The default position...

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Strong and weak atheism are both atheism, and exclude belief in God. Strong atheism is no different in terms of burden of proof or default than is 'weak' atheism. In fact I think dividing atheism into 'strong' and 'weak' is a tragically pointless and silly concept.

Treating mental state predicates like "believe" as being binary (i.e., either one must believe X or one doesn't believe X) runs into paradoxes. That's why they are excluded a priori from formal logic (at least any formal logic that doesn't allow for at least one value other A or ~A and/or extensions via modal operators).

 

[Bunyip]

Then you simply want to ignore the difference between people who believe God doesn't exist and people who don't believe God doesn't exist.

No they are the difference between atheism and theism, Because people who believe God doesn't exist are atheists, and people who don't believe God doesn't exist are theists. That has nothing to do with strong and weak atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

By not knowing. For example, the standard model is based upon quantum field theory, in which the so-called "quantum field" is the central or fundamental component to the "standard" Lagrangian approach, but this would-be "entity" doesn't appear in algebraic QFT. Worse, even if one asserts that e.g., the Lagrangian approach in which the quantum field appears should be interpreted ontologically, we still find that not only do various entities "appear" or do not depending upon particular formulations, and that one of he central descriptions of their dynamics can be reformulated or interpreted epistemically.

More simply, do you believe that path integrals describe the actual paths of "particles" or not? Perhaps you have a strong belief about this, but a great many people whose field is particle physics or condensed matter physics of quantum field theory or whatever would assert that they neither believe that path integrals describe the real trajectories of particles, nor that they believe that path integrals do not. They simply do not know.

Agnosticism isn't just a religious perspective. People can be agnostic about many things, in that given some proposition P they neither believe that P is true nor believe that P is false. They don't know.

You are confusing quantum physics for beliefs.
Neither party 'knows'. If you do not believe (not 'know', BELIEVE) that God exists, you are atheist. If you do not believe that P is true, you are atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

No they are the difference between atheism and theism, Because people who believe God doesn't exist are atheists, and people who don't believe God doesn't exist are theists. That has nothing to do with strong and weak atheism.

LOL People who don't believe God exists and don't believe God doesn't exist are weak atheists not theists. You see, theists believe God exists strong atheists believe God doesn't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

LOL People who don't believe God exists and don't believe God doesn't exist are weak atheists not theists. You see, theists believe God exists strong atheists believe God doesn't exist.

Umm......mate, you are not making sense. People who don't believe God doesn't exist are not weak atheists, they are theists. If they don't believe God doesn't exist - they believe he does. You are confusing weak atheism for theism.

 

[ArtieE]

Umm......mate, you are not making sense. People who don't believe God doesn't exist are not weak atheists, they are theists.

If they also don't believe God exists they are weak atheists not theists.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bunyip]

If they also don't believe God exists they are weak atheists not theists.

[/QUOTE]
No, if they don't believe God doesn't exist, AND ALSO don't believe he exists - they are nuts.

 

[ArtieE]

No, if they don't believe God doesn't exist, AND ALSO don't believe he exists - they are nuts.

They can't be just neutral or undecided or don't know what to believe?

 

[Bunyip]

They can't be just neutral or undecided or don't know what to believe?

Neutral, undecided and don't know what to believe are all atheist. None of them believe God exists.

 

[ArtieE]

Neutral, undecided and don't know what to believe are all atheist. None of them believe God exists.

They are all weak atheists. Strong atheists know what to believe that is the difference between strong and weak atheists.

 

[Curious George]

If there's no evidence to authenticate a claim or testimony, no one can know the Truth of it but the testifier. And if all the witnesses are dead or otherwise unavailable, they can't be cross examined--much to the relief of those who claim revealed certainty. Then there's the question, why wouldn't God, if It was going to reveal something, do it for everyone, everywhere, everytime, in every language so it couldn't be corrupted by fallible humans?




Yes, in court, sometimes we have to decide what is most likely the Truth, but in criminal cases, there can be no reasonable doubt--where as with divine revelation, there's nothing but doubt. Take a will as an example. The deceased-to-be signs it in person, with two witnesses, and it's executed by a person of his choosing. Now, imagine a person writing something and saying that this is God's will. Not signature or it's in the author's handwriting, all the "witnesses" validate each other even though they're 2000 years dead or 2000 years after-the-fact, some priest says God chose him as the executor. Any judge would throw it out, but in our cases, with revelation, we're the judges.




We do so where there's corroborating evidence, the declarant is credible and trustworthy, but most importantly of all, the situation demands a decision one way or another be made. When you're talking spirituality, you're betting your soul if you have one. Are you going to rely on rationality, or emotion based mostly on a long family tradition founded on 2000 years of what is most likely air and superstition.



Tradition without a foundation in some sort of reason is highly suspect. Why or how did it start? They mustn't be their own justification.



In large part because we rely on our emotions for our reactions. Look at all the godawful, complex moral codes we've come up with. Deuteronomy alone makes my eyes cross. But all we really need is a very simple one sentence code, honor the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense.


Like I say, it depends on the source.



