My definition of an Atheist:

In another thread someone said they were insulted by how I defined Atheist, I want to start this new thread to clarify my viewpoint and to start a discussion to see where others stand on the issue.

First off I classify myself as an Agnostic Atheist.

I consider Atheism to have two camps: On one camp there is an inclusive form, where the belief that everyone who does not believe in a deity or deities is an atheist. That would include newborn children - essentially everyone is born an atheist and those that do not remain atheist are indoctrinated into a religion.

Then there is the other camp, the more traditional camp, the camp that I believe is more accurate to what an Atheist is: Someone who outright rejects any form of theistic belief as false and incorrect.

In my opinion to claim to be an Atheist when you are not is akin to someone on the Christian Right proclaiming to be Christian - anyone can claim to be something, but claiming it doesn't always make it so.

I believe a far LARGER group of people hold Agnostic beliefs, to which there are many different groups as listed:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It might also imply the belief that there is something resembling god (or gods,) but a doubt of their exact nature or validity of claim.

Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods,) while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any doctrine.

Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

I have personally chosen to hold the belief of an Agnostic Atheist for the simple fact that it would make me seem rather foolish to try and argue the non-existence of a God or Gods - because to do so would be putting myself in a position to argue a fallacious statement.

In fact, I believe both the Atheist (my definition of an Atheist) and the Christian to be arguing from a fallacious standpoint. A Christian, arguing the existence of God argues from a Negative proof fallacy. An Atheist argues from the Argument of Ignorance fallacy. Seeing that I cannot argue with circular reasoning I've taken the most clear non-fallacious stance that I can: The belief that, based on the evidence and my life experiences, that God does not exist.

When debating taking such a stand gives me a much stronger ground to argue from than that of the pure Atheist as it does not outright deny the belief of someone else, but rather encourages them to prove their claim. My standpoint prevents the believer from demanding that I prove their fallacy correct, because I did not say they were not correct - only that I could not believe them to be - and it therefore demands for them to seek out proof to convince me of their claim without putting me in a position to prove mine.

I know it seems like simple and trivial semantics on its face. However, if you delve deeper into the actual belief and statements you come to realize that they are almost diametrically different.

you are good at this stuff

Very well researched and thought through. I'd forgotten about Occam's Razor; good stuff.

Never forget that you have every right to be an Atheist! And any Christian worth their salt should agree and leave you be because the Bible teaches that God gave free will to all people.

I was raised in a Fundie church, now I'm an Agnostic Animist. Chew on that one;)

Could involved a very lengthy and in depth, philosophical discussion as could Atheism, probably not appropriate for this forum but I don't believe you will find it in the bible. I've been taught and told this all of my life too, like most people have but I've never run across it "per se" in the bible.

Short version: War in Heaven... all souls sent to Earth... free will to follow God's word, or not. Satan has his time here to try and keep as many souls from getting back to Heaven...

If God wanted to impose his laws on us, we would still all be "dumb" and living in the Garden;)

Their motto: We don't know and we don't care.

That seems like a contradiction. Generally Atheists seem to like their independence. Although they do come out of the woodwork to defend our separation of church and state.

...is dishonest because you know they cannot prove the existence of a deity or deities.

I don't claim 100% certainty that deities do not exist, or that there or no dragons anywhere, or that stars don't talk to each other (something that popped into my head last night, but that's a story for another time), since 100% certainty of anything requires omniscience, and if I was omniscient then *I'd* be God, and then I couldn't be an atheist. Most atheists realize that.

However: all signs point to gods being fairy tales. It's the only rational conclusion that can be drawn based on the evidence.

Of course it is unless I am incorrect in my belief. If a theist can prove the existence of a God or Gods then I am incorrect, but I am confident that they cannot - it is not so much dishonest as placing the burden of proof where it belongs.

It is pointless to get trapped into the circular argument of:
"God exists."
"No, God does not exist."
"Prove God does not exist."

You cannot prove God does not exist because you cannot prove a negative, you can only point to the evidence of the unlikelihood of God's existence. However, the unlikelihood to a believers mind still leaves the door open for the possibility of God's existence.

It is much easier to have this type of argument:
"God exists."
"You may be correct, but from my personal experiences and the evidence I have seen I have drawn a different conclusion."

It then forces the person who claims the existence of God to put forth the evidence of their belief. Typically speaking this may come in the form of another logical fallacy: "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God, because it says so right there in the book."

To that I can easily respond, "You may be correct, but from personal experiences and the evidence I have seen I have drawn a different conclusion." This, once again, forces the theist to prove their claim. This can go on for a period of time until the theist realizes that they cannot prove their claim, realizes their own logical fallacies or simply gives up the argument, in which case it means that I have won the argument.

I do not believe it is dishonest, but rather that it is fair that anyone who makes a claim be forced to prove it. That is my advantage in such debates.

Just not all of them. For example, you could prove that there isn't a squirrel sitting on your head. "You can't prove a negative" is a mythological cliche.
Applying something similar, one method philosophers have of determining that something abstract has existence is to imagine the world without that entity, and contemplate if the world would be different. Logically, if the world would be different with that entity removed from it, then that entity must exist.
On the flipside, you can imagine how applying this line of reasoning can also result in the conclusion that the object of the inquiry is a non-entity, or exists solely in imagination.

After I reach up and don't feel a squirrel, you could say that it jumped out of the way. When I ask why I didn't feel it jump, you could say that it is a special squirrel, as light as air. OK, so why can't I see it in a mirror? Oh, you reply, because the squirrel is invisible too!

