Spirituality
13 Jul 13
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThey are both atheists, but the person you described in your post on page 30 is not a bona fide skeptic, just dishonest. I think I might have misunderstood what you meant by them being in "the same boat" though. I thought you meant with regard to skepticism, not atheism. Sorry.
We still talking about Atheism? Being a skeptic can float in every camp
when it comes to God or gods or about a vast array of topics. The notion
that there isn't one or any be it an honest belief or not doesn't change the
fact that we are talking about a notion there isn't one no matter what
side of the honest scale we find ourselves in. Can you give me ...[text shortened]... gods are accepted as being a very
real part of reality a part from human imagination?
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think I'd regard someone who thinks they are open-minded and isn't as dishonest, except possibly to themselves, that would come under the heading of "easy mistake". I think you are unlikely to see someone change their position during a debate - it requires the kind of reflection that isn't going to happen during an argument.
A belief will not be dishonest, unless your dishonest about the belief!
The discussion was about if someone claims they have an open mind
or not, are you a true skeptic who could change your mind, or are you
someone who claims they could when in fact they never will no matter
what! If you want to say Atheist have the same brain power or notions
a rock or new born has okay, but to me that is a bit belittling.
Kelly
Earlier in the thread some atheists were using the term "implicit atheists" to include those who haven't considered the problem. I prefer the term non-theist, which includes all atheists as well as those who can't have an opinion on the matter for whatever reason. Being a non-theist doesn't imply any kind of belief at all and doesn't describe a movement. As an agnostic I find it irritating to be told I'm a weak atheist, thereby labeled as weak minded and implicitly recruited to the support of atheism - from their point of view scoring two rhetorical points for the price of one. It also gets round the problem of assigning a belief to new born babies and inanimate objects, since it only implies the absence of a belief rather than a contending conviction, which the term atheist does. So I was just pointing out that my definition of non-theist does include these as they were important to the debate over "implicit atheist".
Regarding your post immediately following the one I've replied to. I don't think the refusal to accept evidence in this matter is a sign of moral weakness on the part of atheists. There's an epistemological problem right off as repeatable direct observations are ruled out. Since the consequences of God's existence, at least in this life, are indistinguishable from a spontaneous universe every piece of evidence you give can be explained away in terms of some natural phenomenon. Since an atheist's paradigm is that God does not exist, it is natural for them to attempt to explain any phenomenon you care to name as evidence for a god in terms of known physical laws. The kind of evidence you need to displace a paradigm isn't available.
29 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI do have sympathy for the claim of agnosticism, and for your irritation when someone might insist that you are “really” an atheist (which is not so different from the theist insisting that all atheists are “really” strong atheists). And I will rethink my prior view that a considered agnosticism* while perhaps valid, has not seemed to me to be a clear “third option”—and by re-think, I mean a real exploration, before which I will refrain from presenting any argument.
I don't think I'd regard someone who thinks they are open-minded and isn't as dishonest, except possibly to themselves, that would come under the heading of "easy mistake". I think you are unlikely to see someone change their position during a debate - it requires the kind of reflection that isn't going to happen during an argument.
Earlier in the th aws. The kind of evidence you need to displace a paradigm isn't available.
With that said, I think googlefudge is right that there are two different epistemological claims involved: one is a claim of belief or unbelief (or skepticism); the other is a claim of knowledge. [Knowledge being understood in the standard epistemological formula of justified true belief]. One can certainly say something like: “Based on the evidence that I have considered, I think that a belief in god(s) is unjustified—but I don’t know, and could be wrong.” Now, such a person might call herself agnostic, or atheist, or agnostic atheist. (She certainly isn’t a “strong atheist”.) With regard to the content of her epistemic position, any of those seem valid (in terms of referencing that content), depending on which epistemological factor she prefers to emphasize.
I read a book (which I no longer have) some years ago, called Buddhism Without Beliefs, by Stephen Batchelor—in which he argued for a strong philosophical agnosticism. I can’t recall his actual arguments though. Maybe I’ll have to re-acquire it.
_______________________________________
* I am using "considered" in contrast to a simple "haven't thought about it, don't know, don't care"--which might be called a (very) "weak" agnosticism?
Originally posted by vistesdI still think you jumping though hoops, trying to find a cute way to say I
I do have sympathy for the claim of agnosticism, and for your irritation when someone might insist that you are “really” an atheist (which is not so different from the theist insisting that all atheists are “really” strong atheists). And I will rethink my prior view that a considered agnosticism* while perhaps valid, has not seemed to me to be a clear “thir t about it, don't know, don't care"--which might be called a (very) "weak" agnosticism?
do not believe in God or gods without having to say, I don't believe in God
or gods.
