81–90 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Atheism is a single position on a single claim. The claim is "There is a god", and the position is "I don't accept that claim". Thats agnosticism.
Agnosticism is "This claim is untestable and therefore not scientific. I don't accept that claim, not just based on the (lack of) evidence presented so far, but because I reject it's underlying question."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief. You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways. I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just…
Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent? > They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. > "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.
If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say.
Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by reading them in yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent? > They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. > "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say. Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by re…
We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is true.
The reason this distinction isn't clear is because no one needs to make it in the real world.
Atheists don't believe in god. This doesn't mean that - if provided proof, they wouldn't change that belief. That's how normal people use "belief" in the real world, the only way that the weird definition twisting of "Atheist" makes sense here is trying to claim "belief" has to mean unwavering absolute truth.
You can either be talking in absolute logic, and allow for "not false" to mean more than "true" because this isn't a boolean, or you can be talking in natural language where the central debate doesn't hold because no one uses belief like that. You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agnosticism is "This claim is untestable and therefore not scientific. I don't accept that claim, not just based on the (lack of) evidence presented so far, but because I reject it's underlying question."
Im sorry im not seeing the difference. Do we agree ?
Negative/weak atheism ("I do not believe there is a God") expresses the absence of a belief, and therefore is compatible with the scientific method, and with agnosticism. Positive/strong atheism ("I believe there is no God") expresses an unproved and unprovable belief, and therefore is incompatible with the scientific method, and with agnosticism. The above is true for any definition of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/…
The original definition, and defined by those that coined it, to be positively "there is no god" was
"To deny the Gods/god". Ref Encyclopdia Brittannica which goes in to the history of this issue.
Anything else is just atheists trying to get around the logical fallacy it represents, of an unprovable assertion.
Wikipedia definitions better fit the Huxlien idea of an agnostic. The fact is that there are only three concrete states in terms of belief/certainty:
Belief that there is no god. Lack of belief in a god. Belief in a god.
And there are three words that cover these states (four if you include an impersonal god as a valid god, deist).
Atheist Agnostic Theist
Anything else is just confusing terms and definitions and causes unnecessary argument that is unhelpful to debate.
Wikipedia needs to repent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say. Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by re…
We don't walk around expecting gravity to suddenly change, or for elephants to suddenly appear around us. We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is…
> You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.
I never did that.
Negative/weak atheism ("I do not believe there is a God") expresses the absence of a belief, and therefore is compatible with the scientific method, and with agnosticism. Positive/strong atheism ("I believe there is no God") expresses an unproved and unprovable belief, and therefore is incompatible with the scientific method, and with agnosticism. The above is true for any definition of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/…
'Incompatible' is not an accurate word here. 'Incompatible' implies that Atheism conflicts with the scientific method, which it does not. It would be more accurate to say atheism is orthogonal to the scientific method. But even that isn't true.
Saying that God exists is a claim in the positive and requires proof on your part to prove the claim, not proof on my part to disprove the claim. Anyone can make a claim about anything (pigs can fly) and we're not required to provide proof to the contrary in order to say with certainty that pigs cannot fly. Likewise, I can say, "There is no God" without having to prove that God doesn't exist.
> it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic. Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these two are not mutually exclusive. > "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” That's absolutely not what atheism is. Atheism is a single position…
Even the claim “there is no God” is preferred within the scientific method in the absence of evidence by the rule of preference for parsimonious explanation: if God is not necessary to explain anything, then God, from a scientific perspective, does not exist.
From a scientific perspective “X exists” and “X does not exist” are not symmetric claims requiring equal evidence; science starts with the assumption that only actual observations are real, and then admits only those entities necessary to the most complete and parsimonious predictive falsifiable models which withstand efforts are falsification. What is not required for those models is a non-entity to science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you opp…
A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.
No, stating that atheists believe something is not stating that they have evidence. Evidence may support a belief, but it is not equivalent to having a belief, or required for having a belief.
It may, depending on ones epistemological viewpoint, be required for justified belief, but the claim being examined is that atheism is not merely unjustified from a scientific perspective but actually incompatible with it, which would require it to actually contradict some belief justified by science, which it absolutely, even for classic “hard atheism”, positive belief in the non-existence of God, do; you'd need an ultra-hard atheism which not only has positive belief in the non-existence of God but also does not view that belief as contingent and subject to reevaluation should new evidence arise to actually be incompatible with science—this view may exisr somewhere, but if so it is still, at best, atypical of atheists.