STer

Atheism is the negation of theism. It's not a difficult word to parse. The amount of times people have to explain over and over and over what they mean by "atheism" to others who then say they thought it meant something different, leading to hours of debate over just what the word means says to me that it is actually quite difficult for people to parse. In addition, people "negate" theism to varying degrees and those degrees matter, especially those who completely negate it vs. those who only partially negate it. Hence why I think I've probably said literally a dozen times in just this thread alone that the person must define what they mean by "God" when expressing their estimate of how likely it is to exist. Without that definition first, nothing else means much. So we simply ask them what definition they are expressing a belief about. Sure that definition is one of the ones we can ask about. Not the only one, but one. You have described yourself, in relation to that definition, as a 0%'er. You may not like it or agree with them, but the world is full of people who would give varying %'s as to the likelihood of that God existing. It's irrelevant how wrong you think they are. The point is the diversity in their belief. And I think there is a big difference between someone who says there is a 0% chance vs. a 1% chance, and between both and someone who says 50% or 100%. You may disagree with that too. I find them to be telling differences. Each shows a very different approach to the question and probably says a lot about how that person thinks. And we can learn even more if we ask why they assign the % they do. But instead for some reason people seem hell-bent on bringin up words like "atheist" and "agnostic" that, like it or not, demonstrably cause layers of confusion and lead the entire discussion down a road where the meanings of those words gets talked about so much that we lose sight of the original point of the discussion - discovering each other's beliefs about God's potential existence (rather than each other's beliefs about what certain words mean). I'm not sure what math you're talking about. I simply stated the fact that for any definition of God you can offer, different people have different % levels at which they believe the probability of its existence lies. No math involved. Just a factual observation of what people report about their beliefs.

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief. The term atheist refers to a person who has certain beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Of course whether someone believes one thing or another on an issue of this sort is irrelevant to whether it's the case. It does, however, affect the world. People's beliefs motivate how they act and interact with others. So their beliefs, whether accurate or not, are very important and that's why we try to understand who believes what. The percentage points refer to someone's estimate of how likely they believe it is that God exists. It is their opinion (which is all there is to go on). It has nothing whatsoever to do with any objective probability. My point is simply that it's a lot more precise to find out exactly how likely a person believes it is that a certain defined version of God exists than to group them into a few emotionally loaded, often manipulated, confusing verbal categories. The fact that people still need to make videos over and over explaining what these terms mean should show how poor a system it is. I think the percentage points would be a lot harder to confuse. "X% is how likely I think it is that a God - defined as such and such - exists."

That is true, and most refreshing! Most people have a problem with labels, they don't want to offend anyone so they don't want to be labeled 'Atheist'. You don't have a problem with that, and I congratulate you for that! And again we're off focused on the semantics rather than the beliefs. The #'s are what matter. Moncaloono is saying he believes there is a greater than 0% chance of a God (however he is defining that, which he can explain) existing. While you may say this falls into the atheist category, it differs from other atheists who would claim there is a 0% chance of that same God as he defines it existing. Therefore, the word atheist is not specific enough to distinguish between these groups. We need two different labels for these two groups (0%'ers vs. Greater than 0 %'ers). It's a difference that matters since it shows a lot about how a person thinks about knowledge in general. Or, as I keep pointing out, we could stop wasting our time confusing ourselves with words and just use the #'s directly. Moncaloono is a X %'er where X is more than 0. Others are 0%'ers. If I know the number, I really couldn't care less what verbal label someone puts on it. I can't understand the commitment to always reverting back to confusing verbal labels as anything more than a desire to make something more confusing than it has to be.

Atheist, agnostic. And posted a video which touches on the even finer distinctions in these terms. As I said, saying "I don't possess a belief in X" doesn't really tell me anything. It's really a meaningless statement until you tell me what that means to you. Does it mean you think it doesn't exist? What does it mean to "lack a belief in" something? This whole topic so often comes down to defining terms. And in this case we need to define what "lacking a belief" means. This is the point where it starts to get very frustrating because I am not exaggerating, we must have said around 10 times in this thread that we must first define exactly what we're asking about, God in this case. Not only that, but we've already repeatedly been through this thing where I've pasted from previous posts in the same thread to show someone yet again who was saying you have to define things that that's been a given all along. When the same point keeps being made over and over in the same thread and yet people continue to respond as if it wasn't said, it becomes almost pointless to continue. Yes it is a given that when you ask someone for their estimate of a % likelihood that something exists, you must define that thing. There it is again. How many more times can that be repeated? The "you must define the thing about which you are asking" response can now be retired from the thread once and for all as it is completely agreed upon. I don't know why you're talking about utility exactly. When you ask someone about these things, all you're doing is trying to learn about them. What other utility could there be? Unless they are in some position of power and you're trying to assess their competence or something, you're basically just learning about another person's views. Isn't that utility enough? As for the word "believe" it has nothing to do with whether it has utility or not. I'm just saying that, as with other terms, "believe" and "lack of belief" also call for definition. When you ask someone "How probable do you believe it is that God exists?" you not only need to define God, but you probably should define "believe" too. If their answer is "I lack a belief in God" then you probably need to define what a "lack of belief" means. Weathermen differ on which models they choose to trust. So their beliefs are relevant to how they forecast. This is why not all forecasters give the same predictions. With your 3 group model, the second group is a broad group. Those who believe God is a self-refuting concept would be 0%ers. But those in group 2 who say the claim is irresolvable could fall anywhere on the spectrum other than 0 and 100%. The people in the third group are just choosing not to bother thinking about it. But pressed or forced into an answer, they would probably differ a lot on their % too. So the point is we have a wide spectrum of views going on.