That's what's meant about the impossibility of proving a negative. It might be more accurate to say one cannot prove a universal negative, e.g., that there is not *some* kind of squirrel (could be weightless, invisible, etc.) on my head.

"you could say that it jumped out of the way" -
Then you'd say "ahah, you agree that it isn't on my head now, so I don't need to prove it to you". ;)
The statement being proved isn't about a squirrel not being on your head at some time in the past, it's about a squirrel that isn't there right now. Which brings us to the notion that we are talking about real squirrels not imaginary squirrels with paranormal properties.
Of course there are certain negatives which can't be proven, but I bet you can think of some more which can.

See the luminiferous ether and this:


The full version of Steiner's article is also in this Swift pdf: http://randi.org/pdf/swift2-34.pdf

I think where the difficulty comes in is "magic." My squirrel, like most gods, can be assigned any arbitrary characteristic which defeats any observation you might try to make to prove that it DOESN'T exist.

The examples from that article tend to support what I'm saying - proving mundane negatives can indeed be done, it's when the supernatural gets involved that things get impossible.

created by this array of lasers, so unless it's a magic squirrel...

But yes, I suppose we've arrived at our nuanced agreement that the statement "It is impossible to prove a negative", is false. :)

I don't feel like retyping it all. I would like your input. I enjoy this kind of discussion. Does that make me sick?

For each of your examples, you are "proving the negative" by proving a positive. I can prove the world isn't flat by proving that it is round. I can prove that I am not a giraffe by proving I am a human. I can prove there is no undiscovered continent larger than North America by traveling around the globe in a matrix that would make such a continent impossible. I can prove there is no elephant in my living room by taking you into my living room and proving what IS in my living room. I can prove that sulfuric acid is not made of H20 by whatever method those crazy fuckin chemists use to prove the molecular makeup of a substance (forgive me for not knowing the exact thing here--I'm an English/communication teacher).

In none of those instances are you REALLY proving the negative. You are just proving a positive which denies the negative. Asking me to prove there is something that there isn't is a fallacy. The only way to disprove the negative of "there is no god" is to provide PROOF of the positive that there is one.

To be clear, my position is: Contrary to popular cliche, it is not impossible to prove a negative, so we should be wary of improper use of that phrase"

You said, "For each of your examples, you are "proving the negative" by proving a positive." Soooo, those negatives were proven, right?

Also, when you say "I can prove there is no undiscovered continent larger than North America by traveling around the globe in a matrix that would make such a continent impossible", I don't think that is proving a positive. It is proving the absence of something, which supports the "negative" statement that 'there is no undiscovered continent on earth larger than North America'. Compare that with being able to prove that the word "conservative" is not mentioned in the Bible. You wouldn't go about it by first proving that other words are there instead, only that "conservative" absent. Substitute an unopened pack of Post-it brand notepaper to simplify the idea.

I'm not saying that it's possible to prove (formally) that there is no God. However, I do think it's very possible to make substantial inroads with that side of the argument in certain circumstances, with certain God concepts, by not being so quick to say "you can't prove a negative".

Consider this: Citing her life experience and the evidence, Mary is a devout believer in a God who possesses the quality of causing a local rainstorm every time she bathes her first born child. She came upon this belief because it has happened three times after praying for rain and bathing her child. Joseph says "I seriously doubt that, that God doesn't exist, let's do an experiment to prove that there are times you bathe your child and it does not rain." After 2 days of the experiment and no rain, Joseph and Mary now have evidence that her God lacked a quality that she had previously attributed to It. In essence, the God at the center of her previous concept does not exist, and she even helped to prove it.

Hang on. Mary isn't a monotheist, she's a polytheist(they do exist). She now claims that her once dependable God of local rainstorms has somehow vanished from existence, and feeling uneasy with losing her faith in one of her Gods, she tells Joseph to excuse her while she goes off to find some caterpillars to burn because one of her other Gods makes her boobs a little bigger when she does that. Joseph says "Hey Mary wait up, I'm pretty good at catching caterpillars...

So, I think the ability to prove a negative depends on the qualities attributed to the object of the negative statement. Unicorn balanced on your head? Easy. A God who started the Big Bang then hasn't interfered at all since then and is otherwise transcendant of human thought? Impossible. Is it rational to believe in a God such as that? Different subject. ;)

But, I don't agree that the negatives were proven. They were eliminated from possibility by proving something possibly.

Which brings me to our "closeness." I think it is pretty much a semantic quibble between the two of us at this point.

But not about the proving God doesn't exist. In the Mary example, all of what you offer is still based on faith. We never proved that her first god didn't exist, just that there is some competing god that stopped it. That little tail chase never ends. That is the problem with putting me in the position of proving the negative when that involves the supernatural. There is always a shifting answer. "Rev, I asked god to make the cancer go away and he didn't. Maybe there is no god." "Sometimes god answers 'no.'" "But there can't be a god or he wouldn't let young girls be sold into slave trade." "God works in ways we can't understand." "But god letting a tornado destroy our church makes no sense." "Don't claim to know the mind of the lord."

You see where I am going. It is the same as trotsky's magical squirrel which seemed to go over everyone's head (pun VERY MUCH intended).

If you could prove it, then you would be proving a negative, which would make it false. In other words, the statement is meaningless on the face of it.

