Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.***[W:1682]****

[Daisy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

It wasn't my analogy it was Elvira's, you are changing the parameters to try to win an argument that no one is engaged in. I will allow you to drift so far but, I'm not that desperate to show you are pretty much wrong about everything you have posted in this section. You are assisting others in that task very ably.

But you were the one making the comparison, which MrWonka pointed out was an incorrect comparison...so yes, you are desperate...

 

[William Rea]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

But you were the one making the comparison, which MrWonka pointed out was an incorrect comparison...so yes, you are desperate...

I made no comparison.

You incorrectly stated that driving a car was done on blind faith, I disagreed. I presented the fact that insurance companies can predict losses and make a profit as evidence that we can have justified belief about our safety when driving a car. Justified belief is by definition NOT blind faith!

You lose.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I made no comparison.

You incorrectly stated that driving a car was done on blind faith, I disagreed. I presented the fact that insurance companies can predict losses and make a profit as evidence that we can have justified belief about our safety when driving a car. Justified belief is by definition NOT blind faith!

You lose.

Uh huh...:lamo

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

And yet the word agnosticism didn't exist until the late 1800's when some philosophers invented it.

Ooookay... that doesn't change anything at all. But thanks for the info.

Agnostic atheism exists and is a popular school of thought.

Yes, I know.

However, merely having an entry in Wikipedia doesn't prove that the idea is consistent. For example: Wikipedia has an entry on Dialetheism, a philosophical position which claims that human beings can violate the Law of Non-Contradiction at will, with no consequences whatsoever. Its adherents literally claim that there are "true contradictions" and "false tautologies." Now, I think it's an interesting intellectual pursuit, and we should not take the LNC for granted. But it's also a failure. Anyone who seriously believes that "it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths" is throwing a rod, and I have no problems pointing it out.

So:
• Either you know, or you don't know.
• Either you can know, or you can't know.
• You can be conflicted, you can be undecided, you can move between positions. But that doesn't justify a claim that the "you can know" and "you cannot know" are mutually exclusive
• Anyone who says "I know AND I don't know" is obviously just contradicting themselves.

It is much more likely that these individuals are just conflicted, and don't know how to (or don't want to) say "I don't think we can know, but my guess is that theism is wrong." E.g. they should say "agnostic with a lean" or "open-minded atheist" or "theist with serious doubts."

I have no problems whatsoever pointing out the inconsistencies in the views of others. In fact, that is a downright routine approach to intellectual discussions. That's pretty much how these discussions work.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Uh huh...:lamo

Your resorting to absurd emoticons and zero content response is accepted as your acknowledgement of defeat on this point.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Your resorting to absurd emoticons and zero content response is accepted as your acknowledgement of defeat on this point.

Not defeat at all...just recognizing some explanations are over your head...

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Please listen carefully and understand....

Sorry dude, but I've extensively explained my position, including reams of responses to that very claim.

More to the point, I have no interest in treating a declaration by fiat as a valid form of argument.

If you want to construct an actual argument, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, have a nice day.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Sorry dude, but I've extensively explained my position, including reams of responses to that very claim.

More to the point, I have no interest in treating a declaration by fiat as a valid form of argument.

If you want to construct an actual argument, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, have a nice day.

You too.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Not defeat at all...just recognizing some explanations are over your head...

Really? So explain why you declare driving a car to be an act of blind faith? Here's what you said...

Not true...every time you get on the highway you take it on blind faith that everyone else will stay in their lane and not hit you...most things you do in everyday life are done on blind faith...

That every one will stay in their lane is an expectation based upon blind faith? Explain that.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

It wasn't my analogy it was Elvira's,

Her analogy had to do with driving a car and taking it on blind faith that nobody will hit you. Her analogy was terrible.

I was responding specifically to your rebuttal of her analogy which was equally terrible and missed the point entirely.

She's wrong, but you're doing a horrible job of demonstrating it.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Her analogy had to do with driving a car and taking it on blind faith that nobody will hit you. Her analogy was terrible.

I was responding specifically to your rebuttal of her analogy which was equally terrible and missed the point entirely.

She's wrong, but you're doing a horrible job of demonstrating it.

No, I destroyed it with evidence that we do not have blind faith that we will not be hit by showing that people can make money from NOT having blind faith.

Follow the money.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

No, I don't think you understand the agnostic position. The idea that someone would claim they could never under any circumstances know is ludicrous beyond the pale. That is not at all what agnostics believe.

You worry me:

Google:
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Wiki:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]

===============================

So that's the agnostic position that I'm talking about, and that you still don't understand.

but don't pretend one of your silly divisions is true agnosticism,.

See above, it's not my division, and it's not silly. That you don't understand it, is on you, sorry.

Here is maybe a better question for you. What word would you use to describe the person I have asserted is agnostic? A person who simply isn't sure if god exists or not, and has no idea whether they will ever know or not. This person does not seem to fall into any of your catagories.

There are many. Here are two obvious dead ringers:
Ignorant:
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

Looks right doesn't it?
Maybe confused:
lacking clear distinction of elements; jumbled.

False. Only the first of the three statements are illogical. The second and third are perfectly reasonable things to believe.

Oh boy. If you only disagree with one of these, there's your error (again).

A> The existence of god is [unknowable]
B> the existence of god is [unknowable right now]
C> the existence of god is [unknowable now yet may be knowable in the future]

Please show, with evidence from reality that we can independently verify, how you can know B and C. You believe they are perfectly reasonably, so please show what evidence you used to form these "reasonable beliefs". Remember that a justified (true) reasoned belief REQUIRES evidence/observation of reality, so I'm simply asking for something you is necessarily the case...

 

[MrWonka]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

You incorrectly stated that driving a car was done on blind faith, I disagreed. I presented the fact that insurance companies can predict losses and make a profit as evidence that we can have justified belief about our safety when driving a car. Justified belief is by definition NOT blind faith!

Insurance companies predicting accident rates are a terrible rebuttal to her argument. What would be better would be to point out the fact that you wear a seatbelt, and drive a car with an airbag on a road regulated by police with speed limits. If we were will to accept driving a car on blind faith we wouldn't have all kinds of laws and saftey devices designed to save us when that faith was misplaced.

It's kind of like how Christians assume their god will protect them, and yet when they get in a car they still wear seatbelts knowing full well they can't actually rely on God. True believers are the ones who refuse to go to the hospital or vaccinate their children trusting prayer alone to protect them.

Having a backup plan proves you do not truly have faith.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Ooookay... that doesn't change anything at all. But thanks for the info.



Yes, I know.

However, merely having an entry in Wikipedia doesn't prove that the idea is consistent. For example: Wikipedia has an entry on Dialetheism, a philosophical position which claims that human beings can violate the Law of Non-Contradiction at will, with no consequences whatsoever. Its adherents literally claim that there are "true contradictions" and "false tautologies." Now, I think it's an interesting intellectual pursuit, and we should not take the LNC for granted. But it's also a failure. Anyone who seriously believes that "it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths" is throwing a rod, and I have no problems pointing it out.

So:
• Either you know, or you don't know.
• Either you can know, or you can't know.
• You can be conflicted, you can be undecided, you can move between positions. But that doesn't justify a claim that the "you can know" and "you cannot know" are mutually exclusive
• Anyone who says "I know AND I don't know" is obviously just contradicting themselves.

It is much more likely that these individuals are just conflicted, and don't know how to (or don't want to) say "I don't think we can know, but my guess is that theism is wrong." E.g. they should say "agnostic with a lean" or "open-minded atheist" or "theist with serious doubts."

I have no problems whatsoever pointing out the inconsistencies in the views of others. In fact, that is a downright routine approach to intellectual discussions. That's pretty much how these discussions work.

Knowing and believing are two separate things and are not causally linked. You can know and believe, you can know and not believe, you can not know and believe and you can not know and not believe. Any combination is possible and you pretending you can tell other people what they believe or don't believe is silly.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

You worry me:

Google:
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And as I have already stated you're putting to much emphasis on the "can be known" part. The definition of agnostic could include a person who believes nothing can ever be known, but that is not a requirement hence the word "or" being placed before that part of the definition.

Wiki:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural, is unknown or unknowable.

Again, you seem to be skipping the part before the "or." I suppose a person who believes the existence of god to be unknowable could technically qualify as an agnostic, but that is not a requirement. An agnostic is anybody that doesn't believe they currently have enough information to decide whether they might in the future or not is irrelevant. Agnosticism encompasses both the people you claim are gnostic, and those you claim are agnostic, and even more people than that.

So that's the agnostic position that I'm talking about, and that you still don't understand.

No, you don't understand it. You just quoted two definitions that proved your own position to be wrong.

There are many. Here are two obvious dead ringers:
Ignorant:
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

Looks right doesn't it?
Maybe confused:
lacking clear distinction of elements; jumbled.

Both of these terms are used in a general sense they do not revolve around religious belief. In my view both of these words could just as easily apply to Theists given that they are relying so heavily on faith for their belief. They are clearly both ignorant and confused and just hoping it all works out the way they think it will.

B> the existence of god is [unknowable right now]
C> the existence of god is [unknowable now yet may be knowable in the future]

Please show, with evidence from reality that we can independently verify, how you can know B and C.

You don't have to know. That's the point. That's why they are logical and the other is not. Both of these statements are open-ended and leave open the possibility that new information could cause you to change your mind in the future. That is what makes them logical. The first statement claims you can predict the future, the last two recognizes the reality that you cannot.

You believe they are perfectly reasonable, so please show what evidence you used to form these "reasonable beliefs". Remember that a justified (true) reasoned belief REQUIRES evidence/observation of reality, so I'm simply asking for something you is necessarily the case...

No, it does not. Logic will suffice. I can prove that n(n+1)/2 can calculate the summation of all positive integers leading up to n allowing for any integer n. I don't need to demonstrate this by calculating each one up to infinity and observing what happens, this can be proven simply by mathimatical induction.

By the same token it is very obvious that any premise which relies on your ability to accuratly predict the future with 100% certainty to be illogical since there is no rational basis for you to believe you could do such a thing.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I
It is also downright routine to discuss both halves of a contrary pair. If you're going to give a full explanation of the concept of "limited," then at some point you need to discuss the concept of "unlimited." Good luck discussing the concept of "order" without having any implications whatsoever, or wanting to discuss, "chaos." You can't discuss the mathematical concept of "equals" without also discussing "greater than" and "less than." So yes, you can't really discuss the concept of "real" without talking about what it means for something to be "unreal." Especially since there are so many flavors of unreality -- delusions, fictions, myths, no longer in existence, hypotheticals and more.

Argument from your personal routine....that's not persuasive.

And no, how you set up your axioms is one thing.
What statements you make based on those assumptions, are clearly distinct and different. This is trivial stuff.

Real and not real.
Your keyboard is real.
The fictional superhero Superman, is not real.
Seems pretty straightforward, and yet you disagree.

If I talk about the fictional character Superman, I am not talking about reality. I'm talking about a fictional character.
(I am talking about reality in the higher level in that someone drew a fictional person we refer to as Superman, etc., you are not disagreeing with this and yet I feel compelled to include it)

I mean, are you basing this on some underlying philosophy (anti-realism, skepticism, etc/)? In which case let's just take that root issue and debate it instead, all this other stuff is just derivatives. Otherwise it just looks absurd.

We should also note that it is perfectly normal, in these kinds of discussions, to posit counterfactuals that didn't or even can't happen in ordinary circumstances. E.g. if we are comparing a "world with unicorns" and "a world without unicorns," it's normal to just assume for the sake of the discussion that "unicorns can exist." Similarly, zombies don't actually exist, and most rational adults know this, but the creators of Walking Dead have undoubtedly given us their idea of what it might be like to live in a world full of zombies. (And clearly, if such a world did exist, it would be very different than ours.)

Again, argument from what you do normally?
There is nothing "routine" about Intuitionalism, or Formalism, or Epistemology, etc.

It's a bit rude to make me jump through a bunch of hoops about unicorn analogs, because you're so radically inflexible in your ideology that you can't even tolerate the hypothetical existence of a unicorn purely for the sake of a discussion. Don't expect me to do it again.

Either discuss it or not, stop with the huffing and puffing, it serves no purpose.

I introduced the unicorn as an imaginary concept. Why would I tolerate the imaginary being real, it's a contradiction.
If I imagine a box, and I construct a box in reality, the box in my mind didn't magically transform into reality, they are still two distinct things, despite your appeal that you routinely consider otherwise...

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

No, it does not. Logic will suffice. I can prove that n(n+1)/2 can calculate the summation of all positive integers leading up to n allowing for any integer n. I don't need to demonstrate this by calculating each one up to infinity and observing what happens, this can be proven simply by mathimatical induction. By the same token it is very obvious that any premise which relies on your ability to accuratly predict the future with 100% certainty to be illogical since there is no rational basis for you to believe you could do such a thing.

You are literally claiming logic is sufficient, without any appeal to evidence/observation (ultimately) to prove something in reality exists. That's absurd on it's face. Mathematics is not reality, this seems like fundamental stuff.
Claims about reality again, necessarily appeal to evidence/observation of reality. That's what the entirety of science is. You can observe how certain aspects of mathematics are an accurate tool in helping to predict certain real phenomenon...that's using observation of reality + math. It is not strictly using math, big difference.

Since you admit you have no evidence from reality to back your claim, it would seem obvious you are literally "not talking about reality". Which is my point.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

OK, let's list the properties of unicorns. And per my previous post, this is a counterfactual, so I'm going to omit "unreal." If you don't like it, that's not my problem.

Unicorn
• white
• horse-like
• has a horn
• magical
• magically heals people
• likes to fall asleep in the lap of maidens
etc

When we say "unicorns do not exist," why are we saying this? We are applying certain criteria to the world, based on our observations of the world. We don't see any animals or fossils that meet the description. We also often declare that "magical things are not real," which further rules it out. Clearly, in doing so, we are making and relying on statements about the world. We imply that the world can be observed well enough to determine whether an animal like this lives in it. We imply that fossils can be found in the world. We explicitly state that "the world does not have magic in it."

Wow.

I already clearly told you it was imaginary. I already clearly gave you an *entirely* made up example that had no appeal to horses and this other nonsense (that entirely avoids the critical debate point...conveniently?) (Quathlog or whatever nonsense word I used...remember?)

I'll do it again because I care:

"Xhuth" is the name of an imaginary creature that is omniscient, I just made up. Literally, I'm telling you, I made the ****ing thing up.

But tell me how I had to look around the world to figure out that Xhuth is not real, and then weakly state "I don't see any such creature so I can't prove its' real"

You have to be kidding.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

you keep ignoring the option to not pick at all.

OK

1) I believe there are an even number of coins.
2) I believe there are an odd number of coins.
3) I believe there are no coins.
4) I don't know if there are no coins, or an even number, or an odd number.
5) I'm ordering tacos.

It makes no difference. These options are still mutually exclusive. You cannot say "I refuse to make any choice at all AND I know theism is false."

That's exactly what I'm saying. A Christian can admit that she does not know for a fact that God is real (therefore agnostic) but still have faith, which is belief without evidence, and therefore be a Christian. There are also some Christians who claim they do know for a fact.

Uh huh

So, I just want to make sure I've got this straight. In your view, it is logically possible for someone to be so undecided or confused that we accept that person's claim that "I don't know AND I know." or "I don't believe X AND I believe X." Not buying it.

The closest you can get is "I am not 100% sure a god exists, but it is possible, so I'm 25% sure." But that you can't simultaneously be 25% sure ("mostly atheist") and 50% sure ("agnostic"). I.e. switching to a fuzzy-logic evaluation still doesn't license you to hold inconsistent beliefs.

I know of no way to evaluate the existence of a general god. It is possible to eliminate some gods, but not all versions. Therefore I cannot claim to know whether or not a god exists. But I can say I have no reason to accept the proposition. I reject theism, BECAUSE we cannot know. So that is not excluding "we cannot know."

Yeah, there is a small issue with that line of argument.

If you genuinely believe we cannot know, then you have to reject both theism and atheism. At best, in what you write above, you're omitting some criteria that you're applying. Something is telling you that atheism is reasonable and/or the default, and theism is not. Otherwise, you'd treat them equally, and reject both. Your conclusion is affected by some unrevealed criteria.

Compare this to the coin example. "Pinqy claims he has coins on his desk. I can't verify it, because even if I visited his desk, by that time he could change the conditions. I cannot claim to know if pinqy has coins on his desk. But I have no reason to accept the proposition. Therefore, I reject the claim that pinqy has an even number of coins on his desk."

Would any sane person accept that conclusion? Of course not. If I cannot accumulate enough evidence, then I cannot rule out one of the possibilities.

Nor is there much reason to treat theism as advancing beliefs while atheists do not -- as atheists still have contestable beliefs about the world. For example: Realism (the belief that the real world is what we think it is) is, ultimately, an unfalsifiable belief -- you can't actually prove that you are not in The Matrix, or suffering from a delusion, or a computer simulation. By definition, you cannot access any evidence to prove that the world you experience is real. And according to your own stipulations, if you cannot produce enough evidence that "the world I perceive is the real world," then you are obligated to reject that claim, yes...?

 

[Cephus]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

You worry me:

Google:
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Wiki:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]

===============================

So that's the agnostic position that I'm talking about, and that you still don't understand.

On purpose, it's starting to look like. Because no matter how many times we explain, the fundie agnostic crowd tells us we're the ones who are wrong.

Maybe they ought to look in the mirror.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Wow.

I already clearly told you it was imaginary. I already clearly gave you an *entirely* made up example that had no appeal to horses and this other nonsense (that entirely avoids the critical debate point...conveniently?) (Quathlog or whatever nonsense word I used...remember?)

I'll do it again because I care:

"Xhuth" is the name of an imaginary creature that is omniscient, I just made up. Literally, I'm telling you, I made the ****ing thing up.

But tell me how I had to look around the world to figure out that Xhuth is not real, and then weakly state "I don't see any such creature so I can't prove its' real"

You have to be kidding.

The delusional come in all shapes and sizes, I guess.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Really? So explain why you declare driving a car to be an act of blind faith? Here's what you said...



That every one will stay in their lane is an expectation based upon blind faith? Explain that.

The definition of faith, according to the Bible...

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Sound familiar? You have the expectation of not being hit, that is your reality, though not yet beheld...

 

[Cephus]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

The definition of faith, according to the Bible...

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Hebrews 11:1

Sound familiar? You have the expectation of not being hit, that is your reality, though not yet beheld...

Sure, believing things without any good reason to do so, often in direct opposition to available evidence. And you think this is a good thing.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Insurance companies predicting accident rates are a terrible rebuttal to her argument. What would be better would be to point out the fact that you wear a seatbelt, and drive a car with an airbag on a road regulated by police with speed limits. If we were will to accept driving a car on blind faith we wouldn't have all kinds of laws and saftey devices designed to save us when that faith was misplaced.

It's kind of like how Christians assume their god will protect them, and yet when they get in a car they still wear seatbelts knowing full well they can't actually rely on God. True believers are the ones who refuse to go to the hospital or vaccinate their children trusting prayer alone to protect them.

Having a backup plan proves you do not truly have faith.

Not true...God gave us a brain for a reason and He expects us to use it...to test His protection would in itself be wrong...

"The shrewd person acts with knowledge,
But the fool exposes his own foolishness." Proverbs 13:16

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I always find it comical how atheists are often so desperate to show that their's is not a belief. But it is also sad.

What about agnostics?