EPTMoral Law and Christian Humanism - Page 3
| Blogs > MtlGuitarist97 |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 13 2013 11:09 Roe wrote: I don't know about anyone else but I see the two of you guys in agreement Things we plausibly disagree about: (1) Whether 'atheism' is commonly used in the way I tend to use it. (2) Whether it's possible to be an agnostic atheist on my reading of 'atheist' (3) Related to (2), whether knowledge is a norm of belief (i.e., whether you should only believe what you know) | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
The problem I have having is that you are equating a lack of belief in God with the belief that there is no God, when they are different. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
edit: Adding to the list above, it's possible we also disagree about: (4) Whether believing P requires being certain of P, i.e., having a subjective degree of belief of 1. This would probably also be a verbal dispute, but one in which I'm clearly right. | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On December 13 2013 11:26 Myrkskog wrote: How individuals choose to define the word atheist or agnostic or Christian or theist is entirely up to them. If the people you are referencing define atheism as a belief that God does not exist, then who am I to argue what they choose to call it. Considering how muddled debates over God(s) can become, I prefer to remove as much ambiguity as possible. The problem I have having is that you are equating a lack of belief in God with the belief that there is no God, when they are different. If everybody chose to define their words on their own with no regard for what people think those words mean, then on aurait bin dla misère a scomprendre mon chou. The entire point of language is communicating stuff. If I say I'm an atheist meaning I don't subscribe to any religion and the other person assumes it means I worship Satan, then we have an issue. That's why people tend to preface the terms that they use before arguments, to avoid ambiguities. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
Level 1: Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung (IQ=160), ‘I do not believe, I know.’ Level 2: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’ Level 3: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’ Level 4: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’ Level 5: Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘’I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.’ Level 6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’ Level 7: Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’ From who I've talked to and what I've seen being a very active member in the Atheist community. The overwhelming majority of Atheists are level 6. To be a level 7 Atheist is really just as arrogant and silly as a full blown believer. Given the current definition that mainstream Religion speaks about as "God" it's really impossible to be certain of the existence of this concept, it is outside and intertwined with our reality.......... apparently lol. However, if anyone literally just starts learning about the sciences and looks at the nature of reality with an open mind. I guarantee they're likely to find the entire concept of God a ridiculous fantasy. Which it is. P.S. A LOT of people have the definition of Atheism completely wrong. Atheism isn't there belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s). There is a huge difference. One that a lot of people apparently can't discern. That goes for believers as well, to be Religious or to be an Atheist is a Level 2 (3) and a Level 6 (5). When you reach Level 1 or Level 7 you're past the definition and into the realm of arrogant stupidity in the face of reality. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
In any case, that's not the only area where this chart is confused. Throughout, the chart treats epistemological questions as though they were the exact same thing as questions of degree of belief. Hence, at level 5 we get the claim that someone with a degree of belief a bit lower than .5 must be agnostic, even though a person's degree of belief says very little about whether they take the relevant proposition to be knowable. If you're going to make a scale of atheism out of degrees of belief then you should avoid using the word 'know' in any of the definitions. Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 14 2013 17:52 frogrubdown wrote: Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing. To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:39 Incubus1993 wrote: To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis. I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something. Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be. If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:51 frogrubdown wrote: I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something. Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be. If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term. It isn't my chart, Richard Dawkins made it (I'm pretty sure) and put it in his book. I think I copy pasted one of the levels twice it was really late last night when I posted it  . Sorry for the mistake.http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins scale To put it in a simple analogy; My absence of belief in God (and many Atheists alike) is like me being a non-volleyball player. I don't learn and practice to be a non-volleyball player lol. (Don't take the contrast between the concept of God(s) and the actual sport of volleyball seriously ). | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 15 2013 05:29 Incubus1993 wrote: It isn't my chart, Richard Dawkins made it (I'm pretty sure) and put it in his book. I think I copy pasted one of the levels twice it was really late last night when I posted it . Sorry for the mistake.http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins scale To put it in a simple analogy; My absence of belief in God (and many Atheists alike) is like me being a non-volleyball player. I don't learn and practice to be a non-volleyball player lol. (Don't take the contrast between the concept of God(s) and the actual sport of volleyball seriously ).I understand the difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that your/Dawkin's own chart says that atheism is the latter. No one from level 3 on down has a high enough degree of belief to count as believing in God. So if you really defined 'atheism' as not believing in God, everyone level from 3 on down should be labeled an 'atheist'. But that's not what the chart says. Only the people with strong enough degrees of belief that God doesn't exist are labeled 'atheists'. In short, the chart uses 'atheist' the same way I do, not the way you do. I don't know if Dawkins thinks the chart uses 'atheist' differently than it actually does. But at the very least the chart would embody his confusion of epistemic issues with questions of degrees of belief, as I discussed earlier. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 15 2013 05:36 frogrubdown wrote: I understand the difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that your/Dawkin's own chart says that atheism is the latter. No one from level 3 on down has a high enough degree of belief to count as believing in God. So if you really defined 'atheism' as not believing in God, everyone level from 3 on down should be labeled an 'atheist'. But that's not what the chart says. Only the people with strong enough degrees of belief that God doesn't exist are labeled 'atheists'. In short, the chart uses 'atheist' the same way I do, not the way you do. I don't know if Dawkins thinks the chart uses 'atheist' differently than it actually does. But at the very least the chart would embody his confusion of epistemic issues with questions of degrees of belief, as I discussed earlier. It uses it the same way I do though. Levels 5 & 6 both say they cannot be certain but are skeptical and think that God does not likely exist. They aren't claiming to know God doesn't exist like the arrogance of level 7. All the reputable Atheists I'm aware of are level 6's. (The Four Horsemen of New Atheism). You can still lack belief like all Atheists do and still think of God's existence as unlikely. The probability of God's existence is INDEPENDENT of what any one believes. It's the same thing as me saying that the Sun will stop rising (or the Earth will stop rotating more appropriately) because I believe it will be that way if I somehow don't see it. Reality isn't dictated by what anyone believes, hopes or imagines. An Atheist is likely best defined as someone who has looked at all the knowledge and evidence Humans have gathered about reality and thought "hey, this whole concept of God is silly." I agree with the misuse of theist and atheist in Level's 1 and 7. They may have been used just because of the convenience of their description. I'd be willing to argue that Level 6 & 7 shouldn't share the label of Atheist. Their difference is simply too large. (Believing there is no God and absence of belief). As great as it would be to be absolutely certain like level 7 we simply can't in these circumstances which is why you'd look like an all-knowing prick to be a Level 7. While on the opposite spectrum the difference simply isn't as large because the Religious are striving to reach Level 1, or at least their authorities encourage them too. Jesus Christ, this sounds like a video game now haha. I've reached Level 6 wooh lol! | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
My overall point is simple: (1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists.[1] (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you. Which premise do you deny? edit: [1] level 3 itself is a possible exception to this, but I don't need it for my point. The chart also doesn't count 4/5 as atheist even though they clearly don't believe in God. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 15 2013 06:05 frogrubdown wrote: I really don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God, then you say that level 7 shouldn't count as atheism even though people at level 7 clearly do not possess a belief that God exists. Which is it? My overall point is simple: (1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists. (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you. Which premise do you deny? I completely agree. While Level 7 clearly doesn't possess a belief that God exists just as the 2 preceding Levels, it makes the claim with total certainty that God does not exist while it is simply impossible to know given the definition and attributes that have been collectively ascribed to God. Therefore Level 7 should not be grouped with Atheism because it is disrespecting one of the most important universal values that most Atheists hold; Evidence. In the face of the evidence and understanding we have of God, a Level 7 believer (believing there is no God) believes they know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. It can be argued what values Atheism holds but scientific values seem to be extremely common. Do you understand my point? (I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way if it comes off like that). As for the list; I agree it uses Atheism in the wrong way only for Level 7 though. Everything above level 4 on the list explicitly says they are leaning towards the belief in God. Which means they do believe to some %. All of those %'s are above the 50% of agnosticism which is NOT an absence of belief at all. This isn't a case of black and white all or nothing. That's the purpose of this scale, to show the degrees. Now I bring up my point once again; It is completely possible to have an absence of belief which is what Atheism is, while still believing/thinking God does not likely exist (not to be confused with does not exist) because God's existence is 100% independent of what any one believes. Believing there is a low probability of God does not impede upon the absence of belief because the belief itself it irrelevant. Everyone will die one day regardless of what they believe. The Earth is a tiny pebble in the cosmos regardless of what anyone believes. God either exists or doesn't regardless of what anyone believes. Beliefs do not influence anything in reality except the behaviours of the holders. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 15 2013 06:27 Incubus1993 wrote: I completely agree. While Level 7 clearly doesn't possess a belief that God exists just as the 2 preceding Levels, it makes the claim with total certainty that God does not exist while it is simply impossible to know given the definition and attributes that have been collectively ascribed to God. Therefore Level 7 should not be grouped with the majority of Atheists because it is disrespecting one of the most important universal values that most Atheists hold; Evidence. In the face of the evidence and understanding we have of God, a Level 7 believer (believing there is no God) believes they know that God does not exist. It can be argued what values Atheism holds but scientific values seem to be extremely common. Do you understand my point? (I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way if it comes off like that). As for the list; I agree it uses Atheism in the wrong way only for Level 7 though. Everything above level 4 on the list explicitly says they are leaning towards the belief in God. Which means they do believe to some %. All of those %'s are above the 50% of agnosticism which is NOT an absence of belief at all. This isn't a case of black and white all or nothing. That's the purpose of this scale, to show the degrees. Now I bring up my point once again; It is completely possible to have an absence of belief which is what Atheism is, while still believing/thinking God does not likely exist (not to be confused with does not exist) because God's existence is 100% independent of what any one believes. Believing there is a low probability of God does not impede upon the absence of belief because the belief itself it irrelevant. Everyone will die one day regardless of what they believe. The Earth is a tiny pebble in the cosmos regardless of what anyone believes. Etc. Beliefs do not influence anything in reality except the behaviours of the holders. I don't know what you think I've been arguing, but it can't be what I've actually been arguing since you keep bringing up points I've never disputed. First, you return to your insistence that level 7 is unreasonable. When have I ever claimed otherwise? I'd have to have the terms precisified to give a firm pronouncement on it but it sure sounds unreasonable. But I fail to see how that at all contradicts the only thing I've claimed about it, namely, that it counts as atheism under your definition. Then, you say once again that there is a difference between believing God doesn't exist and not believing God exists. It is a mystery why you think I need the lesson. Almost every one of my double digits worth of posts here has pointed to that distinction. Don't try to out-hipster me on this, because I brought it up way before it was cool. Then you say some stuff about death which also has nothing to do with any of my claims. If you want to know what my claims actually are, just look at the numbered argument I gave in my last post. I'm stating no more and no less than what is contained there. So if you have a problem with my claims, argue against one of those numbers, and please state which one. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 15 2013 06:53 frogrubdown wrote: I don't know what you think I've been arguing, but it can't be what I've actually been arguing since you keep bringing up points I've never disputed. First, you return to your insistence that level 7 is unreasonable. When have I ever claimed otherwise? I'd have to have the terms precisified to give a firm pronouncement on it but it sure sounds unreasonable. But I fail to see how that at all contradicts the only thing I've claimed about it, namely, that it counts as atheism under your definition. Then, you say once again that there is a difference between believing God doesn't exist and not believing God exists. It is a mystery why you think I need the lesson. Almost every one of my double digits worth of posts here has pointed to that distinction. Don't try to out-hipster me on this, because I brought it up way before it was cool. Then you say some stuff about death which also has nothing to do with any of my claims. If you want to know what my claims actually are, just look at the numbered argument I gave in my last post. I'm stating no more and no less than what is contained there. So if you have a problem with my claims, argue against one of those numbers, and please state which one. Eveything I just said rendered points 2-7 completely false, just because I didn't label the exact number before each point I made doesn't mean they are somehow invalid lol. You seem competent enough to know which ones I'm talking about that's why I didn't label it out. It's all in order any ways. I didn't say all those things as direct responses to anything you specifically said. they were just supporting sentences for my claims which once again render your points of 2-7 as false. However you didn't tackle any of the points I made in that so I'm guessing you don't have any counter arguments. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
| ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 15 2013 07:53 frogrubdown wrote: What are you talking about? I don't even have a premise (7), so I hardly see how my points (2)-(7) could be false. And no, I don't see any arguments in anything you've written that directly address any of my actual premises. I would need to discover these before coming up with "counter arguments". Sorry it I made a small mistake. That's fine though ignorance is bliss I guess. It's impossible to teach someone when they're unwilling to learn. I should know better than to waste my time with people on the internet like this. I'll save my energy for the people in real life I meet. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 15 2013 07:59 Incubus1993 wrote: Sorry it I made a small mistake. That's fine though ignorance is bliss I guess. It's impossible to teach someone when they're unwilling to learn. I should know better than to waste my time with people on the internet like this. I'll save my energy for the people in real life I meet. So I guess that means you're not sorry, as you made a large number of large mistakes rather than a single small one But you're right, this is a waste of time for both us. | ||
| ||