Also why would you deny that an indirect proof is not a proof? Isn't the notion of reductio ad absurdem an extension of this. I also take issue with the approach of Trotsky, (this is rare though) because before the squirrel question is resolved the meaning of squirrel must be established. It's a principle of logic that the truth value of the premises must be knowable for the conclusions to be valid.

Good discussion though.

--IMM

if I was omniscient then *I'd* be God,

If you were omniscient, then you'd be omniscient. You'd know where I left my keys, and you'd know what was in Marcellus' briefcase.

Omniscience might make you a god, but you wouldn't be the Big-G himself.

That would require omnipotence and a 2+ millennia PR campaign.

we have asserted, but is there anything to debate?

Indeed if rational means thinking like the majority of humans reason from their life experiences, the fact that most are theist implies to be atheist is not to be rational. The atheist is not drawing the right (the rational) conclusions from their life experience.

And of course the atheist says the opposite.

I do not see much room for debate.

I do see a need for tolerance.

:toast:

:-)

No, that means there is nothing to debate. By saying, "based on the evidence and my life experiences, God does exist" you leave the door open for the possibility of his non-existence. You have not stated something that you believe to be a fact, but rather something that you consider is likely to be true.

That would be the point of view of an Agnostic Theist.

In effect we could not debate one another because neither of us has claimed a definite position, but rather have simply come to different conclusions based on life experiences and the evidence we have seen.

that we can not debate the basics, so we have to tolerate and understand one another. Cheers!:toast:

Once you've asserted the existence of evidence, and if you imply that it supports your conclusion, then the burden is on you to present your evidence for review and consideration.

Otherwise, you're asking me to take your evidence on faith, which is essentially begging the question.

Indeed if rational means thinking like the majority of humans reason from their life experiences, the fact that most are theist implies to be atheist is not to be rational. The atheist is not drawing the right (the rational) conclusions from their life experience.

Boy oh boy, is that off the mark! First of all, you're equating "right" with "majority opinion," and then you're equating "rational" with "right." Sorry, but that's an insupportable rhetorical leap.

You're also saying that, because a believer, based on the believer's life experiences, has drawn a pro-God conclusion, then the atheist is irrational if the atheist does not draw the same conclusion, based on the believer's life experiences.

Do you see how that's logically flawed? You're omitting the very real possibility that the atheist has drawn her conclusions based on her own experiences, or that the theist has drawn the wrong conclusion based on the believer's experiences.

And there's plenty to debate. If your conclusion that God does exist is based on "the evidence" and "your life experiences", the first area of debate after defining what you mean by "God" would be the evidence itself, and how to most soundly interpret that evidence. Iow, if one reaches an extraordinary conclusion without some kind of internal debate or balancing of all the evidence, one should be skeptical of that conclusion.

it cannot prove doesn't exist. In a way they are in the same camp than the theists that claim a God exist and cannot materially prove it. In both cases it's a matter of belief.

So ignosticism and agnosticism are better stands from a pure logical standpoint.

That is a fallacy. Don't tell me that I have to prove a fallacy to be correct in order to be something other than a belief/religion.

There is no proof that god exists. Period. The ball is in the court of those trying to prove it. Again, I do not need to prove the negative. The negative just is. There is no god. Everything that we have in science and rational (not defined as above, but defined in terms of logic) thought lead to that conclusion.

That is my belief system. I'm not bitching at anyone.

Except for the having to prove the negative thing.

but you cannot prove it isn't

scientifically you could say maybe there is God that created the universe in a Big Bang, but chose to remain silent after that. That's why there are no concrete and measurable manifestations.

But it would still mean there is a God. Nobody could PROVE it. So believing or not are both a logical concept. Denying something that cannot be proven (yet) is illogical and non-scientific.

A lot of modern physics deals with stuff that cannot be seen like black holes and parallell universes. It's pure mathematics that says that the phenomenon is likely (and might observed later). The equation can be wrong or not. But denying A PRIORI that a certain type of cosmology is wrong, is non-scientific.

"You have decided it's a fallacy but you cannot prove it isn't"

Again; huh? Why would I want to prove it isn't a fallacy? I'm the one saying it is. Me an every logic textbook out there. Putting someone in the position of having to prove the negative is a logical fallacy. Hence, you are engaged in fallacious reasoning (that might sound like something sexually fun, but actually is a place you don't want to go).

There is no god. There is no proof that there is one. Of course there isn't any proof that there isn't a god because there ISN'T one. If I were to say that there is no such thing as a Tinkerbell, and you told me to give you proof that there isn't, how the hell would I do that? There is no such thing. If you were to say that there is no such thing as an elephant, I could take you to the zoo and show you an elephant.

I have said there is no god. You have the burden of proof to prove the positive. Making me PROVE the negative is a fallacy. Believing in god is not a "logical concept." It is irrational because there is no proof. I have proof that there is no god because there is no proof that there is. "Denying something that cannot be proven" is, CONTRARY to what you might claim, very scientific. It is the basis of science.

But anyway, you don't need to prove that something doesn't exist to have confidence that you are being rational in concluding that, because of an absence of evidence, something does not exist.

You've mischaracterized the argument.

Many atheists lack belief in a god, which is entirely distinct from believing in a god's nonexistence.

The statement "I do not believe" is very strong, from a logical standpoint.

My approach offers a clear benefit when debating with theists who assert their belief in a deity is absolute, in that it forces them to confront their own logical fallacies.

"God exists."
"God might exist, and your beliefs may be correct, but based on my life experiences and the evidence I have come to a different conclusion."

This forces them to prove you wrong and to prove their own belief correct. This will more often than not result in more logical fallacies from their part, to which you can simply continue with the same line of reasoning.

"God exists because the preacher at Church says so."
"I am sure the preacher is a smart man and knows many things, but when I look at the evidence I have come to a different conclusion."

They are then forced to prove the preacher correct. Inevitably they will be forced to realize that they cannot prove their preacher correct, that they cannot prove the existence of God, and therefore are not arguing in a logical manor. At this point the theist may decide to withdraw from the argument, uncomfortable at their realization or they may admit that they cannot prove the existence of their deity.

That then turns them into an Agnostic theist. Once they have taken this stance, you may then engage them on the finer points of their belief, because after all if they cannot prove the existence of God then perhaps there are certain things in their belief that are incorrect.

This forces the theist into self-examination and will make them travel down one of two roads: a road of doubt or a road of seeking to prove their beliefs. If they travel down the road of doubt, the inevitable conclusion is typically another form of agnosticism, most likely either Agnostic atheism or Agnostic spiritualism. If they travel down the road seeking to prove their beliefs, they will eventually find that it forks into two more roads: one leading back to where they started and one leading back to blind faith. The road which leads back to blind faith is much more difficult to travel as even that may eventually lead back to where they started.

The key, really, is to force the theist to think in a logical manor therefore depriving them of the ability to argue from a purely fallacious and emotional standpoint.

Simply put, once the seed of doubt is planted, it is difficult to uproot and remove.

and I like it on several levels. I will have to mull it over when I am not sleep deprived.

I have no answer to this question; I am really asking for your insight given the sleep thing: Do you think your system opens it up for strong theists to make claims that atheism is a religion/belief system?

...and I would argue that it is. Not that it is a religion, mind you, but certainly a belief system. As a strong Atheist (the pure or true Atheist) has to assert that their beliefs are absolute, that they cannot be challenged, and that they are speaking from a perspective of authority and fact. In that reasoning, they leave no room for debate, and are doing the equivalent of a theist who proclaims the existence of God.

A belief in the non-existence of something is the equivalent of the belief in the existence of something. Both are beliefs held in an absolute perspective.

The same method used against the theist above can be used against the true Atheist. Why? Because both are arguing fallaciously.

"God exists."
"God does not exist."
"Well, maybe your right, but you cannot prove God does not exist with absolute certainty."

Proof can be given by the Atheist, but never with absolute certainty, because even if the Atheist is correct he cannot prove a negative.

It is the equivalent of someone saying they believe in Aliens and then someone else saying that Aliens do not exist. Neither side can prove their claims with absolute certainty, and both will eventually fall into a circular argument. The only way to win the argument is to allow the other side the ability to prove their own claims while encouraging them to dig deeper, helping them to find the holes in their own logic.

The debate "Does God exist or doesn't he?" can never be won as both sides have the inability to prove the existence of God one way or another, and thus it is pointless to make the attempt.

is really an Agnostic theist?

And blind faith makes certain that one can and will argue from only a purely fallacious and emotional standpoint?

Interesting assertion. Circular - but interesting.

As I said above, from the theist point of view the atheist is irrational. Indeed the theist may attribute the atheists mistaken responses in a discussion of God to a physiological problem the atheist may have. And the theist may attribute the atheist need to discuss how correct they are in their logic, over and over on boards on the net, to an emotional response to their fear of acknowledging what they know in their bones - that they are illogical and can not respond like a rational person to this life that has been given them.

However it is amusing to engage them on the finer points of their belief, because after all if they cannot prove the non-existence of God then perhaps there are certain things in their other beliefs that are incorrect.

A theist who asserts that their claims are correct and absolute, then eventually admits that their claims cannot be proven, becomes an Agnostic Theist. Once the argument leaves the realm of fallacy and emotion and enters the realm of logic that is the inevitable conclusion. No one can prove that God does exist, but at the same time they can believe in his existence.

It is the difference between blind faith and implicit faith. Blind faith requires one to believe something unconditionally and has no room for doubt. Implicit faith is the believe that something is true, based on the conclusion the person has come to, while at the same time leaving the door open for doubt.

---

Yes, from a Theists point of view an Atheist is irrational. That is because the Atheist is also arguing from a fallacious standpoint. (See Argument from ignorance.)

Any argument engaged in by a strong Theist and a strong Atheist will always end in a circular argument. The circular argument can only end when one side admits that the other side might be correct, therefore forcing the other side to prove their claims. In attempting to prove their claim they will realize that their claims cannot be proven with absolute certainty. It cannot be proven with absolute certainty because it is based off a fallacy in logic, which forces them to doubt their original claim.

That DOES NOT mean a Theist suddenly becomes an Atheist or an Atheist suddenly becomes a Theist, only that they are forced to acknowledge that their argument can never be proven. The Theist then becomes an Agnostic Theist and the Atheist then becomes the Agnostic Atheist.

the assumption is that by admitting that something can not be proven, one is agnostic - as in open to proof to the contrary.

Seems there are a few of the above who are not open to proof to the contrary - they "know they are right in their bones" - so I guess they are blind faith despite agreeing it can not be proven?

Saying one thing, and believing another does not make what you said true.

If I told you I liked your hairstyle, while internally believing it was the most hideous thing I've ever seen does not make my statement true.

An Atheist could take the position of an Agnostic Atheist arguing from that position, but that would be pointless as the ultimate goal of the Atheist is to get the Theist to agree. The same could be said for the Theist who took a position of an Agnostic Theist.

Saying and believing are two different things. Once you see the error in the logic you can no longer deny the facts. If I told you it was snowing, and believed what I was telling you to be true, and then looked out the window only to notice I was incorrect - I'd be forced to re-examine my assertion.

HOWEVER, that should not be confused with the person who believes based on personal experience and the evidence, that there is no God. Or someone who believes based on their personal experiences that there is some 'higher power'.

It is the difference between absolute belief and simple belief. The difference between blind faith and implicit faith.

I disagree strongly. I will POSITIVELY assert that god(s) do not exist; I KNOW this the same way that I KNOW the sun will rise in the East tomorrow rather than the West. Prove me wrong.:evilgrin:

I'd be interested to learn how you know that god(s) do(es) not exist.

Such information would be greatly helpful to me in future debates.

Religion is faith based, period.

the same way that anyone KNOWS anything, like that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow instead of the West; it fits in with all the facts that I know about the universe; gods do not ...

You don't know that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow, first because of that pesky heliocentric theory, and second because you simply accept the very strong likelihood of it.

That's very different from knowing something with the 100% certainty that you imply, and I think it's useful to be conscious of the distinction.

It's similar to the lame-ass game that certain theists like to play: "You have faith that the light will come on when you flick the swich, so that's the same as having Faith in a perfect, infinite, omnipotent God." It's a trick of equivocation and shouldn't be mistaken for an actual argument.

deliberately? You know things, yes? Or do you know nothing? Most people will say that they know things, I KNOW that there are is no god(s) in the same way that anyone can say that they know things. The believers say they KNOW there is a god(s); I say with equal but opposite certainty that I KNOW that there is no god(s) because it god(s) are completely inconsistent with the universe that I observe. Simple, yes?

When I say "I know X," that's really shorthand for "to the best of my limited ability to ascertain, I accept the very strong likelihood that X is the case."

That's similar to the concept of a scientific "fact," which is not a 100% certainty but a declaration of overwhelming and verifiable probability. And it's in direct contrast to "knowing" as a statement of absolute certainty, which is what you're making:

I KNOW that there is no god(s) because it god(s) are completely inconsistent with the universe that I observe.

That's not knowing. That's concluding. And, incidentally, it's a conclusion drawn from entirely insufficient evidence.

I object to theists who say that they "know" that a god exists, for exactly the same reason.

Of course, you're welcome to maintain your assertion that you "know" that there is no God, but that position is of little rhetorical value or interest.

You:

When I say "I know X," that's really shorthand for "to the best of my limited ability to ascertain, I accept the very strong likelihood that X is the case."

Me:

I KNOW that there is no god(s) because it god(s) are completely inconsistent with the universe that I observe.


This is not hairsplitting, there IS no difference in these two statements.

I KNOW things till proven otherwise wrong. Honestly, do you KNOW nothing? Really, do you KNOW nothing? Are you seriously arguing that it is impossible to KNOW things? I think overwhelming numbers would disagree with you.

If you are not making that argument what is the difference between what YOU know, and what I know, except that you don't like what I know?

You:
I KNOW that there is no god(s) because it god(s) are completely inconsistent with the universe that I observe.

You:
I will POSITIVELY assert that god(s) do not exist

Me:
When I say "I know X," that's really shorthand for "to the best of my limited ability to ascertain, I accept the very strong likelihood that X is the case."

Can you really see no difference between these positions? Really? Honestly? Your two statements combine to yield a declaration of finality and certainty. My statement is a declaration of my current "best guess." They may have the same net effect, but they are not the same. Yours is a statement of faith (claiming certainty based on fundamentally insufficient evidence), whereas mine is a statement of fact (claiming an overwhelming likelihood based on all available evidence).

To answer your apparently exasperated question: I can't know with 100% certainty that I know anything, and neither can you, and neither can the "overwhelming numbers" who disagree with me.

You are a finite entity, yes? I would be very interested to learn how you can assert something with 100% certainty.

At best, we can say "I accept the very strong likelihood that X is the case." That was my original point, IIRC.

for an explanation of "believing and knowing". The short answers is, at the highest level I take THE ENTIRE F***ING UNIVERSE on faith, including your existence. Having granted that(beneficent of me, in addition to being necessary), from there I start KNOWING things based on whether they are consistent with what I do (YES , I DO) KNOW of the universe. If they are not, I will assert (damn presumptuous of me) that they are FALSE, or DO NOT EXIST. PROVE me WRONG, and I will admit it, but the proof will be hard. Similarly I can KNOW and assert positives based on them being consistent with what I KNOW of the universe; the Earth is more or less spherical, not more or less flat. Again, to PROVE my KNOWING wrong will take some doing.

Yes, my statements yield certainty. I AM certain, till someone PROVES me wrong. Really, I don't think that most people are so wishy-washy about what they KNOW; I am definitely not. There are very few areas of my knowledge where I am wishy-washy.

You can be completely uncertain about everything if you want; I do not think that anyone operates that way in real life (see my points on red lights etc. in another post on this thread); and I certainly think that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, both theist and atheist would agree that it is possible to KNOW things.


BTW, I have never known what IIRC means ....

Well, you have to list the criteria that you would accept as proof that you are incorrect? Until you do that, you're in a position to move the goalposts as often as you like, and that gets us nowhere.

(Incidentally, that's also the answer for any theist who asks you to "prove" that you loved someone now deceased. Demand that the theist provide the criteria for "proof.")

Forgive me, but your statements yield not certainty but the belief in certainty, which may be similar in daily practice but are not, ultimately, the same.

I've also never said that I'm completely uncertain about anything, much less everything. My assertion is that it is not possible for me or you or anyone else to be 100% certain about anything.

As a corollary to my earlier shorthand, I offer this: I accept some claims and assertions as so well-demonstrated that the likelihood of their being incorrect is small enough to be ignored in everyday life. That covers red lights, round Earths, delicious sandwiches, and any other "fact" that you or I take for granted in our daily dealings. But that's not the same as "knowing" with 100% certainty.

said that you think that people can not KNOW things for certain; we disagree, and for once I think that most other people agree with me. I find your definition weird to say the least, and can observe that most people seem to KNOW MANY things. I am among them, and

"your statements yield not certainty but the belief in certainty"

is not true, I do not have a "belief in certainty" I AM CERTAIN, about many things. Now, you can say that I am WRONG, but I AM CERTAIN (as opposed to you, I honestly have not gotten you to answer the question of "Do YOU know anything?")

Thank you for explaining IIRC, BTW.:toast:

But I'm afraid that they've grown on me.

Honestly, I thought that I had answered your question already, but if it got lost in my verbosity, I apologize. Here it is, and I hope you don't think that I'm equivocating:

I know nothing for certain. I accept some things with a great deal of confidence.

I don't care if everyone else in the world disagrees with me. Many people (not you, I grant) are "certain" that the soul exists; many are "certain" that the mind exists separate from the body; many are "certain" that moral absolutes are real and comprehensible by finite entities such as ourselves.

If they can't convince me that their certainty is justified, then intellectual honesty compels me to remain unconvinced and uncertain.

philosophically; I am not wishy-washy; I KNOW things. You do not. Fine.:hi:

Here are my criteria (which, I remind you, you have not yet provided for proving false your "there is no god" assertion):

1. Give an example of something that you "know" for certain.
(you've already done this)

2. Explain how you know that you are certain about it
(you haven't done this)

3. Explain how you're qualified to judge an absolute truth
(you haven't done this)

4. Explain how your certainty differs from strong-but-not-mathematically-certain confidence
(you haven't done this)

Once you've provided these, we'll talk.


Your "certainty" versus my "wishy-washiness" makes me John Kerry to your George Bush, by the way...

Nice ending statement there.

2. I am certain because I not wishy-washy; if everything points to a conclusion, I make it. Go for the "we can never know anything" schtick. I don't care.

3. Everyone is qualified to judge; its why (most of us) have brains.

4. Confidence means you have doubts, which you obviously are full of; I have no doubts on many issues.

As I said in the other reply I, am going home. I don't see that we have anything to talk about, you know nothing (by your own admission), I know things.

Have a nice day!:hi:

2. I am certain because I not wishy-washy; if everything points to a conclusion, I make it. Go for the "we can never know anything" schtick. I don't care.

That's circular reasoning and therefore logically unhelpful. If your certainty is based in such fallacies, then you should really reconsider it.

3. Everyone is qualified to judge; its why (most of us) have brains.

No finite entity is qualified to judge absolutes. Those of us who have brains are qualified to assess empirical data, but these should not be mistaken for indicators of absolute certainty.

4. Confidence means you have doubts, which you obviously are full of; I have no doubts on many issues.

Confidence is the position of intellectual honesty. Certainty and lack of doubt are indicators of a closed mind.

As I said in the other reply I, am going home. I don't see that we have anything to talk about, you know nothing (by your own admission), I know things.

It's fairly clear that you lack even a basic knowledge of logic. I am becoming strongly confident that you are nearly illiterate.

Granted in your scenario you can prove me incorrect, but that is only because it has a time scale. You can say "We'll wait and see who is right in the morning." If the argument was a simple as, "I'll prove to you God exists, because tomorrow the heavens will open up and Jesus will come down to walk among the world again." Then... yes that can be proven incorrect if it doesn't happen.

HOWEVER, if you had said - and this is the equivalent to what is being argued - that the sun will NEVER rise in the West and will ALWAYS rise in the East then you would be arguing from a fallacious standpoint. Why? Because you cannot assert that something that is true now will always be true. I can argue that Giant Aliens will arrive in our solar system on space ships as large as our moon. Those aliens have the ability to circumvent physics and some unknown time in the future those aliens will make the sun rise in the west rather than the east. You cannot prove me wrong. Yes, the evidence would be in your favor, but you could never with 100% certainty say that those giant aliens would never come.

That is the equivalent of what is being argued.

you just don't like my certainty. If I am ever PROVED to be wrong, then I will admit it, but in the meantime some things come so close to being certain that I, for one, say that they are.

There is a difference between having an open mind, and having a mind like a sieve. As a practical matter, EVERYONE on the planet makes LOTS of assumptions every day! The sun will rise in the East. The red light means stop. Morning means time to get up and go to work. Or do you not do these things? Maybe you should start blowing through red lights at all times; it MAY not mean stop next time:eyes: . Maybe you should stop going to work at the normal time, I am SURE that your job will be held while you PROVE that there are no facts to KNOW with 100% certainty (like that fact that you need to be at your job at a certain time with regularity). :eyes:

It's that we don't accept that you, as a finite entity, are qualified to make statments of 100% certainty.