That's why it's so important to go beyond logic and reason and study psychology and defense mechanisms, since resistance usually comes more from the latter than the former. One of the reasons I enjoy Stef's work is that he combines these and understands very well that irrationality comes from a deep place that can't be reached by logic alone.

Is it correct to classify an absence of belief as a belief? Is it correct to say that Atheists themselve define "God," or do they simply use the definitions given to them by theists? Years ago I identified as an agnostic. I did not have such a belief. As an agnostic, the probability that I assigned to the existence of "God" was N/A or irrelevant. I feel this video captures a good deal of what is being discussed here: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk:400:300] You're just reinforcing yet again why I don't even like debating using the words. They do nothing but create unnecessary confusiong. I'd rather people classified themselves as "0%'ers" or "20%'ers" or whatever, depending on the probability they assign to there being a God. If you want to say absence of belief is not belief so the % is N/A then my reply would be that saying you have an absence of belief tells me nothing useful at all because what does it mean to lack a belief? Does it mean you believe there is a 0% chance that thing exists? Or does it mean you believe there is a 40% chance but since that means it's 60%likely that it doesn't exist you say you lack belief (going with the side you deem more likely)? What it really points out is that when you get into the %'s you quickly learn that there is more than one thing going on in some of these groups we try to classify using single words, so no wonder we get confused. And by just going directly to the %'s, that can be sidestepped. It seems to come back to defining what "believe" means, as I'm getting at here. What is the threshhold above which you believe something and below which you say you lack a belief? That probably differs for different people. So I'd rather know the %'s. If you ask the weatherman "Do you believe it's going to rain tomorrow?" and he says "I lack a belief that it's going to rain tomorrow." then you might reply "OK why do you lack a belief that it will rain? Because it's definitely not going to? Or because you just think it's unlikely." If he said "N/A" you'd call that a copout and ask him for more information, mostly in the form of a "chances of rain." Same goes here with "predicting" (not quite the right word but you get the point) whether there is a God or not.

Seems like you are talking about beliefs. Beliefs might or might not have anything to do with reality. I haven't seen any proof about the existence of god in any of anyone's posts so far. The only thing I see from you is talk about personal preferences. "Some people think god exist with 100% certainty. What do you think the certainty is?" etc. None of these beliefs are based on scientific evidence, but about opinion. Once you make a claim that god exists you have left the realm of opinion and entered in the world of testable fenomenon. If I make a claim that rocks fall at the speed of 9.81 m/s^2 then that hypothesis is testable. We can drop a rock and see how it behaves while it falls. "Rocks fall at the speed of 9.81 m/s^2 is a testable hypothesis and a scientific claim. That's what most people here are expecting you to show us. A test on the basis of which we could conclude if god exists or not. If it's not testable then it's not a scientific claim, but you are rather arguing an opinion. Some definitions that we could start with: Quotes from STer Schemantics seem to be the starting point of any debate. If we can't agree on the meaning of words then it's equivalent us trying to have a debate while the other one speaks Klingon and the other one speaks Egnlish - Neither one is going to understand what the other one is trying to say. Of course we're talking about beliefs. I've said over and over that the question is "What do you believe is the probability that something [in this case God] exists?" And then you must define what that thing is that we're asking about. Atheism and agnosticism are of course beliefs. Atheists believe there is 0% chance that God exists [as they define God]. Agnostics believe there is a probability greater than 0%. Neither of these tells us the reality, just their beliefs.

