear, you can say "I have confidence in the truth of evolution" rather than "I believe in evolution." But if someone then comes and says "well, confidence in the truth of something is exactly what belief is", you cannot deny that it is so.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. ~ Carl Sagan

Emotional satisfaction is the criteria by which you define gods?

I guess I expected something a little more logic-y.

I also don't think this quote addressss my criticism: Namely, if you have no concept of god, how do you know you don't believe in one?

Because we were talking about gods.

Or, more specifically, belief regarding the existence of gods, and the propensity for the modern atheist to postpone belief because of the possibility of future information.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Believing and its negation are the predicates of theism and atheism, respectively.

Complement, not negation.

And none of this means that a noun has a subject.

The subject is the person or thing about whom a statement is made. Believing, and its negation, is done about "God or gods."

Object, not subject. In the phrase "I believe in God", the subject is "I" and the object is "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also don't think this quote addressss my criticism: Namely, if you have no concept of god, how do you know you don't believe in one?

When we're trying to decide whether a person is a theist or an atheist, we use their own understanding of "god" to determine whether someone is a theist or an atheist. This is how a pantheist who considers the universe to be God can be a theist, while an atheist who also believes the universe exists but doesn't consider it to be God can be an atheist.

You don't need a concept of god to recognize that none of your beliefs are anything you'd call a god. If "god" is meaningless to you, of course you aren't applying the term to things.

 

[ArtieE]

#s 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of overlap, they seem to be saying the same thing.

They aren't saying the same thing.

4. No I don't believe so and I don't believe gods don't exist either. (Weak atheist).
5. No I don't believe so and I believe gods don't exist. (Strong atheist).

How is that saying the same thing?

 

[Curious George]

Hello.

So are you saying that you know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung, which is to say "I do not believe, I know?"

Because that's what it would take to be a "strong atheist".

Firstly, no that is not what it would take. Atheism is a belief system. And while knowledge is a particular type of belief it is not required for atheism, or what many posters here refer to as "strong atheism."

I say the proposition "god does not exist" is true.

 

[Valjean]

Firstly, no that is not what it would take. Atheism is a belief system. And while knowledge is a particular type of belief it is not required for atheism, or what many posters here refer to as "strong atheism."

I say the proposition "god does not exist" is true.

What beliefs do atheists have? What system defines them?

 

[ArtieE]

Firstly, no that is not what it would take. Atheism is a belief system.

Definition of a belief system:
"faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society"
the definition of belief system
Not being a theist is the only qualification you need to be an atheist. No series or sets of beliefs are required.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this analogy, the atheist would hold the opinion that there isn't enough evidence that suggests anything is in the jar. Due to this lack of evidence, they "lack belief" that anything is in the jar.

FYI: as was pointed out a few pages back, @1137 misunderstood the analogy. The box or the coins/marbles in it don't represent God, belief in God, or anything like that.

The point of the analogy is to present a scenario that's a real dichotomy - the number of coins in the box is either even or odd; no other possibilities exist. Despite this, our positions on whether the number of coins is even or odd is not a dichotomy: saying "I think you have no justification for saying that there's an even number of coins in the box" doesn't create any burden of proof to justify why you think there are an odd number of coins in the box.

Likewise, saying "you've given me no reason to believe in the god(s) you claim exist" doesn't create the obligation to argue for why you think they don't exist.

That's what the analogy is actually getting at, not that mess in the OP.