Who has the burden of proof?

[raw_thought]

"Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God".
RitalinOhD
Then they are agnostics not theists.
Of course, they may claim to be theists but they are not. I may claim to be a black man, but I am not. My belief about being a black man is about my lack of rationality, not a statement of the truth.
And from post 316, "
"True, people can say absurd things such as, " I am convinced that "X" exists but I may be wrong." Can't you see that that is a contradiction? If I believe that I may be wrong I am obviously not convinced."
In other words a self-proclaimed theist that is unsure is saying, " I am convinced that X is true but I may be wrong."

 

[raw_thought]

It's not that Pascal's Wager is altogether incorrect.
It's just not enough to want to live.

!

Pascal's wager is totally incorrect. Suppose I use the Pascal syllogism for any proposition. For example,
1. If you believe that there is an elf that lives in the Washington monument you will receive infinite reward.
2. If "1" is true and you believe that the elf exists you will be infinitely rewarded.
3. If "1" is false. Nothing bad will happen.
4. Therefore, it is in your best interest to believe in the elf.
One can even say,
1. If you believe that God does not exist you will be infinitely rewarded. *
2. If "1" is true, you should not believe in God.
3. If "1" is false nothing bad will happen.
4. Therefore, you should not believe in God.
* Perhaps, God hides his existence because he wants us to do good because it is good and not because we think he will reward us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God".
RitalinOhD
Then they are agnostics not theists.

Or agnostic theists. Agnosticism and theism (or atheism) aren't mutually exclusive positions. A person may say "I believe there is a God, but I do not know for certain that God exists" and still remain a theist.

 

[RitalinOhD]

"Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God".
RitalinOhD
Then they are agnostics not theists.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

A theist is a person that "believes" in a god. Nothing in the definition claims absolute knowledge.

An atheist lacks belief in a God or gods. No definite claim of knowledge.

You can say you know for sure all day long, just like myself as an atheist can say I know God doesn't exist. We would both be wrong, as it's impossible to prove one way or the other.

 

[raw_thought]

I guess you are saying that "faith" applies to atheists as well as theists. I have never understood "faith" . I believe that I am right, but I could be wrong" makes no sense to me. *
Yes, we are arguing semantics ( the definitions of words). However, your system of definitions makes it impossible to differentiate between an atheist and a theist. They are both agnostics!
* Either you believe something or you do not. If you are even 99% sure of a proposition, you are an agnostic regarding that proposition.

 

[raw_thought]

Faith means to me to believe in a proposition without having any reason to. *
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/165198-can-you-will-yourself-into-believing.html
* "An atheist lacks belief in a God or gods. No definite claim of knowledge."
RitalinOhD
An atheist has a belief. That there are no Gods.

 

[raw_thought]

Sorry, but that is incorrect.



You can say you know for sure all day long, just like myself as an atheist can say I know God doesn't exist. We would both be wrong, as it's impossible to prove one way or the other.

You are an agnostic, not an atheist
Would you call a person that was 51% sure that there is a God a theist?
I suppose someone can will themselves into believing in Santa, but then they would never say that Santa does not exist. It would be like saying, " I believe in Santa even tho I know he does not exist."
That makes no sense to me. Its as bad as saying "I believe X, even tho I know that I am wrong."

 

[outhouse]

An atheist lacks belief in a God or gods. No definite claim of knowledge.

.

That seems like more of an agnostic position leaning on atheism.

As a strong atheist, I claim knowledge.

 

[Sapiens]

As a strong atheist I say that the probability of there being a supreme being is passing small, more than small enough to ignore , But as a scientist I need to leave open the possiblity that way, way, way down in the noise there is signal that is not being recognized.

 

[raw_thought]

Science is based on agnosticism ( skepticism) about all propositions. True, I may be 99.99999% sure of the Copernican theory, but I am skeptical to declare that an absolute fact.
I am convinced that agnosticism is the only rational option. Atheism ( the belief that there is definitely no God) is still faith, even tho based on probabilities.

 

[raw_thought]

As a theist I like to consider myself rational too.

After reading your post one thing that comes to my mind is that you are restricting us to our rational mind. My study of mystics, eastern (Hindu) sages and paranormal experiences provides evidence (not proof) that there is more to this reality than our finite rational minds can reach. We can intelligently consider this evidence in forming our personal stance on the issue.

I am open to the idea that there are other ways of knowing than the correspondence theory of truth. For example, I know that I am in pain even tho I have no objective way to prove it.
PS; To show that my C fibers are firing does not prove that that feels painful.