YOU , as opposed to Meldread. I don't multitask well, let me talk to you separately, 'k?

And it's a mistake to dismiss an argument just because someone other than your primary debate opponent offers it.

that I can not be 100% certain:eyes: , whatever, I AM TELLING you that I AM 100% certain. That leaves you two choices; you can CALL ME A LIAR when I TELL you that I AM 100% certain, or you can admit the fact that I am telling you that I am 100% certain.


On the COMPLETELY different, but seemingly related point of certainty, you can say that I am right to BE certain because it is the factually correct position, or wrong to be certain because it is the factually incorrect position; but I reject your attempt to say that I CAN NOT BE CERTAIN, because I am. Duh.

That leaves you two choices; you can CALL ME A LIAR when I TELL you that I AM 100% certain, or you can admit the fact that I am telling you that I am 100% certain.

That's the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument for the divinity of Jesus, and I have never heard an atheist invoke it in his own defense before.

Wow.

A third possibility, which you've conveniently omitted, is that you truly believe that you are certain but are incorrect. That is, you'll recall, what I've asserted elsewhere already.

Regarding your "COMPLETELY different" point, you also omit another possibility. I assert that you are wrong to claim certainty because you lack sufficient justification for that assertion. Your re-assertion of it is irrelevant and frankly no more logically sound than "am too, am too."

So now you can read minds, and tell me what I am thinking! Whatever.:eyes:

"A third possibility, which you've conveniently omitted, is that you truly believe that you are certain but are incorrect"

If I believe I am certain, I AM CERTAIN. I'm TELLING you I am certain. You are telling me that, no, I do not know MY OWN (not your) thinking, that I am not certain.

Way to call me a liar! LOL!

Learn some logic. I am done with you. I am going home for the day.

To the best of my awareness, I have not claimed--even implicitly--to be able to read your mind. Instead, I am evalutating your arguments, such as they are, and replying to them.

Belief in one's certainty is not the same as being certain, just as belief in one's correctness is not the same as being correct.

If you assert that you are "certain" of something, then you are not asserting belief. If you assert that you "believe" that you are "certain," then you are asserting a belief. You are doing the latter. Over and over and over again.

I'm not calling you a liar, by the way. I am telling you that your assertion lacks sufficient justification for me to accept it as true.

It's that simple, really.

It is rather pointless to use logic and reason on someone who rejects them both instead wishing to rely on their faith. Having this argument is the equivalent of arguing with a fundamentalist Theist, who when confronted with the same logic and reason, recoils into the realm of what they "believe".

I think he understands what you are saying, but either lacks the ability to admit that you are correct or is afraid to admit that you are correct. In conceding to your points, which are well reasoned and logical, he thereby admits that he could be wrong. This, of course, is the problem with fundamentalist thinking.

I believe I would love to see a study on the minds of fundamentalist people. Why does the human mind, when so obviously capable of logic and reason, sometimes choose to embrace something that may be incorrect with such vigor even when confronted with something that is counter to what they believe?

You did an excellent job on arguing the points Orrex, much better than I have done. I think you perhaps understand what I have been trying to say better than anyone else, or at least you've done so well at articulating it that it has lead me to that conclusion. I agree with you on all the points you have made throughout this entire thread.

I would certainly like to see Strong Atheist in a debate with a Strong Agnostic Theist. I would be willing to fill the role if Strong Atheist is willing to accept the challenge.

but since you asked ... His "logic", and I use the term rather loosely, was as follows:


ME: I am telling you, I AM CERTAIN.
HIM: You ARE NOT CERTAIN.

ME: Look, if I tell you I am certain, and you say that I am not, you are calling me a liar.
HIM: You ARE NOT CERTAIN, and I AM NOT calling you a liar.


Oh yeah, great "logic" there.... NOT!:eyes:

In addition, he is saying nothing can be known, and no one can be certain of anything. Great logic!

As for your challenge, sure. Lets start a new thread, how about in AA. Just don't duck my questions like orrex does....

Here's how I would sum it up:

YOU: I am telling you, I AM CERTAIN.
ME: Your assertion is insuffient justification for me to accept your claim of certainty, which implies a correctness-of-knowledge that you have not yet demonstrated.

YOU: Look, if I tell you I am certain, and you say that I am not, you are calling me a liar.
ME: Yet again, you are omitting a third possibility (ie., the fallacy of the false dichotomy). Namely, that you are mistaken rather than "certain" or "a liar." It is my view that you are honestly mistaken. It is not my view that you are a liar.

If you dispute my rephrasings, please articulate your reasoning. If you persist in your claim that I've called you a liar, please indicate the post in which I made that accusation.

going on here, that may be causing trouble.

1. Certainty.

2. Correctness (or truth, or "right", or whatever other synonym you want to use).

It is possible to be CERTAIN about something, but be wrong as far as I am concerned. Many people throughout history have been certain about all sorts of things; many were wrong, some were right. I, and all other people willing to stand on the god(s) exist/don't exist issue can be certain of our position while still being wrong. In fact, since I am CERTAIN that there are no god(s), and there are believers who are equally CERTAIN that there is at least one god, one side by definition has to be wrong.:evilgrin:

I'd have to say that comes pretty close to what I think on the matter.

But I still think the generic term "atheist" covers most of those subgroups. If you have an active belief in a god, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Centuries ago Christians got to define an atheist as someone who (intentionally and actively) DISbelieves in god, and I reject their definition.