Questioning the existence of God, at least a revealed God and It's revelations leads directly to questioning the religions founded on those revelations, with the existence of those revealed Gods being a near certain lie or some form of misinterpretation or indoctrination.



No, the claim is whether a God might or might not have created the universe. Neither position can claim any evidence, at least not at this time. That said, a claim that God revealed Itself or some information, does put the burden of proof on the claimant. A deist God is just as remote as no God.



No. "Does God Exist?" would be a proposition. "God does not exist" is a declaration. And in either case you would need to define what God is. I define God as all that there is, objective and subjective, the whole Truth. It may or may not be conscious. Lies, the inventions of sentient creatures alone, are not part of God (if It exists), since they are the absence of Truth.



Yes, but you can't change that by using slight-of-hand with the dictionary. If one doesn't believe or if one disbelieves in anything, it's the same position. The only qualifier is the degree of certainty with which one claims that he doesn't believe or disbelieves.

Oh, I don't know where to begin...

Let's get this proposition thing out of the way. Google it. You are wrong.

Now that we have taken care of that...let's move back to hearsay. Even in criminal cases hearsay is used. Though I certainly agree that hearsay is less credible, it is still evidence.

And I am not so sure that whether God exists or not Is a criminal case. No one that we know is harmed by false belief or lack of belief. Regardless, all of what we said contradicts your earlier notions that we don't believe hearsay.

So I am glad we now understand that we do rely on hearsay, and that hearsay is evidence. While in some circumstances hearsay is inadmissible, those circumstances aren't really applicable to religion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are confusing quantum physics for beliefs.

No, it's just usually easier to give examples rather than provide a formal proof using many-valued or modal logics.

Neither party 'knows'.

Utterly irrelevant. Given any proposition, anyone can say that the truth value of the proposition is "true" or "false", even if the "proposition" is "all gronks are grankled" (the scare quotes surrounding "proposition" are because, in the philosophy of logic, whether statements are actually propositions if they are identical to propositions syntactically but are meaningless is a matter of debate).

More importantly, even were I to provide a formal proof, I can't use classical logic as it is impossible to do so for the evaluations of propositions that include mental state predicates, and there is no formal logic that relies upon the naïve, simplistic binary-valued logic you implicitly do for mental state predicates like "believe".
Put simply, your position contradicts classical and non-classical logics, and is logically untenable.

However, as I can't rely on logics you don't know to prove this, I use examples. It seems intuitive that if you don't know if X is true that you neither believe X or disbelieve it, but it also seems intuitive that if you don't believe X, then clearly you "must" believe that X isn't true. This is the fallacy of equating propositions in sentential logic with modal logics or many-valued logics (while the latter lack the canonical status that classical predicate/propositional logic have, classical logic disallow statements of "belief" as possessing truth value).

If you do not believe (not 'know', BELIEVE) that God exists, you are atheist.

What if I believe daimon exist? What if I believe that Jesus existed, and the proposition "Jesus was the son of God" is true?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Neutral, undecided and don't know what to believe are all atheist. None of them believe God exists.

Again, this line of reasoning leads to logical contradictions.
For example, consider the logically valid contradiction that follows from an otherwise valid logical argument:
Premise: Clark Kent is Superman
Premise: Louis works with Clark Kent
Premise: Louis believes she works with Clark Kent
Conclusion: Louis believes she works with superman (by identity)

Even less formally, classical logic requires the identity principle/rule. That is, given that x=y, we should be able to replace x with y (or vice versa) anywhere. And in classical logic, this is true. That's because they don't allow mental state predicates, because one can believe some proposition involving x, that proposition could be true about y because x=y, but one can disbelieve the proposition as applied to y because one doesn't believe x=y.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If there's no evidence to authenticate a claim or testimony, no one can know the Truth of it but the testifier.

Testimony is evidence. If you don't believe me, then clearly you've never listened to any specialist about anything, from any medical doctor's advice to a mechanic.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It's very simple.

Anyone with a direct belief in God(s) is a theist.
Anyone with a lack of belief in God(s) is an atheist.

So long as you have a God belief you are a theist or an agnostic theist or deist or whatever you want to be called.
If you don't actively have a God belief you are an atheist, that includes "I don't know" and "I don't care" stances.

God belief is very much a polarity.
Start fighting definitions if you disagree.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's very simple.

Defining everybody who doesn't call themselves Moran as being Muslim is simple to. It's just blatantly idiotic and wrong. "Simple" is not only an extremely poor criterion for determining what is accurate, it's also usually the wrong approach (particularly where language is concerned, as lexemes are polysemous and the "basic units" of language are constructions).

Anyone with a direct belief in God(s) is a theist.

What about those with bidirectional beliefs in God? How about indirect beliefs? Or, better yet, how about using definitions that are consistent both with linguistic usage and with...oh, I don't know...how about logic?

Anyone with a lack of belief in God(s) is an atheist.

So, your definition which neither reflects linguistic usage or logic, polytheists are deists, agnostics are both theists and atheists (as agnostics lack a "direct belief in God(s)" and don't believe in any god or gods), and every dead person is an atheist and a theist.

