This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I'd recommend that you watch the video I linked up there. It sums up my points quite nicely.
Video of random person who agrees with your definition of 'atheism'. Sure, except that I (nor HSR) can debate with a random person on the other side of a Youtube link.
But whether you do or don't, I really see no point in continuing to argue.
Why did you come into this thread? You came in saying:
While it doesn't make sense to say that you disbelieve in a god you don't know about (as disbelief necessarily implies a rejection of belief), it does make sense to say someone has a lack of belief in a god they don't know about.
... continued with
The lack of belief is not the same as disbelief. I believe I explained that.
And followed up with:
Implicit atheism is the lack of belief for lack of knowledge, which babies have.
Now, you and I agreed that 'implicit' is meaningless in the context of a rational, conscious, thinking individual presented with a concept. So we're left with your idea that you have a lack of belief. (In this, I'm pretty sure that we're agreed.)
So, we can go back to your original statement:
it does make sense to say someone has a lack of belief in a god they don't know about
A lack of belief in a god you don't know about?
We've already agreed that you cannot be implicit about anything. It's not that you don't know that 'a god' may or may not exist for the purposes of thinking about. In discussing this, we're proposing a hypothetical 'god', whose single relevant characteristic is that it has a non-material presence.
There, we have knowledge about 'a god'.
So, now the question is if you believe in, disbelieve in, or conclude that you don't know whether to believe or disbelieve, in said 'a god'.
If presented with a concept, you can choose to accept, reject, or withhold from making a judgment. Theism is accepting. 'Strong' Atheism is rejecting. You're trying to say that withholding from making a judgment is weak atheism, but that's precisely what agnosticism is.
Notice that 'weak' atheism is also called 'implicit' atheism. Given that we've agreed that a person cannot rationally be 'implicit' to an idea once exposed to it, they must either reject it (strong atheism), accept it (theism) or conclude that they cannot reject nor accept it (agnosticism).
Post by
Skreeran
Video of random person who agrees with your definition of 'atheism'. Sure, except that I (nor HSR) can debate with a random person on the other side of a Youtube link.I'm not using the video to simply push a debate point. I simply think that the person in the video (who has made many other excellent videos), is very well spoken and may explain my point better than I can if I'm not getting it across well enough.
A lack of belief in a god you don't know about?Yes. Either you lack something or you have it. Lacking something by definition means not having it. Since babies do not
have
a belief in gods, they
lack
one, and, thus, can be consider atheists.
We've already agreed that you cannot be implicit about anything. It's not that you don't know that 'a god' may or may not exist for the purposes of thinking about. In discussing this, we're proposing a hypothetical 'god', whose single relevant characteristic is that it has a non-material presence.We did not agree that you cannot be implicit about anything. We agreed that you cannot have an implicit belief about something you understand.
It is certainly possible to have an implicit belief about something you are not aware of or don't understand (in the event you are aware of it but don't understand it, you can choose to put off making any judgments about it, but that's a more complicated issue, and irrelevant to the case of the newborns we were discussing).
We've already agreed that you cannot be implicit about anything. It's not that you don't know that 'a god' may or may not exist for the purposes of thinking about. In discussing this, we're proposing a hypothetical 'god', whose single relevant characteristic is that it has a non-material presence.
There, we have knowledge about 'a god'.
So, now the question is if you believe in, disbelieve in, or conclude that you don't know whether to believe or disbelieve, in said 'a god'.
If presented with a concept, you can choose to accept, reject, or withhold from making a judgment. Theism is accepting. 'Strong' Atheism is rejecting. You're trying to say that withholding from making a judgment is weak atheism, but that's precisely what agnosticism is.I am not withholding judgment.
I have concluded that gods most likely do not exist, but I do not have positive belief in their non-existence.
To be a strong atheist is to be as bad as the theists, in believing something that cannot be proven. However, strong atheism is not the only definition of atheism.
Rather than saying that I believe something that cannot be proven, I remain cautious and say that I think it most likely, given the evidence, that gods do not exist. However, I do not extend any belief, in the religious sense, to that statement. It's simply what I deem most probable.
I am atheistic in the sense that I do not have a positive belief in God. I am agnostic in the sense that I do not believe you can prove (know) that god does not exist.
What you are saying is that I am refraining from judgment, which I am not.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
*All the atheists use vent. Hint hint*Lol...
Post by
Squishalot
My apologies for getting your views wrong. Now that we're on the right track...
