The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sapiens]

That was my point - if you define atheism as the disbelief in all conceptions of god (and therefore do not need to define or describe a specific god) then the term 'atheism' is illogical and meaningless.

Which is why atheism does not mean the disbelief in all conceptions of god.

It is contextual - when talking to a Christian, 'atheist' means that the person does not believe in Yahweh the Christian god.

It's that old saw, "we are all atheists when it comes to most gods, I just carry it one god farther."

 

[Willamena]

It's that old saw, "we are all atheists when it comes to most gods, I just carry it one god farther."

Doesn't take long for things to get "old" these days.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's that old saw, "we are all atheists when it comes to most gods, I just carry it one god farther."

Well, that's a declarative disbelief in God, so you'll have to square that with other 'atheists' , or explain it every time you use the term, because generally most here on RF use the term as simply non-belief, not a statement that means 'there is no god'.

Also confusing because it's vague, /disagreement/ all gods, goddesees what.
I think atheists need to focus on their own beliefs , word definitions before trying to engage others in conversation.

 

[Sapiens]

I've posted it before and I still think it works best:

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:[2]

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. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I'll go with a 6.9 also.

 

[Willamena]

I've posted it before and I still think it works best:

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:[2]

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. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I'll go with a 6.9 also.

On this scale, there is no reasonable difference between 6.0 and 6.9.

 

[Sapiens]

I suppose it is a matter of how many places to the right of the decimal point you go. But that is reasonable, 10^-1 is not the same as 10^-100.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've posted it before and I still think it works best:

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:[2]

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. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I'll go with a 6.9 also.

Traditional theism is 'defacto' definition if we go by those definitions.
The difference being, a believer does 'believe' 100%, but understands that 'knowing' may not be possible.
It's still strong theism.
If someone says 'I KNOW god(s) exist, this is not traditional.
The reasoning behind this is that believers are supposed to believe even outside knowing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

On this scale, there is no reasonable difference between 6.0 and 6.9.

That is why his scale is specific to 1-7. Not 1.4, 3.2 ect. He stated 6.9 to showcase his certainty that god does not exist and his resolve that the evidence supports his position strongly. A dedicated atheist if you will.

However no amount of certainty would push him into blind faith that there is no god.

 

[Desert Snake]

Abrahamic theology is actually quite skeptical and stringent concerning spiritual matters, compared to many other religions, exampled by the strict rules associated with prophecy like no drug induced prophecy etc.

Belief is basically on a higher status than 'knowing', as someone who claims to know must produce evidence to convince others, and IF said person 'knows', then they are not in the position of having to rely on their faith(belief), hence a claim of 'knowing is not viewed as 'higher' in strength of conviction than belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abrahamic theology is actually quite skeptical and stringent concerning spiritual matters, compared to many other religions, exampled by the strict rules associated with prophecy like no drug induced prophecy etc.

Belief is basically on a higher status than 'knowing', as someone who claims to know must produce evidence to convince others, and IF said person 'knows', then they are not in the position of having to rely on their faith(belief), hence a claim of 'knowing is not viewed as 'higher' in strength of conviction than belief.

Gnostic Theism (rather than agnostic) deals with people who get an esoteric knowledge or verification that god exists. Its not an external "knowledge" but those messages from god to people directly.

 

[Desert Snake]

Gnostic Theism (rather than agnostic) deals with people who get an esoteric knowledge or verification that god exists. Its not an external "knowledge" but those messages from god to people directly.

I'm in the highly skeptical group whenever somenone makes claims of gnostic theism, I haven't read any accounts that convinced me they were actually having verification. The stories exampled in the 'mysticism' thread do nothing for me, someone claims to feel a 'oneness' through meditation, so what, what does that even mean. I don't think traditional Abrahamic theology ever states that that feeling is somehow verification of anything, sounds to me like they're "feeling good", oooh nifty.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm in the highly skeptical group whenever somenone makes claims of gnostic theism, I haven't read any accounts that convinced me they were actually having verification. The stories exampled in the 'mysticism' thread do nothing for me, someone claims to feel a 'oneness' through meditation, so what, what does that even mean. I don't think traditional Abrahamic theology ever states that that feeling is somehow verification of anything, sounds to me like they're "feeling good", oooh nifty.

Quite true. In fact it wasn't till the 4th century that there was a Christian Gnosticism movement.

 

[Sonofason]

You think the holy spirit gives you the authority. You have no proof or evidence besides your feelings, even though your feelings are definitely not infallible.

Hamas fighters also think Allah gives them authority and the special ability to recognize the truth. WHy should you be any more reliable than them?

I shouldn't, but thanks be to God, I am.

 

[serp777]

On this scale, there is no reasonable difference between 6.0 and 6.9.

It's just rhetoric that he uses to say that he is pretty much an atheist, yet he accepts he cannot disprove and disprovable claim. It wasn't really important to point that out though.

 

[Sonofason]

Better if you thought before you wrote.

I always do.

 

[Sonofason]

That was just pathetic mate. The point still stands that atheism only has meaning in relation to a specific god. Your definitions define the CONCEPT of god, not the specific entity towards whom the atheist in question is atheist.

Some conceptions of god, and many specific gods do not meaningfully clash with atheism - so to try to imagine a definition of atheism that adresses all possible gods under your definitions of the concept renders the term 'atheist' meaningless.

You can not simply define a term (atheism) into a position that is logically untenable (essentially the disbelief in all conceptions of god) and cantilever that into an argument that atheism is logically untenable. As if you can define atheism out of existence. It is I suppose an interesting apologetic tactic, but I'm not impressed.

If I were trying to impress you, I might be disappointed. I'm really just interested in stating the truth. You do with it what you will.

 

[serp777]

I shouldn't, but thanks be to God, I am.

Wait though, you aren't; I have this strong feeling that you are wrong about your feelings. Therefore, since feelings are the most reliable thing, you can't be right.

Again, your argument is what justifies terrorists and hamas fighters. You haven't shown how you're more reliable than them.

 

[Sonofason]

If this is correct it would make atheism illogical.
Further, I'm not even saying you aren't correct in that definition, it does make sense.

Atheism is illogical.

 

[serp777]

Atheism is illogical.

All those who deny Allah are illogical. You must accept Islam and the Quran.

 

[McBell]

I always do.

:biglaugh: