But that doesn't mean that you don't have doubts about the existence of a god.

My advise to you, if, in fact, you do believe that there is a 50% chance there is a god would be to operate under that assumption. Your probabilities exercise shows that you believe there may be a god, and you might as well bet with the side that promises you something if you are right.....because on our side, we won't give you jack if you win.

For the moment, I'm not challenging or doubting the "lack of a god belief" definition of atheism. If you have doubts about it, or wish to challenge it, then I hope that you will disclose in this thread your thoughts along those lines.

You wrote:

Are you subtly suggesting that I am irrational? How I bet shouldn't influence what I believe, unless I am irrational.

Repeating part of the Original Post:


Accepting the "lack of a god belief" definition of atheism for the sake of argument, and hoping to resolve the question of whether or not I am an atheist, the question is whether or not I lack a god belief.

The question isn't where I place my bet.

I am not considering whether you are rational or irrational, or even whether that matters. I thought this was an exercise to provoke thought.

What I am saying is----IF you believe that there is a 50% probability that there is a god, you would not be an atheist, and here is why:

The bets are red or black. But there is a catch. If red hits, you win something. If black hits, you will still get nothing. So if I were to look at this rationally, I would bet on red. No one in their right mind would bet on black if they will be losing their money even if black hits. If (and this is the premise I was getting at) you are looking at it as a probability issue, your bet would be to go with the one that will reward you in the end.

"Lack of god belief" means that you are firm in the belief that there are not reds on the wheel.

Or three to be accurate to the analogy. That's nothing more than warmed over Pascal's Wagerism. There are hundreds of religions on earth. There have been thousands. If you bet on Allah, you will get no reward if Buddha was right. If you bet on Jesus, no luck if Guru Nanak had it nailed. The idea that it's "my god or no god" is irrational special pleading and absurdly parochial.

Lacking belief in X is not at all the same as being firm in the belief that there is a total absence of X. I do not believe the Cubs will win the World Series, but at a prima facie 30s to 1 shot that's not even all that improbable. Even if you consider history and make them 100s-1 it's still many many times more likely than a random Powerball ticket winning, and one does so every few days or weeks. But I utterly lack all semblance of a belief that they will win, and I know for sure they both exist and will try.

But I was going with the original subject of the OP, which was that there is belief that there is a 50% probability of a god existing. It was suggested that there are two choices, red or black.

You have brought up the fact that there are too many gods available to choose from, so that brings the probabillity of you "winning" by making a choice of "belief" down significantly. But that does not change the premise that you cannot win if you don't get in the game. If you pick the "there is no god" side, and there is a god, you lose. If you pick the "there is a god" side, you also have to choose which god and you can still lose.....but the chances are greater than zero that you will win.

Bleah, this is beginning to make no sense even though I know what I am trying to say. I have a firm belief that there is no god. If I didn't believe this strongly, I cannot see how I could be an atheist. My argument is that if I thought there was half a chance that a god existed, I would have to find a god that I could accept, because that is the only way I "might" win.

It seems that you have refused to accept, at least for the sake of argument, that to be an atheist it is enough to lack a belief in the existence of any god or gods.

At least, I believe so. What is your take on it? Is there something more than lack in belief to be an atheist? Is there a secret handshake that I have to know first?

a specific subset of atheist called a strong or explicit atheist, as opposed to a weak or implicit atheist.

Now since I am the latter myself, please permit a quick thought experiment. Forget for a moment the 'big G' Bible-god which the vast majority of us were taught to assume when we heard the generic noun 'god' if you can. Just imagine the noun not the name - an entity which has divine powers - creation ab nihilo, suspension of natural laws and all that.

Now based on that definition, do you simply not believe that one exists. or actively hold the positive belief that none, anywhere in the universe, can possibly exist?

The difference between weak and strong atheism is easier to contemplate when we ditch the cultural baggage of the chosen gods of our native society, even if we expand the latter to be all earth.

At Sat Feb 25, 2012, 04:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

That is enough to be an atheist.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

It's rude for Curmudgeoness to speculate about a possible secret handshake requirement as though Boojatta might want to impose it, when Curmudgeoness just finished saying "I cannot see how" a particular requirement could be enough, a requirement that suddenly seems to be enough for Curmudgeoness.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 25, 2012, 04:28 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Snark is acceptable on DU.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Was this a real alert? I can't believe that someone actually clicked alert and typed that alert explanation. This must have been a bot-generated alert...is that a real thing?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Holy shit! Either the alert function is being sadly abused, or I have simply had a bad run of being asked to adjudicate some spectacularly silly objections.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If that was worth alerting, then it is worth letting the alerter know by a jury vote that at least this juror thinks the alert was pointless, and perhaps like so many other alerts, simply an attempt to censor the person making the alerted post. This thread was about a religious (or lack thereof) concept that started on a pretty thin premise. I say let it go its natural conclusion uncensored. =STC=

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I'm just shaking my head that someone would alert on a post like that. It's a sad commentary on the state of mind of some DUers that someone thought this was alert worthy.

Your words:

It would be perfectly okay for you to withdraw the excerpt quoted above. If you don't wish to withdraw it, then it appears that strongly believing that there is no god is the secret handshake that you have been looking for.

I am prepared to withdraw any claim that I made in this thread. However, I require at least a hint of where my mistake lies before I can begin a train of thought that will allow me to confirm that I made a mistake.

If you point out a mistake that I made and you also toss in a bit of rudeness, then perhaps the rudeness will help me remember the mistake and thereby help me avoid making it again. However, if you made a mistake, then why would your mistake be a basis for you to make a mocking insinuation against me?

Are you not interested in the topic of discussion? Do you see this thread merely as an opportunity for a competitive game where you can win simply by declaring yourself to be the winner?

Belief in deities is a binary condition much like pregnancy. You either do or you don't. You can doubt it; you can secretly think it's silly, but knowledge and belief are not synonyms. If you do not believe that a god exists, you are an atheist, regardless of how probable or improbable you assess it to be. On the other hand if you do believe so, then you are a theist, again regardless of how probable or improbable you assess it to be.

A useful analogy may be a husband considering his wife's fidelity. Any sane person knows that the probability is not 100%, however most reasonably secure husbands will believe their wives are faithful. Thus in marriage most again reasonably secure husbands will be "theistic" in regard to their wife's fidelity. A suspicious husband who does not believe his wife is faithful, but again who does not know 100% one way or the other, could be said to be "atheistic" in marriage. Playing silly number games about what probability of fidelity makes one believe or not believe misses the entire point, because belief and probability assessment are not the same thing. Many a husband will believe his flirtatious and suspiciously unreliable wife faithful until he sees actual penetration; others will assume their wife is cheating even though she has given no indication whatsoever and is entirely innocent.

Of course that is true for at least one reason. An individual person has a belief. A probability assessment can be the product of some organization's activities, and might not reflect any individual person's beliefs.

On the other hand, if there is some large population that I know nothing about, and I try to investigate some small part of the population, then any belief that I might form about the whole population is likely to be heavily influenced by my assessment of the probability that my sample is representative.

Within the limits of experimental error, that doubt makes you an atheist.

Your question involves probability, which is in essence, knowledge, and knowledge is about gnosticism, which is not theism.

One either is or is not a theist. There is no middle ground on this distinction, its binary.

If we're talking about one future spin of the roulette wheel, then how does knowledge enter into it? Maybe my belief that the roulette wheel is functioning correctly is an incorrect belief. Maybe the ball lands on black 75% of the time. Nevertheless the ball might land on red for the one future spin of interest.

Do you accept a distinction between knowledge and true belief? Consider generating a random bit of data that will be used in a predetermined way to construct a statement. For example, the data could be generated via a machine that records details of the timing of radioactive decay of a sample of radioactive material. If the statement is presented as being an oracle's prophecy, then it might be believed by somebody. The belief might be later confirmed to be true. Hence we have an example of true belief.

For something to be knowledge requires more than that. For example, illegal insider stock market trading is conducted when somebody has knowledge, not merely true belief.

Arguably, it's not possible to have knowledge of the outcome of one future spin of the roulette wheel. The argument is that nobody has access to information about the future. Even a shrewd and informed guess about the future that is eventually shown to be correct isn't knowledge. It's true belief.

As I understand it, one can have a true belief about a probability, and one can have knowledge of a probability. How do you get from the topic of probability to the conclusion that you are dealing with knowledge and not dealing with belief?

The assumption is that I believe that the probability that at least one god exists is exactly 50%. The conclusion is that I am an atheist.

The question for you is: do you accept the conclusion? If you don't accept the conclusion, then where do you see a potential flaw in the argument?

the correct answer to the question that is the title of this thread is "No", or do you have some kind of confirmation that the correct answer is "No"?

If you cannot provide confirmation, then I would appreciate it if you would share some of the train of thought that led you to the suspicion that the correct answer is "No."

the entire exercise is pointless other than as some pseudo-philosophic game.

anybody, it has to be conceived by somebody.

Is the problem that you don't believe that at least one person believes that the probability that at least one god exists is exactly 50 percent?

If I successfully started a movement and you were persuaded that at least some members of the movement sincerely believed that the probability that at least one god exists is exactly 50 percent, then would this thread become in your view legitimate, or would you have some other objection?

From where were ZFC* and the Kelley Morse system pulled?

Is the study of ZFC or the Kelley Morse system pointless other than as some pseudo-philosophic game?

* Note: ZFC is Zermelo–Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice

Really? If you think something only becomes believable because of others' conception of it, then you've got some real problems in your logic.

Serious people don't judge the veracity of an idea based on how many others believe the idea. You know the fallacy but seem to be to wrapping it in important sounding language, perhaps in an attempt to hide the fallacy from the weak-minded among us.

into anybody's mind, and for that reason it isn't believed.

I admit that "pulled directly from your ass" doesn't strike me as important sounding language. However, I'm trying to focus on what you are saying, not how you say it. Perhaps you can extend the same courtesy to me.

Let's review the discussion in outline form:

I started the thread basically by telling people to assume that I believe X, and asking people, given that assumption, whether or not I am an atheist.

You didn't answer the question. Why not? I don't know.

I suspected that the assumption "I believe X" was too extraordinary for you to imagine it as being true. So I proposed a new hypothetical. If very specific and weird religious doctrines can be marketed, then maybe X (despite involving the number 50%) could be believed by people after all.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you think it's unacceptable for me to pay any attention to how many people believe something. Well, the assumption at the beginning of this thread is that one person (Boojatta) believes X. One seemed to be too many for you. Now, you seem to have no particular objection to the hypothetical existence of a movement that includes perhaps more than one person who believes X. However, now it seems that you want to scold me for paying attention to the number of people who believe X. Why?

If I understand you correctly, you think that I am judging whether or not X is actually true based on how many people believe in X. Sorry, but that's not correct. I simply want you to stretch your imagination and consider for the sake of argument the scenario where at least one person believes X. That way, you can think about the question: is that person an atheist?

Maybe you can answer the question!

Again: is that person an atheist?

great majority of recorded history, atheism has been a crime. Often a capital crime. Only recently and in the more liberal nations has it been decriminalized, here in the US atheism is only what is called a legal deficit, i.e. it has some unpleasant legal consequences but it cannot be prosecuted in and of itself.

Harken back to an earlier time. Imagine Boojatta in the dock charged with atheism, a la Socrates and other philosophers. His defense, of course, is that he is 50 per cent innocent. The prosecutor would reply that if Boojatta had a better defense he would offer it, ergo Boojatta will......... suffer.

I've been a long-time agnostic but am leaning atheist. My youngest daughter is an eclectic pagan. If there was a god, and you were basing your belief on a 50/50 chance, the god would adjust the results to prove he/she exists.

A person could think, "I don't believe in gods, but I'm always wrong, so there's a 99.99% there actually is one or more gods," and that person would still be an atheist.

Similarly, a person could think, "I believe in gods, but the likelihood for their existence seems incredibly small," and that person would still be a theist.

Atheism and theism are only about belief in god(s).

Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 05:01 PM - Edit history (2)

Somebody who is permitted to use "I am always wrong" to come to a conclusion gets the following results:
One is larger than zero, so one isn't equal to zero. I believe that one isn't equal to zero.

However, I am always wrong, so I was wrong to believe that one isn't equal to zero. Thus, one is equal to zero.

If the monotheists are right, then there is exactly one god, but the number one is equal to the number zero, so if the monotheists are right, then the number of gods is equal to zero. Therefore, monotheists are actually atheists, but unfortunately they don't recognize that they are atheists.


Do you mean that the person is trying to think about the topic from the point of view of other people, and imagines that, from their point of view, the likelihood seems incredibly small?

If not, then it seems that the theist has an internal conflict between, on the one hand, the theist's overall mental picture of reality, and on the other hand the theist's practical expectations.

Your theist could be CEO of some corporation, announce that the probability is extremely low that there will be any drop in share price, on the same day sell short a huge number of shares, and later that day again repeat that a drop in share price is incredibly unlikely. When the share price undergoes a steep decline the next day, and the CEO profits handsomely from the short selling maneuver, the CEO can say, "I believed that I would make a lot of money by selling short, and nobody has any right to accuse me of lying when I said that it was very unlikely that the share price would drop."