I think that's a valid distinction. I think anyone that subscribes to the viewpoint of statism starts with the proposition that states are necessary for civil society, and that that proposition is a "zombie idea." I don't agree with that though. For example, there are people who work for the state that want there to be a state because it benefits them. They may not believe it's necessary. Some may even think it's harmful but just not care. There are people who support states for different reasons, not all of them because of the benefits they think it has for society as a whole. Okay, but that's not the primary point, that's the secondary point (the primary point being the last few words of the last sentece of my previous post). But let's change "anyone" to "some amount greater than 0% and less than 100%" in my secondary point and that should clear that up :-). I think the zombie idea is that there is any one form of social structure that everyone on earth has to have, especially some very extreme hierarchical one. So you don't think the state is an extremely heirarchical social structure that (most) everyone believes we need for no justifiable reason? I think if some people want to have an extremely hierarchical structure for their own situation and reasons with consent of everyone involved, they should have that. I think the problem comes in when people think everyone everywhere has to have any one structure. It's really this idea that there is any one-size fits all solution that's a problem. When that one-size fits all is extremely hierarchical, this is even more of a problem.

I think that's a valid distinction. I think anyone that subscribes to the viewpoint of statism starts with the proposition that states are necessary for civil society, and that that proposition is a "zombie idea." I don't agree with that though. For example, there are people who work for the state that want there to be a state because it benefits them. They may not believe it's necessary. Some may even think it's harmful but just not care. There are people who support states for different reasons, not all of them because of the benefits they think it has for society as a whole. Okay, but that's not the primary point, that's the secondary point (the primary point being the last few words of the last sentece of my previous post). But let's change "anyone" to "some amount greater than 0% and less than 100%" in my secondary point and that should clear that up :-). I think the zombie idea is that there is any one form of social structure that everyone on earth has to have, especially some very extreme hierarchical one.

I think that's a valid distinction. I think anyone that subscribes to the viewpoint of statism starts with the proposition that states are necessary for civil society, and that that proposition is a "zombie idea." I don't agree with that though. For example, there are people who work for the state that want there to be a state because it benefits them. They may not believe it's necessary. Some may even think it's harmful but just not care. There are people who support states for different reasons, not all of them because of the benefits they think it has for society as a whole.

Did you read the thread at all? I must have said 5 times in just this thread that you must define it. For example, from the very start in this post: "What do you believe is the probability that there is a God? (of course, providing whatever definition of God you want to know someone's belief about)." Ah, now it's full circle. If sociopathy is determined by genetic disposition, and genetic disposition is determined by the omnipotent creator, then sociopathy is caused by the omnipotent creator, and therefore human judgement on such an outcome is impossible. After all, we cannot know the mind of God. There it is all wrapped up in a neat little bow. Thanks STer, for making it clear. Perhaps now people will get it: DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLLS. That may be the single most absurd package of misquotes I've seen yet. But I'll take your advice and say no more.

Given this definition, I "Statism" sounds like a zombie idea.. thoughts? Statism isn't a "proposition" exactly. There are many propositions about states that one can make. Some may be true, others false. Statism is a viewpoint held by someone who wishes there to be a state. But that doesn't tell us why they want there to be a state. So I'm not sure I'd call statism a zombie idea, per se. But there are certainly zombie ideas related to statism.

Did you read the thread at all? I must have said 5 times in just this thread that you must define it. For example, from the very start in this post: "What do you believe is the probability that there is a God? (of course, providing whatever definition of God you want to know someone's belief about)."

Even if you take that stance, it's still interesting the way they sometimes reinforce each other and sometimes are against each other in different times and places. It's a complicated interplay.

That's what I've been saying all along. Reasonable certainty. What level is reasonable? That depends on the situation. In some, it's 50%, in some it's 95%. But I don't think we can have 0 or 100%. That's all. Yes we make decisions on reasonable certainty, not total certainty.

I don't reject or deny it. I simply say "I don't know for sure" pretty much like Socrates said. Not only did he say it but he recognized that being aware of that is the pinnacle of wisdom. Obviously many here disagree with him on that and that's fine. i agree with him on it. Agree or disagree, you can't claim I'm not in some good company in this view. Not that I believe it because he believed it. I've simply come to share that belief with him. I am used to a world that appears to have non-contradiction - at least at the scope and scale in which I live my life - and so I live it on an everyday basis as if that's the case. But when you get into discussions of the ultimate nature of reality, I simply won't go that far as to say I know for certain. Nor do I see any need to.

Since you can't seem to accurately quote me I don't think there's much point continuing this. We can agree to disagree. I think people who read the thread can see that you're not accurately quoting me.