I also think, and this ties into ignosticism, that it is perfectly logical and consistent to make a strong atheistic claim about any god which is illogically or inconsistently defined. If "god" is defined as a square circle, I can positively state that there is no such thing.

It seems like a nicer way to put it. After all who wants to be considered weak or negative. :) I think most atheists are probably weak atheists, realizing that it's pointless to try to prove that god or gods don't exist.

But I like the simplicity of just plain atheist. Agnostic defines what you know, not what you believe as az would say. Either you are a theist or an atheist.

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
- Isaac Asimov

I would actually put it on some type of scale. On one end you have the Theist and on the other you have the Atheist. Both make claims of being absolutely correct. In the middle you have the varying degrees of Agnostics.

Yes, I also believe that the majority of self-proclaimed Atheists are Agnostic Atheists because they realize that they can never prove their claims. Certainly the evidence is in favor of the Atheist being correct, and thus the most logical conclusion is to be an Agnostic Atheist. However, faith does not require logic it only requires belief and that is why an Atheist will be forever doomed to prove to a Theist that they are correct. They are arguing from two different points of view. The Atheist argues from a logical standpoint and the Theist from an emotional standpoint.

Atheist: "I do not believe there is a God, because I cannot find evidence that one exists. Physics does not require the existence of a God."

Theist: "I believe God exists because I feel it in my heart. When my mother died I felt comforted by God, and that's how I know God exists."

You see? Both are arguing from two different points of view that never once intersect. If the Atheist is intellectually honest he must admit that he cannot (at least not currently) disprove the existence of God. In doing so, he becomes an Agnostic Atheist and puts the burden of proof on the Theist. The Theist must then begin to argue using logic to prove the existence of God if she wishes to convince the Atheist.

In doing that the Theist will inevitably reach the conclusion that she cannot prove the existence of God. The Theist may still maintain their belief in God, but will be forced to admit that it cannot be proven. This then makes, by definition, the Theist an Agnostic Theist. The same is true for an Atheist who tries to DISPROVE the existence of God with absolute certainty. Yes, the evidence is in favor of the Atheist but if the Atheist is intellectually honest with himself he must acknowledge that what he is trying to prove can never be completely proven to be correct. In doing that the Atheist then becomes an Agnostic Atheist.

I would see it as a scale:
Theist-----Agnostic Theist-----Varying degrees of Agnosticism-----Agnostic Atheist-----Atheist

You still are either an atheist or a theist. Yes you can qualify that belief, but it seems like fence sitting a bit. I think you are an atheist. If someone asks me what sex I am, I say that I am male, not a handsome male, even if it's true. :)

But I appreciate your reasoning as to how to present the argument, who to place the burden of proof on. Yes, I am an agnostic atheist too.

I might fit pretty well into the Agnostic Theist camp, mostly because I believe that the totality of God's existence is impossible to know, and we may be totally barking up the wrong tree in regards to God.

Pascal's is a sucker bet.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

--IMM

The intro:
--and then the Atheist's wager:



That's way too reasonable to ever be accepted by a fundie. They need a fire under their asses and gold plated virgins above in heaven.
:evilgrin:

I believe that the human mind is a product of evolution.

I believe that all gods and religions are a product of the human mind.

I don't pretend to be able to prove either of these assertions, they are simply positive statements of my beliefs, based on the available evidence.

That's why I call myself an Atheist.

This is not a trivial question.

Your theory of "atheism" limits your explorations to the "available evidence."

There are many aspects of reality that exist outside the domain of currently "available evidence."

Historically, imagining the viewpoints of omnipotent beings has allowed people to expand the boundries of available evidence. In a similar way, the exploration of "pure" mathematics sometimes leads to a better understanding of the physical universe.

Many startling advances in information technology -- in the actual hardware that brings you these words -- arise from mathematics that was not based on "available evidence" but upon the manipulation of imaginary symbols. It was the creation of the machine itself that later proved this math had a practical value; the existence of the machine itself that solidified this imaginary symbolism into "availible evidence."

Fundamentalist Atheist: There is no God, and anyone who thinks there is a God is a misguided and dangerous fool.

Evangelical Atheist: It is not sufficient that there is no God. We must do our best to make sure that nobody even believes that there is one.

Theological Atheist: The principles of logic demonstrate the absence of any omnipotent and omniscient being in the universe.

Adolescent Atheist: Since I am a teenager, I know everything, and I know there is no God. The fact that many adults think that there is a God proves my case.

Scientific Atheist: There is no God because I cannot create a falsifiable hypothesis concerning His existence.

Social Atheist: Well, everyone I know and respect is an atheist, so there must be something to it.....

Campus Atheist: I need attention, and also to feel important, and I can get these things by being obnoxious about the existence of God.

Politically Correct Atheist: God has a consistent history of discrimination on gender, racial and cultural grounds, therefore must be banned from existing.

Closet Atheist: There are no good reasons for believing in God, but what harm can there be?

Lethargic Atheist: Religion is such a hassle, why bother?

Paranoid Atheist: Religion - sounds like another conspiracy, along with the aliens, the dolphins and the CIA - they’re all out to get me!

Nihilistic Atheist: Life has no point, and the existence of a god would invalidate this, so it is obviously not true.

Puritanical Atheist: We shall smite the evil believers in nonsense, and continue our purge until not one theist is left alive...

Philosophical Atheist: I don't believe, therefore I am.

are essentially compatible with each other, standing in stark contrast with the compatibility of all the varieties of religion.