• 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!

Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not connecting the dots on this one.
Conceptually, we would have a Venn diagram with two areas: "things I consider gods" and "things I believe exist". If the areas overlap, then the person is a theist of some sort; otherwise, they're an atheist.

If you are calling something a god, then you must have an idea of what a god is. Likewise if you claim something isn't a god (love, the sun, Haile Salassie I, etc), you must have a concept of god in order to exclude those things.
I don't see how you can assume that. A person can have a list of things they consider gods and not-gods without necessarily having the conceptual framework to tie everything together.

Beliefs can be unconcious (see bias, prejudice).
I'm not sure that all biases necessarily constitute beliefs.

Beliefs can be unknown due to ignorance or lack of information. (See atheists who with-hold belief that gods don't exist due to the possibility of belief in a god they haven't heard of yet.)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Also, I don't think it can be argued that any of us have not conceived of gods. We are here, currently talking about them.
I can't say what you've been talking about, but when I talk about gods, I'm only talking about a discrete set of things. I can't speak to any conceptual framework that links them together (and that you'd need to reject "gods" as an entire category). Why is Mercury a god but Gabriel isn't? I have no idea - that's just the way it is.

Are you saying words are meaningless if they do not have objective definitions?
No, I'm not. I don't know why you would think that.

While there is a subjective component to "gods", there is an objective component as well. At the most rudimentary level, it's what allows us to distinguish "gods" from "pencils". You don't mistake a pencil for a god. Why not? How is that possible unless you have some concept of what a god entails?
Nobody has ever suggested to me that a pencil is a god. Why they haven't done that... you'd have to ask them.

I would not consider the universe to be "god", just like I would not consider a fetus a "person". this doesn't not make the words meaningless; it just means there is some disagreement. Pantheists are theists regardless of my beliefs because they believe that the universe is god. They have a god belief.
And likewise, anyone who does not have a god belief is an atheist.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly atheists appear to forget every single god concept they have ever heard of.
I know them, but as a discrete - and incomplete - set. You said that "god" is meaningful and you seem to disagree with me when I say that I can only define the concept "god" with a list of gods... so have at it: describe this concept.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This is the perfect explanation, thank you! You even blatantly admit you're forcing a dichotomy by pretending agnosticism is not a choice, that you prefer that example because it forces this (false) dichotomy. Well said!
It's like you've made misrepresenting people a sport.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Do you believe that gods exist?

1. Yes, I do.
2. No, I don't.
3. I don't know. (I neither believe that gods exist, nor believe that gods don't exist.)

4. I don't know BUT I believe they do.
5. I don't know BUT I believe they don't.

Why do you ignore 3+1 and 3+2?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Fine. Those answers are covered by my preferred schema:

[1] Yes: Gnostic theist
[2] No: Gnostic atheist
[3] I don't know: Agnostic atheist and agnostic theist according to whether the unknower also believes or not. My method provides more information,since it answers that.

Do gods exist?

Yes I know they do: Gnostic theist.
No I know they don't: Gnostic atheist.
I believe so: Theist.
I don't believe so: Weak atheist.
I don't believe so I'll go as far as to say I believe they don't: Strong atheist.
I don't know but I believe so: Agnostic theist.
I don't know but I don't believe so: Agnostic weak atheist.
I don't know but I believe they don't: Agnostic strong atheist.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
But I can cite you a valid reference that says my definition is true. And I dare say I can find others that say something else.

And that's the problem. "Strong/weak" are too vaguely defined.

Terminology matters.
You can show me a definition that requires knowledge of no god existing for "strong atheism?"
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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."

You might find the following of interest. None of it is original (all copy-and-paste), although some lacks attribution:

Definition - a statement that specifies the proper application of a term or concept. The defined concept is sometimes called the definiendum (that which is defined), while the rest of the definition is called the definiens (that which does the defining). If a definition’s definiens fails to include elements that it should, then it doesn’t provide appropriate necessary conditions, and is too narrow. If it includes element that it should not, then it fails to provide appropriate sufficient conditions, and is too broad. “A bird is an animal that flies” does both. It excludes penguins and includes bats and some insects. Ideally, a definition’s definiens will include both a genus - the broader class to which a defined concept belongs and differentia - the features that set the defined concept apart from other members of its genus. DEFINITIONS

Substantive definitions - primarily focus on what something is. They seek to isolate the essence or substance of the definiendum Ex; Religion - belief in invisible superhuman power together with feelings and practices that flow from such a belief. Two types:

Intensional definition - gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for belonging to the set being defined. For example, an intensional definition of bachelor is 'an unmarried man' or sometimes 'an unmarried man that has never been married'. Being an unmarried man is a necessary condition for both definitions, but not sufficient in the second case, since divorced and widowed would be bachelors by one definition, but not the other.

Definition by genus and difference is a type of intensional definition, such as 'a miniskirt - a skirt with a hemline above the knee,' or 'bachelor - an unmarried man that has never been married.' Each lists a genus, or larger category to which the definiendum belongs, then limits it to just a subset of the genus. Intensional definition also applies to rules or sets of axioms that generate all members of the set being defined (square number - any number that can be expressed as an integer multiplied by itself). Similarly, an intensional definition of a game, such as chess, would be the rules of the game

Extensional definition - of a concept or term formulates its meaning by specifying its extension, that is, every object that falls under the definition of the concept or term in question. For example, an extensional definition of 'bachelor' would be a list of every bachelor. The term "nation of the world" might be extensionally defined by listing all of the nations of the world, or by giving some other means of recognizing the members of the corresponding class. An explicit listing of the extension, which is only possible for finite sets and only practical for relatively small sets, is a type of enumerative definition. Extensional definitions are used when listing examples would give more applicable information than other types of definition, and where listing the members of a set tells the questioner enough about the nature of that set. Extensional and intensional definitions - Wikipedia

Ostensive definition - conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. This type of definition is often used where the term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood (as with children and new speakers of a language) or because of the nature of the term (such as colors or sensations). It is usually accompanied with a gesture pointing out the object serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by pointing"

Functionalist definition - focuses on what something does: Religion - a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life).

Operational definition - relies on a process, such as a measurement (temperature – that which a thermometer measures).
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
You can show me a definition that requires knowledge of no god existing for "strong atheism?"

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

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."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

(Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia)
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

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."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

(Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia)
Are we talking about a spectrum of theistic probability or are we talking about strong atheism vs. Weak atheism as posited by many. I can give you a definition of ball that says it is an event where people dance, but if we are talking about kids playing with a ball on a playground this is a just equivocating.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

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."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

(Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia)

I need to reread Dawkins it seems.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

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."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

(Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia)
This is a personal proposal from Dawkins combining gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism in one scale. It's different from the standard charts.
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Gnostic theists and gnostic atheists say they know.
Right.

“George Bush says he speaks to God every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to God through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.” – Sam Harris
 
Top