Agnostic forum

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, yes, I know all of this already. My contention (for the purposes of this thread) is that the term "agnosticism" is superfluous, that everyone can be rightfully classified as either a theist or an atheist, and that Huxley only invented the term to avoid being painted with the dreaded, but mischaracterized brush of atheism.

Then I think we agree on that.

But I can't agree with you on that strong atheism is not a belief.

Originally posted by rwingett
Didn't we have this same converstion before? I guess it's all the same conversation after a while.

But no, it's not a belief of atheism. What would it be? Logical Positivism, or something like that?

If I made the claim "God does not exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If I made the claim "God does exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If the atheist answers these two questions differently, it must be because he believes that they should be answered differently based on that idea. Thus, the atheist does have affirmative beliefs regarding God - namely, he believes that claims of his existence should not be believed in the absence of evidence. while denials of his existence may be believed in the absence of evidence. This is an atheist belief because the atheist must assert that it is true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If I made the claim "God does not exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If I made the claim "God does exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If the atheist answers these two quest ...[text shortened]... absence of evidence. This is an atheist belief because the atheist must assert that it is true.

The claim "god does not exist" in nonsensical without the prior claim that "god does exist", which presumably gives some definition of what god is. You might as well say "kh;llkj" does not exist (as an entity separate from the keystrokes on your monitor). Someone must first make a claim of what "kh;llkj" is before I can say I don't believe in it.

The assertion that extraordinary claims should not be believed without some evidence is not an atheist belief. It is part of the epistemological underpinning which make any beliefs (or lack of beliefs) possible. An atheist would necessarily have to believe that objective knowledge is indeed possible in order to have some basis for not believing something. But that transcends and preceeds his status as an atheist. Theists would also have to believe objective knowledge is possible in order to claim that god does exist.

Plus, the implicit atheist need not have any conceptualization of the grounds for what may be claimed as "knowledge" and what may not. But his lack of belief in god or "kh;llkj" would be there all the same.

Originally posted by rwingett
The claim "god does not exist" in nonsensical without the prior claim that "god does exist", which presumably gives some definition of what god is.

This is not true. Simply define God to be, for exmple, an omniscient and omnipotent being.

The claim "God does not exist" is perfectly sensible. It doesn't require the claim "God does exist" in order to make sense. It only needs its terms to be well defined. To define somthing is not to claim that it exists.

For example, I could define a Scribblenumber to be a prime number between 20 and 22; I wouldn't be asserting that a Scribblenumber exists. In fact, the claim "No Scribblenumbers exist" is perfectly sensible, and I can prove that it is false. I don't require somebody to say that "Scribblenumbers do exist" in order to evaluate the claim "Scribblenumbers do not exist."

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Then I think we agree on that.

But I can't agree with you on that strong atheism is not a belief.

I do not claim that strong atheism in not a belief. I have specifically conceded that it would be "tantamount" to a belief. My claim is that there are no strong atheists.

Or very few amongst those who know what they're talking about. Most people who claim to be strong atheists either don't know what they're talking about, or they're simply overstating their position in the heat of battle. In quiet reflection virtually all of them will be found to actually be soft atheists.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is not true. Simply define God to be, for exmple, an omniscient and omnipotent being.

The claim "God does not exist" is perfectly sensible. It doesn't require the claim "God does exist" in order to make sense. It only needs its terms to be well defined. To define somthing is not to claim that it exists.

Fine. Continue...

Edit:
The atheist cannot initiate the conversation by saying "I do not believe in god." Someone must first define the term.

Originally posted by rwingett
Fine. Continue...

If you're retracting your claim that "God does not exist" can only be meaningful after somebody says "God does exist," then we have reached the end of this path. So, let us backtrack to here:

If I made the claim "God does not exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If I made the claim "God does exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the claim?

If the atheist answers these two questions differently, it must be because he believes that they should be answered differently based on that idea. Thus, the atheist does have affirmative beliefs regarding God - namely, he believes that claims of his existence should not be believed in the absence of evidence. while denials of his existence may be believed in the absence of evidence. This is an atheist belief because the atheist must assert that it is true.

