Lack of belief in gods.

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Millions of people that are incapable of holding a the propositions a god exists or no god exists and agnostics.

This is incoherent. Was this supposed to be an answer to my question?

 

[Curious George]

This is incoherent. Was this supposed to be an answer to my question?

It was supposed to-but it was hard to decipher. Sorry. Let me try again:

Millions of people who are incapable of holding the propositions "a god exists" or "no god exists" as true, and agnostics.

 

[Curious George]

"We do all operate on faith. "

I knew that was your end game, but despite what you think I do not operate on faith. But I am sure you are gonna tell me I am wrong and that I must think like you.

That was not my end game. That was me addressing a tangent which you brought to the conversation. You are saying you do not use inductive reasoning? You don't believe that if you drop something it will fall? You don't believe in--well--science?!?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That was not my end game. That was me addressing a tangent which you brought to the conversation. You are saying you do not use inductive reasoning? You don't believe that if you drop something it will fall? You don't believe in--well--science?!?

Now the part where you tell me what I think . . . .

"You are saying you do not use inductive reasoning?"

There is that game of semantics you are so fond of, let's see what did I actually say? Oh right, " I do not operate on faith."

 

[Curious George]

Now the part where you tell me what I think . . . .

"You are saying you do not use inductive reasoning?"

There is that game of semantics you are so fond of, let's see what did I actually say? Oh right, " I do not operate on faith."

I have complete faith if I drop a book it will fall to the ground. I can only have this through inductive reasoning.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have complete faith if I drop a book it will fall to the ground. I can only have this through inductive reasoning.

It is amazing how predicable you are.

 

[Curious George]

It is amazing how predicable you are.

Well the "faith" discussion was an aside that you brought up. I am fond of Kant, I would have anticipated most could have seen it coming as a response to your statements.

 

[Curious George]

It is amazing how predicable you are.

You don't?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well the "faith" discussion was an aside that you brought up. I am fond of Kant, I would have anticipated most could have seen it coming as a response to your statements.

"I am fond of Kant"

I personally like Descartes, but I would never let either do my thinking for me. Philosophy after all, as I said, has it limits.

I am sorry if I reject your line of thought.

 

[Curious George]

"I am fond of Kant"

I personally like Descartes, but I would never let either do my thinking for me. Philosophy after all, as I said, has it limits.

I am sorry if I reject your line of thought.

Descartes is definitely someone to like. I can't imagine most anyone let others think for them literally, so what do you mean by such figurative words?

 

[Willamena]

You missed the point.

Inductive reasoning ("...where the premises are seen as providing strong evidence for the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.") is the conclusion taken on faith. Everyone does not fail to "operate on faith," it's part of how we (humans) think.

 

[france_su]

For me there are two reasons. The first is that they are identical positions

There are actually three accepted positions on whether a god exists, rather than the two you are implying in your post.

1) Acceptance of the claim "god exists" (theism)
2) Acceptance of the claim "no gods exist" (strong atheism)
3) Rejection that both claims have met their burden of proof (weak atheism)

You're asserting here that position 2 and 3 are analogous. This is incorrect. Rejecting the claim "god exists" is simply a rejection of theism. Asserting the claim "no gods exist" is both making a claim which bears a burden of proof, and an actual belief.

...they imply the same things, with the exception of true agnosticism.

What do the two positions imply?

It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the two are not the same, and it's absurdity is easily illustrated by a theist taking the position "I lack belief that there are no gods."

A theist who took the position I lack belief that there are no gods. is simply rejecting position 2. If that's their only position on the table, then they are not a theist by definition. The moment a theist becomes honest again by about their belief in god's existence, then they will immediately have the burden of proof.

The second reason is because of why this little trick was made up in the first place, which is that it pretends the burden of proof is only on the theist. When hiding behind the burden of proof, the atheists can just shake their head and scream that they lack belief, without ever defending their positions

If a theist claims a god exists, they actually have the burden of proof for that claim and always will. There's nothing "pretend" about it.

