|
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of an atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of of atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
Exactly what I was going to say except put so much more eloquently.
A lack of belief is not a positive claim.
|
So, why don't you call yourself Nontheist, then? The wording would make more sense. How do you know that you can trust your logic or reason? Some believers say that you are only convinced by something, because you believe it. Knowing that something is true means believing. It doesn't matter if the arguments are reasonable or not.
I don't know if relativism is right or wrong. My instincts tell me that relativism also means that I ought to tolerate the intolerable. However, that doesn't mean, that I would trust my instincts. Reason tells me that if I am probably wrong most of the time, then others are too. Look in the history books. Would you say someone was ever right? I don't know how you ought to judge it, btw. Ethically I am a Singerian. Because traditionally I trust reason more than instincts. But, if this is right or wrong is not possible for me to decide. It's just my best guess.
|
On August 14 2012 21:56 Kukaracha wrote:
The division between negative and positive atheism is flawed, because it suggests that the concept of God has always been there and that as such, "not believing" is a neutral state.
What you're referring to may be more specifically called "implicit atheism", which is an unconscious lack of belief - that is you have never even been introduced to the idea of gods, so you cannot possibly believe in them. It still is a form of atheism. And as I was introduced to ideas concerning gods and arguments for and against their existence, I have consciously formed the belief that "I do not know if god exists, but if god exists, the evidence has not been convincing". So I now have an explicit atheist stance.
Now, you say that you "evaluated the evidence", but what evidence is there? I've had quite a lot of interest in the matter lately and I've never been able to find convincing "evidence" for either sides.
If you're really interested, you should do some research. Just google or wiki "Arguments for God's existence" or "Arguments Against God's Existence" sometime.
Example arguments for God's existence:
* Cosmological Argument (first cause, unmoved mover, etc)
* Ontological Argument (argues by definition)
* Teleological Argument (watchmaker argument, argument from design, argument from improbability, intelligent design, etc)
* Argument From Reason
Example arguments against God's existence:
* Problem of Evil (for definitions of god that include omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence)
* Perfect Creator Problem (for definitions of god that includes perfection)
* Other than that, it comes down to lack of empirical evidence as well as lack of logical arguments to believe in god (and is the reason I consciously do not hold belief in a gods existence).
|
On August 14 2012 22:05 Ludwigvan wrote:
So, why don't you call yourself Nontheist, then? The wording would make more sense..
Read lyerbeth's response above. I'm fine with my position being considered "nontheist", I just do not choose to identify with it since pretty much no one has heard of the term. Like if I was given a survey on my religious beliefs, there would not be an option for "nontheist". I disagree it "makes more sense", since atheism and nontheism mean the same thing. Nontheists can also be atheists who positively assert that is no god afterall. However, it may be less confusing due to some old dictionary definitions of atheist specifically stating rejection of gods existence. Fair enough.
How do you know that you can trust your logic or reason? Some believers say that you are only convinced by something, because you believe it. Knowing that something is true means believing. It doesn't matter if the arguments are reasonable or not.
You really should read Thomas Nagel's book Last Word! Here's another great summary of my response by Nagel (man am I glad I saved a text file back from when I used to argue this stuff all the time lol):
-----------
If someone responded to every challenge to tea-leaf reading as a method of deciding factual or practical questions by appealing to further consultation of the tea leaves, it would be thought absurd. Why is reasoning about challenges to reason different? The answer is that the appeal to reason is implicitly authorized by the challenge itself (my emphasis), so this is really a way of showing that the challenge is unintelligible. The charge of begging the question implies that there is an alternative--namely, to examine the reasons for and against the claim being challenged while suspending judgment about it. For the case of reasoning itself, however, no such alternative is available, since any considerations against the objective validity of a type of reasoning are inevitably attempts to offer reasons against it, and these must be rationally assessed. The use of reason in the response is not a gratuitous importation by the defender: It is demanded by the character of the objections offered by the challenger. In contrast, a challenge to the authority of tea leaves does not itself lead us back to the tea leaves.
-----------
Back to your response...
I don't know if relativism is right or wrong. My instincts tell me that relativism also means that I ought to tolerate the intolerable. However, that doesn't mean, that I would trust my instincts. Reason tells me that if I am probably wrong most of the time, then others are too. Look in the history books. Would you say someone was ever right? I don't know how you ought to judge it, btw. Ethically I am a Singerian. Because traditionally I trust reason more than instincts. But, if this is right or wrong is not possible for me to decide. It's just my best guess.
Keep searching and exploring. You'll eventually come to some "tentative answers" to differing degrees of certainty (that may change when introduced to new arguments or new evidence).
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of an atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
Thank you for clarifying what I've been trying to for a while here :D
I feel like the point of my post has devolved into debating semantics endlessly. Though I guess there isn't too much to say about my blog post since it really was just me reflecting on my earliest memories of conscious skepticism towards gods existence and how that led me to critical thinking and so on...
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This example is flawed in its core, because of two reasons :
- It is a matter of decision, not a matter of opinion, and thus...
- ... the third choice is absent.
A fixed example : "is this color blue?"
- "It is."
- "I do not know."
- "It is not."
The philosophical current that uses atheism and agnosticism as two different layers of analysis deals poorly with deism and is based on this two-choices system, which as I just stated is fallacious. Opinion is not action.
On August 14 2012 22:23 EscPlan9 wrote:
What you're referring to may be more specifically called "implicit atheism", which is an unconscious lack of belief - that is you have never even been introduced to the idea of gods, so you cannot possibly believe in them. It still is a form of atheism. And as I was introduced to ideas concerning gods and arguments for and against their existence, I have consciously formed the belief that "I do not know if god exists, but if god exists, the evidence has not been convincing". So I now have an explicit atheist stance.
See above.
"Unconscious lack of belief" is an absurd position, in the sense that... it makes no sense. You cannot doubt something that does not exist in your own paradigm.
On August 14 2012 22:23 EscPlan9 wrote:If you're really interested, you should do some research. Just google or wiki "Arguments for God's existence" or "Arguments Against God's Existence" sometime. Example arguments for God's existence: * Cosmological Argument (first cause, unmoved mover, etc) * Ontological Argument (argues by definition) * Teleological Argument (watchmaker argument, argument from design, argument from improbability, intelligent design, etc) * Argument From ReasonExample arguments against God's existence: * Problem of Evil (for definitions of god that include omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence) * Perfect Creator Problem (for definitions of god that includes perfection) * Other than that, it comes down to lack of empirical evidence as well as lack of logical arguments to believe in god (and is the reason I consciously do not hold belief in a gods existence).
As you said, neither of those is satisfying. How can we give a definitive and certain answer and yet claim it as "rational", when it is merely an intuitive opinion?
|
On August 14 2012 23:17 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This example is flawed in its core, because of two reasons : - It is a matter of decision, not a matter of opinion, and thus... - ... the third choice is absent. A fixed example : "is this color blue?" - "It is." - "I do not know." - "It is not." The philosophical current that uses atheism and agnosticism as two different layers of analysis deals poorly with deism and is based on this two-choices system, which as I just stated is fallacious. Opinion is not action.
You're moving from a belief claim to a knowledge claim.
I believe this colour is blue:
-"It is"
-"I haven't seen it/don't know"
-"It is not"
Two of those in assessing the belief claim do not believe the colour is blue.
The fact that opinion is not action is exactly why not believing in God is not always a positive claim. That can be backed up and reasoned which is an entirely different measurement to asking only what someone's stance is on the belief claim.
I think EscPlan doesn't want us to discuss the semantivs in this thread though, so whilst I'd happily discuss further in PM, I won't address it further here, though I understand if you want to respond to it here first too to get the same chance to explain your position.
|
haha, great. The fixed example is much more logical. In a jury you want to protect the alleged murderer, so you say he is not guilty. But you mean, that you don't really know sometimes. well done, Kukaracha!
|
My mom also participated in those AOL dial up internet chat rooms, but she was discussing the difference between her husband and the guys on the chat room. Often i'd wake up to blood sporadically on the carpet, but nothing like the morning my dad read her messages over her shoulder. He picked up the tower of the computer and threw it at her as hard as he could. It hit her just above the eyebrow and knocked her unconscious and when I found her pale laying there in the morning with a pool of her own blood soaked into the carpet, I knew god existed.
God Bless You and your quest, my fellow TLer.
|
My bad.
Arguments against the existence of god usually focus on the definition of God, so if you change the definition you can worm out of i, but then a christian god doesn't exist.
I strongly agree with reading up on those things 
|
I was an atheist but over time but I found that agnosticism is the best position in regards to the supernatural. Firstly, atheism is the opposite of theism which has a couple of problems. Atheism is an assertive position which doesn't suit a skeptic, it acknowledges the opposite position and sounds like i'm against something. However as an agnostic i'm not against god and not even condescending as my intellectual sphere is limited to a box about the concept of god dusting away in the "i don't know apartment".
Secondly the agnostic has no obligation to either proof or disproof as often theists or atheists are. It's a neutral position with no ideological baggage, it's not controversial to disclose and enjoys respect from through most people in the a][theist spectrum.
Thirdly it's the most honest position because of the core values drawn from a noble scientist and the cool attitude of skepticism.
|
|
|
this pretty much describes exactly why the notion of a god that watches over us and judges us is absurd
edit reuploaded
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MnXoH.jpg)
|
^ Yes that is the Problem of Evil in one of its oldest forms. It only pertains to certain definitions of god as I mentioned. The most common response is God gave humans free will. Then there are counter-objections (such as natural disasters, presupposing we truly have free will, etc), and counter-counter-objections, and counter-counter-counter-objections and so on. Its worthwhile to do if you haven't before, but I'll pass on engaging in it for now and just say although I believe the Problem of Evil is a strong argument against certain definitions of gods, it does not disprove the existence of gods in general.