I have concluded that gods most likely do not exist, but I do not have positive belief in their non-existence.
That's a contradiction in views. The explicit lack of belief is exactly the same as disbelief. The idea that 'positive' or 'negative' knowledge is somehow meaningful is invalid. Knowledge about the subject matter doesn't change belief. Whether you say "I know about gods and I reject them" or "I don't know about gods and I reject them", you're still rejecting them.
However, I do not extend any belief, in the religious sense, to that statement. It's simply what I deem most probable.
Belief is not religious. I believe that Pythagoras's theorem works. I believe that 100%. I'm still open to conjecture, and will entertain challenges to it, but I believe that the sum of the square of the length of the two sides of a triangle adjacent to a right angle are equal to the square of the length of the opposite side. I believe that when I apply this principle to the next triangle I see, I will get the result that I'm expecting. The other possible responses would be that "I will not get the result predicted by the theorem", or "I do not know what the result will be".
The reason your view is confusing is because you're applying a probability to their existence or nonexistence. By definition, a probability means that you can't rationally make a judgment call. If you're posed with the question, rationally, you would have to answer "I do not know what the result will be", because there exists a probability in your mind that gods exist.
If you do not know what the result will be, by definition, that makes you agnostic. Even Dawkins acknowledges that what people call 'weak atheism' is technically agnostic. I'm not sure why you're arguing about this.
*All the atheists use vent. Hint hint*
Vent is actually a bad place for discussions like this. People tend to get impatient and interrupt before the other person is finished. It takes a lot of restraint to have these conversations in real-time.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
The explicit lack of belief is exactly the same as disbelief.This is where we disagree.
I think part of the confusion is the difference between the colloquial definition of belief and the religious definition of belief.
In a colloquial sense, I suppose you could say I "believe" that gods don't exist, in the sense that I don't find their existence very likely (at least, no more likely than any number of other things that aren't supported by evidence: Faeries, magic, etc.).
But I do not "
believe
" that gods
don't
exist in the same way theists
believe
that they
do
. I do not have a conviction that gods do not exist in the same sense that I have a conviction that atoms do exist. You cannot prove that gods (or anything, for that matter) do not exist, and I do not claim to be able to.
Edit
: To clarify, belief in a religious sense is tied to the idea of faith. To "believe" in something is to use "faith" to bridge the gap that evidence cannot cover. In the absence of evidence, they "believe" something out of faith.
I, on the other hand, might "believe" in the nonexistence of gods, but only in the sense that I'm using my best judgment to extrapolate a probable conclusion based on the data we have. You cannot prove that gods do not exist (just as you cannot prove
Interplanet Janet
does not), but my best guess is that they probably do not.
If you do not know what the result will be, by definition, that makes you agnostic. Even Dawkins acknowledges that what people call 'weak atheism' is technically agnostic. I'm not sure why you're arguing about this.I am agnostic. I am also atheist. he two terms are not mutually exclusive.
I am not agnostic in the same sense as most people who call themselves "agnostic" are. I am not on the fence about this issue and I am not refraining from judgment.
Post by
Squishalot
I think part of the confusion is the difference between the colloquial definition of belief and the religious definition of belief.
I think the problem is that you think there's a difference. </end HSR-style one-line put down>
Go on - what do you think is the difference in the colloquial and religious definitions of belief?
To "believe" in something is to use "faith" to bridge the gap that evidence cannot cover. In the absence of evidence, they "believe" something out of faith.
I, on the other hand, might "believe" in the nonexistence of gods, but only in the sense that I'm using my best judgment to extrapolate a probable conclusion based on the data we have.
You see, you're assuming that they have no evidence. In other words, "I think you're ignorant, because you're making stuff up, and that makes you ignorant, lol". They have evidence for themselves. Funden has evidence, for example. Vikingboy (I think?) has evidence about his theory relating to placebos. It may not meet our internal probability criterion to designate it as 'worth bridging the gap', but that doesn't mean that they have no evidence.
You're using 'faith' to bridge the gap between 'probable' and 'definite'. Describe for me the difference between using faith to bridge a person's evidence for God and subsequent belief in God, and a person's evidence for Pythagoras's theorem and their subsequent belief in the theorem working. To me, there is no difference, other than the gap between the actual probability in their mind, based on the evidence, and 100%.
Ok, finished editing, and heading off to play squash with a high school friend in a few minutes. Catch you later.