I didn't say there is no truth. I said humans can't have 100% certainty about that truth. As for the rest, when have I disagreed? I'm the one who said that when discussing God we should ask "What % probability do you think there is that God exists?" and that you must define God. You always must define. I've been saying that all along. And people have said, that things that by defintion have excluding properties can't be said to exist, to which you replied, they might anyway. So if you insist on a definition, but then don't adhere to that definition I don't see a way to still call that a debate. If you define what a cirlce is and what a square is. And by definition they have properties that can't be shared, but you claim, they could be shared anyway, then you're ignoring the definitions given. But I slowly think you use the word "truth" very differently than a lot of people here. Could you maybe explain what you mean with that? And if you're at it maybe give a short explanation what you mean with "certainty" how it is gained, and by what standard you measure it? Maybe that would clear thigns up a bit Again, according to your ideas, Socrates wasted his whole life doing philosophy. He said that he knew NOTHING. That includes not knowing if contradictions can exist. He didn't say "I know nothing except the properties of identity are consistent." He knew nothing. I feel the same as him. And I don't think that precludes the purpose of debating things and trying to find out as much as we can. If you do, then you do. I feel like Socrates did that we can spend a lifetime doing philosophy despite our uncertainty. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say there is no truth. I said humans can't have 100% certainty about that truth. As for the rest, when have I disagreed? I'm the one who said that when discussing God we should ask "What % probability do you think there is that God exists?" and that you must define God. You always must define. I've been saying that all along.

I am really surprised that even a couple people think you must have total certainty to do anything. I understand the desire for certainty. But to think certainty is a necessity? First someone is acting like without 100% certainty there's no reason to wake up in the morning. Now you're saying there is no point debating without total certainty? You are debating probabilities, what is most likely. I think one thing is most likely. You think another is most likely. We both might be wrong and if we're smart we realize this. But we make our best case as to why that's the bet we should place. I haven't contradicted anything. Everything I say comes with the caveat that I might be wrong, but I'm making my best case. I think that's true of any wise person. You might be familiar with perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time, Socrates. He said the following, and I wonder if you'd give him the same response you're giving me and tell him he should have quit philosophy since it's pointless for him and if the other person would say he shouldn't have bothered getting out of bed in the morning: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

This is a philosophy site. I am discussing philosophy. It calls itself the largest philosophy conversation in the world. Surely you aren't saying that only people with one certain view are welcome here. This site also is full of people who care passionately about many of the same things I do - health, virtue, improving the world. Some of us simply differ to some extent on what is the best way to achieve these things. There are plenty of people here with different epistemologies from each other. In fact, I'm not even the one who started this thread. The person who started it was asking a question that revealed they basically seem to share my epistemology. I came into the thread to lend support to that person's view. So I'm not even alone in this thread, much less on this forum. In fact, in my initial post on the forum, I even refer to another thread that was part of what inspired me to post here where yet another person raised issues very similar to my view. In fact, I'm not sure I've started many threads at all. Many of the threads I've written in were threads that already involved people who shared my views. So there are quite a few of us here who share these viewpoints. Are our views not welcome here? I'm sorry if you don't find value in my posts. There are people whose posts I don't find much value in either. But I've also received messages from people who did find value in them and there have been few threads where I'm alone in my viewpoint. Other than that, you might want to read my very first post on the forum and you might learn more about what brought me here from that. As for your sports analogy, I don't think I'm playing baseball amongst football players. I think we're all playing baseball. But there are different philosophies even within baseball. Some teams believe in focusing on pitching. Others focus on speed. Others focus on power. Different managers have different approaches, even though they're all playing the same sport. Finally, though, I think your post brings up one important point that I've raised a few times here. Is this really a philosophy site? Or is this now a site focused on one particular strategy: reducing child abuse through environmental measures (and only that)? If it's the latter, then that should be specifically stated and it should be set up as some sort of advocacy group. If it's a philosophy site, then there should be no problem with people of various views discussing.

Yes, even in diabetes. And I understand that it's not in the interest of mainstream scientists. Their goal is not to find the truth. Their goal is to research. Useful does not mean "providing every possible answer." It means providing some answers that help us manage better. Any diabetic will tell you they are very grateful we didn't use your logic and ignore the biological factors until all environmental factors were eliminated. Because if we had, they may not even be alive. I hope we don't follow your logic when it comes to studying violence and aggression either. I also think your statement about scientists is a stereotype. It may be true of many. But there are some scientists who seek truth. Some have done so at great sacrifice to themselves and even when other work would have been far more lucrative.

I find it very interesting in either direction. It shows that the relationship between the State and religion can be quite complex.

And for millenia people had no evidence that bacteria existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only if you can be 100% certain that contradictions can't exist in our universe. I don't believe I can be 100% sure of that. I'm confident enough that I place my bet on it as best I can in my everyday life. But if someday I found out that there's some entirely other metaphysical thing going on and it does involve contradictions existing, would it really be any more shocking than what an ant would feel if it suddenly had the ability to comprehend even a fraction of what humans take as obvious? I guess I just have a healthy dose of humility about humanity's ability to comprehend reality. Depends what you mean by entertaining it. If you mean spending a lot of time concerning yourself about it, even if you granted a small chance it existed, that still might not merit spending much time on it. If you mean simply conceding it's possible when the conversation comes up and then going about your life, I think you should entertain it because it's more intellectually honest in my view. Yum!

So here you have an example of the state protecting people from the abuses of religion. Interesting.