You can continue to debate semantics in here if you would like, but I will be opting out. I'll check in occasionally to see if there's discussion I feel like responding to.
|
It's pretty comical that people like Platinga still try to come up with arguments for the existence of God when every single form of such inanity always falls short and more penetratingly, misses the point. I honestly think that all attempts at this stupid question just reveals that these people are just really insecure about their faith.
|
On August 14 2012 23:30 Iyerbeth wrote:
You're moving from a belief claim to a knowledge claim.
I believe this colour is blue:
-"It is"
-"I haven't seen it/don't know"
-"It is not"
Two of those in assessing the belief claim do not believe the colour is blue.
The fact that opinion is not action is exactly why not believing in God is not always a positive claim. That can be backed up and reasoned which is an entirely different measurement to asking only what someone's stance is on the belief claim.
I think EscPlan doesn't want us to discuss the semantivs in this thread though, so whilst I'd happily discuss further in PM, I won't address it further here, though I understand if you want to respond to it here first too to get the same chance to explain your position.
I wasn't clear enough : in my example, all three are unsure of the color as I imagined it halfway between blue and green. :p
But to put it more simply, let's say the question is "do I have keys in my pocket?" I could very well have them or not, there is no way for you to know. As such, the most logical answer is that... you don't know.
To say that in this example, two people do not believe there are keys in my pocket is a fallacious claim often used by proselytist atheists. How can the person who doesn't know... not believe that there are keys in my pocket? If it were so, than wouldn't his answer not be "I don't believe you have keys in your pocket"?
The trap here is the negation. A negation is a positive claim, unless you consider that the object in question is naturally absent from the world (or that absence is the neutral ontological state, which is a nonsensical proposition). If you do so, than you're clearly biaised. Note that the interrogative form of the question is also neutral, whereas most ocurrances use a biased start such as "God exists", which is a positive claim and thus a terrible way to start asking questions.
I won't even expand on the comparison between knowledge and belief, but to be brief, what we call "knowledge" are mostly beliefs. In fact, while we might gather knowledge inside our axiomatic system, keep in mind that the axioms are by definition believed and fundamentally unprovable. I'd say that the difference between knowledge and belief is very, very small.
On August 15 2012 00:14 OptimusYale wrote:My bad. Arguments against the existence of god usually focus on the definition of God, so if you change the definition you can worm out of i, but then a christian god doesn't exist. I strongly agree with reading up on those things
The more accurate the cult, more skepticism it should draw!
|
I knew my head would explode after reading a few pages of this thread, as it is with every other religious debate, yet I still opened it because I enjoy reading well constructed arguments.
I reject faith in an omnipresent, omniscient, absolute being but I try to respect those that do believe. Whatever floats your boat, right?
|
I wasn't clear enough : in my example, all three are unsure of the color as I imagined it halfway between blue and green.
But to put it more simply, let's say the question is "do I have keys in my pocket?" I could very well have them or not, there is no way for you to know. As such, the most logical answer is that... you don't know.
To say that in this example, two people do not believe there are keys in my pocket is a fallacious claim often used by proselytist atheists. How can the person who doesn't know... not believe that there are keys in my pocket? If it were so, than wouldn't his answer not be "I don't believe you have keys in your pocket"?
The trap here is the negation. A negation is a positive claim, unless you consider that the object in question is naturally absent from the world (or that absence is the neutral ontological state, which is a nonsensical proposition). If you do so, than you're clearly biaised. Note that the interrogative form of the question is also neutral, whereas most ocurrances use a biased start such as "God exists", which is a positive claim and thus a terrible way to start asking questions.
I won't even expand on the comparison between knowledge and belief, but to be brief, what we call "knowledge" are mostly beliefs. In fact, while we might gather knowledge inside our axiomatic system, keep in mind that the axioms are by definition believed and fundamentally unprovable. I'd say that the difference between knowledge and belief is very, very small.
This just isn't...true at all.
The question is: do I believe there are keys in your pocket? If I have no idea whether or not keys are in your pocket, how can I answer "yes" to that question? I can't. The answer is neither "I do believe there are keys in your pocket" nor "I believe there are no keys in your pocket. The answer is, "No, I do not believe there are keys in your pocket".
|
But your disbelief is positive, unless you're implying that a neutral state is one where I don't have keys in my pocket.
It's a very simple grammatic fallacy. Because the english language doesn't usually use the term "disbelieving" (and even that word is not the exact opposite of "believing"), most automatically assume that believing is the only positive state and that negation is a negative claim by nature - which is nonsensical since they are two opposite answers to a neutral inquiry.
But since the original state is a state of neutral ignorance, then both claims are positive as they defend a new position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