Originally posted by rwingett

The atheist cannot initiate the conversation by saying "I do not believe in god." Someone must first define the term.

Sure he can. I don't believe in the existence of Scribblenumbers, but I just initiated a conversation about them. The atheist can define the term himself, just like the theist can.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Sure he can. I don't believe in the existence of Scribblenumbers, but I just initiated a conversation about them. The atheist can define the term himself, just like the theist can.

Let's talk about something else, like how non-hijacking etiquette makes you win this argument artificially.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Let's talk about something else, like how non-hijacking etiquette makes you win this argument artificially.

I win them any way I can.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If you're retracting your claim that "God does not exist" can only be meaningful after somebody says "God does exist," then we have reached the end of this path. So, let us backtrack to here:

If I made the claim "God does not exist" without providing any evidence, would you withhold belief in my claim being true, or would you accept the cl ...[text shortened]... absence of evidence. This is an atheist belief because the atheist must assert that it is true.

NO.

Claims for his existence cannot be believed. Likewise denials for his existence cannot be believed. It cannot be ascertained whether god exists or does not exist. But the denials are useless and irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the claims for his existence. If they cannot be demonstrated then beliefs for his existence cannot be reasonably held, which means you would doubt them to some degree.

Originally posted by rwingett

Claims for his existence cannot be believed. Likewise denials for his existence cannot be believed. It cannot be ascertained whether god exists or does not exist.

If you think this is the case, then you are an agnostic in the truest sense. You think it is perfectly equally likely that God does or does not exist if you hold that one can neither affirm nor deny his existence, for belief is nothing more than the finding that some proposition is more likely to be true than false.

If you can't accept the claim "God does not exist," that means you hold that the probability that God does not exist is no more than 50%.

If you can't accept the claim "God does exist," that means you hold that the probability that God does not exist is no less than 50%.

Thus, you are saying that the atheist holds that "God exists" is a 50/50 proposition.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Sure he can. I don't believe in the existence of Scribblenumbers, but I just initiated a conversation about them. The atheist can define the term himself, just like the theist can.

The existence of Scribblenumbers, or any any other mundane topic, can be believed with a minimum of accompanying evidence. You brought them up, so maybe you cut some numbers out of paper, and you call them "Scribblenumbers". It's possible, and I could believe it on your say so alone. But if you made the extraordinary claim that Scribblenumbers can predict winning lotto numbers, for example, then I would need some accompanying evidence before I could believe it.

Likewise, just making up random words and saying you believe or don't believe in them is nothing more than a semantic game. The degree of belief is trivial and arbitrary. Properly speaking, I would not waste my time by assigning them any degree of belief. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it will require. And the claim for the existence of god is one of the most extraordinary claims ever made.

I have to go now. No more from me tonight.

Originally posted by rwingett
The existence of Scribblenumbers, or any any other mundane topic, can be believed with a minimum of accompanying evidence. You brought them up, so maybe you cut some numbers out of paper, and you call them "Scribblenumbers". It's possible, and I could believe it on your say so alone. But if you made the extraordinary claim that Scribblenumbers can predic ...[text shortened]... s one of the most extraordinary claims ever made.

I have to go now. No more from me tonight.

OK. Playing the old rehash game has been somewhat fun. I'm sort of glad to see you're still being stubborn on the issue.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your definition of atheism is completely and utterly incorrect. Atheism is not a belief at all, or in anything. It is the absence of belief in any gods. Nothing more. If you break the word down, you'll see it literally means to be without theism (a=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). Thus, atheists have a lack of belief in any gods. They do not (prop ...[text shortened]... e no real idea what atheism is, and who, in their ignorance, try to distance themselves from it.

"It is the absence of belief in any gods."

Which is in itself a belief.

"EVERYONE is either a theist or an atheist."

That's the dumbest thing I've read from you on this forum.