Lastly, as an weak atheist, I reject the claim that "no gods exist", I'm not making the claim "no gods exist". Why should I have a burden of proof for a belief I don't hold?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I have complete faith if I drop a book it will fall to the ground. I can only have this through inductive reasoning.

Since your altered reply to me was still jibberish in the context of the question I asked, I'm going to abandon it and instead take a minute to point out this fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Thumper]

And while I understand the ignostic position, I find their ability to evaluate definitions interesting. For instance, if I were to define god as: a small big. The ignostic can say point out that my definition is contradictory, and they can ask how this could be, they could ask a. For if they were to say that God cannot be a small big because of the law of noncontradiction, they will have in part defined god both with a partial negative definition (god is not a small big) and with a positive definition (god is something, which has a nature that adheres to the laws of logic). It is definitely a tricky stance. That if pushed I think most if theists could develop at least a vague definition of god. And if we were to take this definition and then ask whether it is more likely than not that such a being exists we would find that the answer is: no.

Similarly, I think the same about agnostics. If we were to push the subject I imagine many would fall to one side of the fence or the other.

Any evaluation of properties must be based on the human concept of reality of course.

The most common self-contradictory property for a god is omnipotence. This property begs the question, "can such an entity make an object so big that he can't move it?" Answering yes or no creates an entity that is less than "all powerful". So this property itself seems to be impossible, either in reality or even in the imagination.

Yes you could say that your entity "defies logical analysis" but then I would refer you to the Carl Sagan argument for the The Dragon In My Garage.

 

[Thumper]

I have complete faith if I drop a book it will fall to the ground. I can only have this through inductive reasoning.

Not true. Deductive reasoning would also tell you that if it's always fallen to the ground in the past then I can deduce that it will do so again.

Inductive reasoning would add the caveat that it should fall to the ground, but I also recognize that I have not tested dropping this book in all possible circumstances and it might not actually fall this time (such as in the ISS). I can then assign a confidence level to my reasoned deduction.

 

[Thumper]

There are actually three accepted positions on whether a god exists, rather than the two you are implying in your post.

1) Acceptance of the claim "god exists" (theism)
2) Acceptance of the claim "no gods exist" (strong atheism)
3) Rejection that both claims have met their burden of proof (weak atheism)

...

Conceptually there are 3 accepted positions (actually there is more, but let's just go with this). Your #2 however is only valid if you include the caveat that this claim may in fact change with the availability of new evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Inductive reasoning ("...where the premises are seen as providing strong evidence for the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.") is the conclusion taken on faith. Everyone does not fail to "operate on faith," it's part of how we (humans) think.

I didn't miss that, I disagree with it.

 

[Curious George]

Since your altered reply to me was still jibberish in the context of the question I asked, I'm going to abandon it and instead take a minute to point out this fallacy of equivocation.

Sure please explain.

 

[Curious George]

Not true. Deductive reasoning would also tell you that if it's always fallen to the ground in the past then I can deduce that it will do so again.

Inductive reasoning would add the caveat that it should fall to the ground, but I also recognize that I have not tested dropping this book in all possible circumstances and it might not actually fall this time (such as in the ISS). I can then assign a confidence level to my reasoned deduction.

You are welcome to write out a proof for it. But ultimately, there will be an assumption necessary. But no, deductive reasoning does not say because gravity has always worked as it has that it will continue to do so. It is an assumption we make. We are forced to take it on faith. And to not do so, would be ridiculous.

 

[Curious George]

Any evaluation of properties must be based on the human concept of reality of course.

The most common self-contradictory property for a god is omnipotence. This property begs the question, "can such an entity make an object so big that he can't move it?" Answering yes or no creates an entity that is less than "all powerful". So this property itself seems to be impossible, either in reality or even in the imagination.

Yes you could say that your entity "defies logical analysis" but then I would refer you to the Carl Sagan argument for the The Dragon In My Garage.

And I would applaud you for pointing a person in such a direction. But the argument assumes dragons can be defined. The point is that most of us can or do have a definition for god. Consequently when someone says god is a toaster, or god is a turkey we can reject their conception of god as not god. We can only do this if we have a definition of god.