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by KellyJay"Cute"? Sorry, Kelly, but what people think just does fit neatly into the kind of simplistic binary distinction that you might wish for.
I still think you jumping though hoops, trying to find a cute way to say I
do not believe in God or gods without having to say, I don't believe in God
or gods.
Kelly
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdI'll generally accept people's self-description on these things. Since an agnostic is someone who believes there can be no proof of God's existence, it's perfectly compatible with both atheism and theism. The third option comes in with double agnosticism (I've invented the term since I needed one, although I quite like "considered agnostic" 😉) where one believes neither the thesis nor the antithesis. I think people who say: "Don't know, don't care" are normally called "apathetic agnostics", but if one of them told me: "No, I'm an atheist." then they're an atheist, I'd only object if they started trying to include me in that.
I do have sympathy for the claim of agnosticism, and for your irritation when someone might insist that you are “really” an atheist (which is not so different from the theist insisting that all atheists are “really” strong atheists). And I will rethink my prior view that a considered agnosticism* while perhaps valid, has not seemed to me to be a clear “thir ...[text shortened]... t about it, don't know, don't care"--which might be called a (very) "weak" agnosticism?
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think that "apathetic agnosticism" is the term that I was trying to remember.
I'll generally accept people's self-description on these things. Since an agnostic is someone who believes there can be no proof of God's existence, it's perfectly compatible with both atheism and theism. The third option comes in with double agnosticism (I've invented the term since I needed one, although I quite like "considered agnostic" 😉) where o ...[text shortened]... y're an atheist, I'd only object if they started trying to include me in that.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this discussion for now--I think that we've pretty much covered the bases at this point (along with Taoman's thread in Debates). Thanks for your thoughts.
30 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdWell it is simple, and neat, three choices carry all possible realities, except
"Cute"? Sorry, Kelly, but what people think just does fit neatly into the kind of simplistic binary distinction that you might wish for.
with one group who claims 0 refuses to own it.
Kelly
30 Aug 13
Originally posted by vistesdI admit have missed lots. Life is full of pressure. I vote that does not make you right.
Is it standard, DT? I don't object--except that I used to use non-theist to alliterate better with non-aligned, non-supernaturalist, non-dualist (as well as to make a subtle distinction between, say, Buddhists and more "secular" atheists.
_________________________________________
At the same time, I think LJ's comments on page 4 of this thread were ap ...[text shortened]... considered" atheism. In sum, it seems that we're now parsing marginally at the margins.
zarrg wanna fight?
05 Sep 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThat could actually be modeled as two possibilities:
1, >1, and 0.
n=0
n>0
I think you are right that we tend to avoid owning or declaring absolutely that n=0, we simply see no reason to believe that n>0 and therefore our default position, rather than a solid belief, is n=0. And this is also the default position of any entity that has never even considered the issue.
What we explicitly tend to deny is specific subsets of n>0, e.g. "n=1 and that 1 is the biblical God".
--- Penguin.
07 Sep 13
Originally posted by Penguini believe there is a great deal of difference between a belief that
That could actually be modeled as two possibilities:
n=0
n>0
I think you are right that we tend to avoid owning or declaring absolutely that n=0, we simply see no reason to believe that n>0 and therefore our default position, rather than a solid belief, is n=0. And this is also the default position of any entity that has never even considered the issue ...[text shortened]... to deny is specific subsets of n>0, e.g. "n=1 and that 1 is the biblical God".
--- Penguin.
believes in 1 and one that has many. For the believer of 0 I'm sure
they are no different from one another, both would be thought of as
wrong answers. Monotheist, and Polytheist belief systems foundational
beliefs both reject the Atheistic view so I guess turn about is fair play.
Kelly
07 Sep 13
Originally posted by PenguinI do believe even if one attempts to avoid owning the belief in n=0
That could actually be modeled as two possibilities:
n=0
n>0
I think you are right that we tend to avoid owning or declaring absolutely that n=0, we simply see no reason to believe that n>0 and therefore our default position, rather than a solid belief, is n=0. And this is also the default position of any entity that has never even considered the issue ...[text shortened]... to deny is specific subsets of n>0, e.g. "n=1 and that 1 is the biblical God".
--- Penguin.
pubically the net result will be the same, they will look at the universe
the in light of n=0 so at no time will they ever see any evidence to see
anything but that.
There will always be some reason no matter how vague that could push
out n>0 so they can avoid it altogether, which means even if the
universe is screaming there is a God, they would never see it.
Kelly