Post by
Skreeran
You're using 'faith' to bridge the gap between 'probable' and 'definite'. Describe for me the difference between using faith to bridge a person's evidence for God and subsequent belief in God, and a person's evidence for Pythagoras's theorem and their subsequent belief in the theorem working. To me, there is no difference, other than the gap between the actual probability in their mind, based on the evidence, and 100%.But I don't think it's definite. I'm not using faith at all. I don't like the idea of faith.
When I say evidence, I mean, empirical, scientific, observable evidence, not anecdotes. I have my own anecdotal reasons not to believe in gods, but I choose to put those aside and look at the matter as objectively as I can.
Pythagoras' theorum can be demonstrated mathematically, and it will always hold true. That is a good reason to believe it. The same cannot be said for gods, and yet religious people believe in them anyway.
That deep conviction that they have, in spite of a lack of testable or scientific evidence, is what I do not have.
For a scientist, any given thing should be assumed to not exist until evidence arises to suggest otherwise. A good scientist does not believe a theory if there is no evidence for it. They do not have to prove that something does not exist, because that is impossible. Prove that Interplanet Janet does not exist somewhere out in space. You cannot do that because such a thing is impossible (assuming you are not omniscient). But I don't remain agnostic on the matter. I do not believe that she does, and will not believe so unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
But I do not have a religious, deep-seated faith that she does not exist. I simply don't find it likely.
And I will see you later as well. It's funny: I remember getting all red in the face arguing with you in the past, but after my experiences with HSR, you're positively pleasant to debate.
I need to sleep. I have school tomorrow, and as it stands, I'm only gonna get four and a half hours of sleep. Guh.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
mindthegap5
I'm a polynesian frog worshipper.
so i chose other.
Post by
donnymurph
Despite being a firm Atheist since probably my early teens (from memory), I do believe in concepts such as Karma and Enlightenment. Which are not explicitly religious concepts, although they are generally related to religion.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's funny: I remember getting all red in the face arguing with you in the past, but after my experiences with HSR, you're positively pleasant to debate.
I can't tell you exactly why you feel that way. Reading through all these posts, I'm seeing Squish just rolling with you. Every time you ignore a point, or change the point, or some such other manipulation. That's his choice to do, and I'm not faulting him, but when I have a point, I'm going to stick to it until you acknowledge it, and then offer a rebuttal that at least shows you've thought critically about my point before moving on. Hence my
HSR-style one-line put down\
For a scientist, any given thing should be assumed to not exist until evidence arises to suggest otherwise.
No. For a scientist, any given thing
should be ignored as irrelevant
until evidence arises to suggest otherwise.
Any scientist who attributes non-existence to something he has no evidence for or about
qua
scientist, is a bad scientist.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not included as 'existing'. It's not included as 'not existing'. It's being ignored. As an example, if there was no evidence for the Higgs Boson, would you assume that it doesn't exist, or would you simply exclude any reference to its existence from your analysis?
I would do the latter, personally. If you were to include every possible thing as 'not existing', you'd be listing things for a very long time.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
I chose other because I don't think that simply "Atheism" describes how I feel about religion. I prefer the term 'Anti-Religious'.
I do not believe that any of the current religions' gods exist and even if they did, I want no part of it. I'm fine with the possibility of some higher being, but I definitely don't think anyone has a clue what they are like and don't think we have any need to speculate on it.
Give your life meaning, don't try to find meaning in something else. You can help people and do important things, regardless of your religion, or lack thereof.
So you're agnostic?
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I can't tell you exactly why you feel that way. Reading through all these posts, I'm seeing Squish just rolling with you. Every time you ignore a point, or change the point, or some such other manipulation. That's his choice to do, and I'm not faulting him, but when I have a point, I'm going to stick to it until you acknowledge it, and then offer a rebuttal that at least shows you've thought critically about my point before moving on.However you define your method of arguing, it's frustrating, to say the least, to be on the other side of. You never concede on a point, you never admit fault, and you're always passive-aggressive in your tone. In practice it's something like having a boxing match with a brick wall. It's painful, frustrating, and it gets you nowhere. So I'm done with you. I have learned my lesson.
You treat me (and everyone else who disagrees with you, in my experience) as if I'm somehow beneath you, and I'm afraid that I am just too tired to take it any longer. If you are too stubborn to concede on anything, and if you are impolite and unpleasant, why should I exhaust myself in any attempts at serious debate? I may offer a few passing comments once in a while, but I am not a fool, and I don't plan to try to argue with you seriously any more.