So long as you have a God belief

Everybody capable of using the word "god" has such a belief, as demonstrated by neuroimaging/neuroscience.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Defining everybody who doesn't call themselves Moran as being Muslim is simple to. It's just blatantly idiotic and wrong. "Simple" is not only an extremely poor criterion for determining what is accurate, it's also usually the wrong approach (particularly where language is concerned, as lexemes are polysemous and the "basic units" of language are constructions).


What about those with bidirectional beliefs in God? How about indirect beliefs? Or, better yet, how about using definitions that are consistent both with linguistic usage and with...oh, I don't know...how about logic?

So, your definition which neither reflects linguistic usage or logic, polytheists are deists, agnostics are both theists and atheists (as agnostics lack a "direct belief in God(s)" and don't believe in any god or gods), and every dead person is an atheist and a theist.


Everybody capable of using the word "god" has such a belief, as demonstrated by neuroimaging/neuroscience.

Meh, you seem the type that's a pain to debate with.
I don't involve myself in pointless arguments unless I find it entertaining.
So I suppose I'll leave you for Bunyip, as I doubt you could teach me much here.

Also they aren't my definitions, they are the definitions.
Google
theism - Google Search

Start flipping through for possibly a single definition that does not agree with my statement.
I'm sure there must be one out there.

Also, I will classify people for what they are definition wise, even if I don't say it or they don't like it.
If you say you aren't fat but look like you weigh 500lbs then I classify you as fat.
If you believe in any form of God in any way I will classify you as a theist.
That's a take it or leave it with me, as I wont be changing that way of thinking for approval from others or because someone dislikes it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Meh, you seem the type that's a pain to debate with.

It's always a pain to debate with those whose position you either can't understand or can't logically refute.

I don't involve myself in pointless arguments unless I find it entertaining.

When the only reason an argument is pointless is because you can't defend your position (or, possibly, can't comprehend the opponents view), this is little better (perhaps even worse) than an admission you are wrong.

So I suppose I'll leave you for Bunyip, as I doubt you could teach me much here.

Probably not. It's hard to teach those something they are incapable or unwilling of understanding. It's just disheartening when what can't be taught is fairly basic logic.

Also they aren't my definitions, they are the definitions.

1) The definitive English dictionary is the OED, which currently requires an online subscription (I'd be happy to provide you with any entries).
2) Lexemes ARE polysemous. I'd give you a list of references or an explanation, but it's tiring to be confronted with the only "counter-argument" you seem capable of: "meh".

Start flipping through for possibly a single definition that does not agree with my statement.

From the OED: "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism" (italics in original).

Also, I will classify people for what they are definition wise, even if I don't say it or they don't like it.

And, apparently, regardless of whether it is consistent with usage, logic, reason, or neurophysiology.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It's always a pain to debate with those whose position you either can't understand or can't logically refute.


When the only reason an argument is pointless is because you can't defend your position (or, possibly, can't comprehend the opponents view), this is little better (perhaps even worse) than an admission you are wrong.

Probably not. It's hard to teach those something they are incapable or unwilling of understanding. It's just disheartening when what can't be taught is fairly basic logic.


1) The definitive English dictionary is the OED, which currently requires an online subscription (I'd be happy to provide you with any entries).
2) Lexemes ARE polysemous. I'd give you a list of references or an explanation, but it's tiring to be confronted with the only "counter-argument" you seem capable of: "meh".


From the OED: "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism" (italics in original).


And, apparently, regardless of whether it is consistent with usage, logic, reason, or neurophysiology.

I'm not so childish as to baited into an argument, even though it means I can't defend from what you say of me.
Good thing I don't care about what people think of me, right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not so childish as to baited into an argument

Some might deem it childish to assert this while asserting a position another has demonstrated false (or even deem childish the claim that one isn't being childish after having asserting an argument that one has refused to defend solely because one can't be "baited" to do so, especially when one has defended one's positions before when confronted with counter-arguments one was better able to address). All familiar with argumentation (in the technical, logical/reason "sense") would judge it self-defeating. Personally, I don't really care what you are unable to defend or why, still less what excuses you make for being unable (when convenient) for defending your "arguments".

I gave you the definition according to the most authoritative dictionary of English in existence, you relied on a google search. I use logic and reason, you use assertions and the "I'm not going to argue my own claims". I use linguistics, you use an understanding of language that is inconsistent with all scientific accounts of language. Basically, your default defense is if you haven't the foggiest, claim you don't wish to debate (in a debate forum...where you've posted an argument for debate). To me, someone who repeatedly posts their arguments in a debate forum only to suddenly quit offering counter-arguments with the excuse that the counters are offered by someone who seems "a pain to debate with" have admitted defeat. Those who can't be debated with can be demonstrated to be incapable of debating with when they abandon logic/reason, not when they start offering evidence and arguments.

Good thing I don't care about what people think of me, right?

Not for anybody participating in a discussion in a debate forum. But hey! If your self-esteem is so wrapped up in being able to assert what you wish until challenged, and then backing out by excusing yourself with "I don't care despite my hundreds of posts in a debate forum", and it works for you, go ahead. It's just not a tactic I'm used to seeing used by non-creationists and the like.