Originally posted by rwingettYet there are those who categorically deny the existence of God and forthrightly make such a claim. Your view, while interesting, doesn't seem to reflect reality.
Your mistake is in assuming that there are two competing claims in play, with one side claiming that there is a god, and the other claiming that there is no god. This view is false. There is only ONE claim in play - the theist's claim that there is a god. Atheism is the neutral starting ground from which that claim must be assessed. If the theist's claim is ...[text shortened]... " it amounts to the same thing; you default back to the neutral atheist starting ground.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf there is not enough evidence to assert a claim, one should remain in a state of disbelief. "I dont know enough to draw a conclusion" means one should remain in the state one was first in, that of implicit atheism.
Why can't one conclude that neither side has enough weight for one to draw a conclusion? You're placing an artificial constraint on the choices that are available that has no basis in reality. Whether or not action is taken is immaterial. "I don't know enough to draw a conclusion" is a valid position.
Originally posted by StarrmanIf the world seems easier to understand for you by only allowing "black" and "white", that's up to you. Personally, I don't mind dealing with shades of gray.
If there is not enough evidence to assert a claim, one should remain in a state of disbelief. "I dont know enough to draw a conclusion" means one should remain in the state one was first in, that of implicit atheism.
Originally posted by StarrmanI reject the notion that a 51% probability amounts to 'belief.' If I say that I believe the next card will be black, it means I expect that the next card WILL be black. If I admit there is a 49% chance black will not be turned up, then I do not believe it. I say I 'believe' in evolution, even though it is only 99% proven (or so) because, in practice, I expect it to be right 100% of the time. It would be a great shock to me if something happened contrary to evolutionary theory. I accept the Big Bang as being a likely explanation for the origin of the universe, but I do not 'believe' it. There are other plausible theories in play and if one of them turned out to be more likely, it would be of no great consequence to me. There is a degree of emotional investment associated with 'belief' that is lacking with simple probability assessment.
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]You could say that I very strongly believe that its probability is 51%. But what does in mean to say that I have a 100% belief that its probability is 51%? Does that mean I 'believe' the next card will be black? Again, no, it doesn't.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that you can have a varying streng ...[text shortened]... e're dealing with, not denial of belief in one case and acceptance of belief in another.[/b]
So we can bicker interminably about the definition of the words being used, but ultimately we end up arguing more and more about less and less.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have an orange in front of me, it has the power to control the weather.
Yet there are those who categorically deny the existence of God and forthrightly make such a claim. Your view, while interesting, doesn't seem to reflect reality.
Do you believe it can?
Do you believe it can't?
Do you disbelieve it can?
My claim is synonymous to the theist's claim that God exists.
The strong atheist believes I am wrong.
The weak atheist doesn't believe me.
The weak atheist makes no claim about the orange, he has heard the claim and doesn't believe it because the evidence for the claim is lacking; it is unreasonable for him to need to explain why.
The strong atheist is making a claim, believing it can't, evidence is required to back such an argument.
There is the distinction, see?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWe see belief in different ways, no problem. I think we basically agree on the outcomes, if not the process?
I reject the notion that a 51% probability amounts to 'belief.' If I say that I believe the next card will be black, it means I expect that the next card WILL be black. If I admit there is a 49% chance black will not be turned up, then I do not believe it. I say I 'believe' in evolution, even though it is only 99% proven (or so) because, in practice, I expe he words being used, but ultimately we end up arguing more and more about less and less.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's nothing to do with that. If there's not enough evidence to support a change in stance, you remain in the stance you were in to begin with, that seems pretty simple to me.
If the world seems easier to understand for you by only allowing "black" and "white", that's up to you. Personally, I don't mind dealing with shades of gray.
Originally posted by amannionI can't speak for all Christians, unfortunately, but I agree with you completely.
I have no issue with your view on the world, as I would hope religious people would have no issue with mine. (Unfortunately, there are many on both sides who do take issue with our views, but that's another story.)
Originally posted by Bad wolfI'm really sorry, but did you reply to the wrong post?
I have an orange in front of me, it has the power to control the weather.
Do you believe it can?
Do you believe it can't?
Do you disbelieve it can?
My claim is synonymous to the theist's claim that God exists.
The strong atheist believes I am wrong.
The weak atheist doesn't believe me.
The weak atheist makes no claim about the orange, he has hear ...[text shortened]... it can't, evidence is required to back such an argument.
There is the distinction, see?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, there are people who do that. People like Bbarr will claim to be a hard atheist in relation to a very narrow and specific definition of God, i.e. the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Christian God of the bible. He observes that the presence of evil in the world is wholly incompatible with such a god, and therefore he cannot exist. That's all well and fine, and he certainly has a point. But there are theodicies which do not claim all three 'Os' for god. His hard atheism necessarily grounds to a halt there. Against an incoherent definition of god, as all ultimately are, one cannot venture farther than 'weak', or 'soft' atheism.
Yet there are those who categorically deny the existence of God and forthrightly make such a claim. Your view, while interesting, doesn't seem to reflect reality.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't see agnostics as people who "kinda" believe in God. I see agnostics as people who don't know whether God exists or not.
Actually, it's the agnostic position which is untennable.
If you believe in God, you're a theist.
If you don't, you're an atheist.
There is no middle ground, no one "kinda" believes in God. They either do, or they don't.
Originally posted by StarrmanReminds me of Bart Ehrman's appearance on the Colbert Report:
Strong agnosticism - This is the silliest of all, to positively assert that we cannot know god or claim that there is an exact 50-50 spilt on credence for or against is either on the grounds of laziness, or triviality. If you're a strong agnostic, then accepting an explicit position of indecision instead of an implicit position of denial is just poor epistemology. Face it, you're an atheist in an apathetic mood.
Colbert: "So you're an agnostic."
Ehrman: "That's right."
Colbert: "Isn't that just an atheist without balls?"
Originally posted by vistesdI think this description makes the most sense thus far.
G or ~G. If one honestly says the answer is unknowable, one is still going to live as if either G or ~G.
To use rwingett’s phrases: if one finds the arguments both for and against G to be insufficient, relative to one another, to make an explicit intellectual decision, one might honestly say, “I don’t know.” Explicitly they are an agnostic/skept ...[text shortened]... ble. That is, by how I live my life, I am either assenting to the proposition G, or I am not.