It's not included as 'existing'. It's not included as 'not existing'. It's being ignored.I suppose you could argue that. However, if you ask any scientist if he thinks that elves exist, I think you can guess the answer.
That's the thing then. While it's easy to ignore a non-related variable in an equation, if it keeps being brought up every day, a judgment must be made. I very much wish I and everyone else could just ignore the idea of gods until evidence is brought forth of their existence, but unfortunately that is not possible. I cannot ignore it, and so, choosing to make a judgment, using my best reasoning skills, I conclude that no, gods most probably do not exist, just as elves and faeries most probably do not exist. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am.
There is another matter here, as well. There is a very fine distinction between Theism, which deals with personal, known gods, and Deism, which deals with the idea of an undetectable creator god that generally keeps his fingers out of the universe.
A theistic claim of the earth standing still for a whole day goes against everything we know about physics (which have been tested and measured scientifically) and so it strikes me as false. In accordance with Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation that covers all the facts is most likely, and it's much simpler to believe in a mass delusion by impressionable people than to believe that the laws of physics were really and truly broken. And so I find the existence of such a god to be improbable.
A Deistic god (or a theistic god who just doesn't ever intervene beyond prayer) is harder (impossible, actually) to disprove. If such a god is defined as being undetectable, then it really cannot be proven to not exist.
However, again, Occam's Razor comes to our rescue. If such a god cannot be observed, the universe would seem to be getting along just fine without him, yes? In the absence of evidence for a god, the universe would seem to be run simply by natural laws and mechanisms, free from any supernatural intervention. And a universe that has no problem existing on its own, free from any divine intervention is much simpler than an identical universe with a complex god creator sitting next to it. Apply Occam's Razor, and all of a sudden god seems very unnecessary.
TL;DR: If the universe cannot exist without God, then there must be definable, observable evidence of this fact. If the universe cannot exist without God, but we cannot detect this, then the universe will seem to be existing without God. If the universe can exist without God, Occam's Razor shaves him right off.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I, and the rest of the scientific community respectfully disagree. If there is no evidence for something, why include it as 'existing' in the model, but then attribute it with no relevance? Do not assume something exists if you cannot observe, measure or in some way detect it. You can propose the existance of something in a model, but you can also be damn sure no-one is going to assume it exists until we've seen it. take the Higgs Boson as a perfect example; it's proposed in a model, the model seems to work, but we're now trying to find out if the predicted particls actually exists or not. If we are unable to find it, we will assume it is not there to be found, and therefore have to adapt the model. we do not look for it then assume it is there anyway if we can't see it. *That* would be bad science.
That it is a well working model is evidence of its existence. How well it works, of course, is a matter for scientific query.
You should know the scientific method. What's the first step? Observation. All science begins with an observation. If you have not / cannot make an observation about a particular matter, you have no grounds on which to ask a scientific question, formulate a hypothesis, experiment, etc. And without that process, you can not make any scientific claims. And that X probably doesn't exist, if being stated in a scientific setting, is a scientific claim.
However you define your method of arguing, it's frustrating, to say the least, to be on the other side of. You never concede on a point, you never admit fault, and you're always passive-aggressive in your tone. In practice it's something like having a boxing match with a brick wall. It's painful, frustrating, and it gets you nowhere. So I'm done with you. I have learned my lesson.
You treat me (and everyone else who disagrees with you, in my experience) as if I'm somehow beneath you, and I'm afraid that I am just too tired to take it any longer. If you are too stubborn to concede on anything, and if you are impolite and unpleasant, why should I exhaust myself in any attempts at serious debate? I may offer a few passing comments once in a while, but I am not a fool, and I don't plan to try to argue with you seriously any more.
Yet, I'm one of the few people here who makes a point of never insulting the person I'm debating with. But, when it comes down to it, I can't really do much if all you want to do is project a negative attitude onto me. Your "brick wall" is just me smacking you in the face. If you continue to ignore a point I make and don't put up any defense, I'm going to keep smacking your face through that opening. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be in a boxing match.
If the universe cannot exist without God, then there must be definable, observable evidence of this fact.
By necessity, a contingent being's (in this case the entire universe is being posited as contingent) principles of existence exist outside itself.
So no, your statement is a metaphysical absurdity.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.