 

[idav]

I dream stuff into the existence all the time but then can't ever show anything more. Maybe a drawing?

 

[raw_thought]

I just realized that I have 666 posts! Hmmmmmmmmmm
Damn! Now its 667!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are an agnostic, not an atheist
Would you call a person that was 51% sure that there is a God a theist?

People are never so simple as they can put a clear number on the possibility of whether they believe something. Theism and atheism deal strictly with whether or not you believe the proposition that a God exists - the "quantity" of certainty is irrelevant. Anyone who says "I believe there is a God" is a theist, regardless of how certain they are of the proposition. Anyone who says anything other than that (including "I don't know") is, by definition, an atheist. There is no middle ground. You cannot be neither an an atheist nor a theist any more than you can be neither a stamp collector nor not a stamp collector.

Meanwhile, agnosticism is a position with regards to knowledge, not belief. Ergo, an agnostic theist is someone who BELIEVES there is a God, but doesn't claim to KNOW that there is a God, and conversely an agnostic atheist is someone who DOESN'T BELIEVE there is a God (not someone who BELIEVES there are NO Gods), but doesn't claim to KNOW that there are no Gods.

Science is based on agnosticism ( skepticism) about all propositions. True, I may be 99.99999% sure of the Copernican theory, but I am skeptical to declare that an absolute fact.
I am convinced that agnosticism is the only rational option. Atheism ( the belief that there is definitely no God) is still faith, even tho based on probabilities.

Firstly, how can you possibly accurately calculate your degree of certainty or the probability of the existence/non-existence of a God?

Secondly, atheism is NOT the belief that there is "definitely no God". That is a sub-set of atheism known as "strong" or "gnostic atheism". Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of a belief in Gods.

 

[raw_thought]

OK. So if someone 51% believed that God exists, according to your definition they would be a theist? Only someone at 50-50 can call themselves an agnostic? Or are you saying that if someone calls themselves a theist or atheist that is what they are? There is no objective way to say?

 

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that one can believe something and say they know that they are wrong?
"... they would never say that Santa does not exist. It would be like saying, " I believe in Santa even tho I know he does not exist."
That makes no sense to me. Its as bad as saying "I believe X, even tho I know that I am wrong.""
from post 327 also see posts 321 and 325

 

[raw_thought]

like Chomsky ( a liberal) * I hate postmodernism. There is no objectivity, everything is what anyone says it is. < postmod, hipster
Ironically, fundamentalists have jumped on that band wagon! They judge science for being too judgmental!
My daughter is gay. She is also postmodern. For her there is no truth! So I asked her, " if someone said that gays are evil, are they wrong? " Her answer was the typical academic postmodern response," that is their reality and who is to judge." NO!!! They are wrong! My daughter is not evil!
* Like Chomsky I'm an old school liberal. Like Lou Grant!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrUEL0jn1lM

 

[Awkward Fingers]

OK. So if someone 51% believed that God exists, according to your definition they would be a theist? Only someone at 50-50 can call themselves an agnostic? Or are you saying that if someone calls themselves a theist or atheist that is what they are? There is no objective way to say?

Someone elsealready mentioned this, but I didn't notice your response..
Gnostic and theistic are not mutually exclusive.
Someone who believes in God 51% is a theist, an agnostic theist

Its not atheist, agnostic, theist...

Its gnostic or agnostic, theist or atheist.

Gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist and gnostic theist.

Gnostic vs agnostic references knowledge claim, theist vs atheist
References theistic stance.

 

[raw_thought]

I'm confused. How does gnosticism enter the discussion? I admire gnosticism but do not understand how it relates.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK. So if someone 51% believed that God exists, according to your definition they would be a theist?

Once again, I honestly don't believe that there's anyone in the world who can honestly calculate the degree of their certainty about anything like that. A theist is someone who says "I believe there is a God". That's it.

Only someone at 50-50 can call themselves an agnostic?

No. An agnostic is someone who claims not to know either way. They can believe or disbelieve, but what matters with regards to agnosticism is whether or not they believe that they KNOW.

Or are you saying that if someone calls themselves a theist or atheist that is what they are?

Not in the least. In fact, I gave very clear definition as to exactly what constitutes an atheist and a theist, so I have absolutely no idea where you got this idea from.

So you are saying that one can believe something and say they know that they are wrong?

Again, no. I have absolutely no idea where you are getting these ideas from, but it's not from anything that I or anyone else has said. What is it you are having difficulty understanding, exactly?