Don't atheists need to have absolute knowledge in order to be atheists?

[STer]

 

STer: Your behaviour and epistemology kind of begs the question: What are you doing here then?

If you have an epistemology that is obivoulsy so different from what is used here to debate, then your behaviour is about the same as if you would be a baseballplayer going onto a football field full of people playing football and then complaining that no one knew the rules of baseball or used them to play football and on top of it all calling the player irrational for playing football instead of baseball.
So far I hardly ever saw a post of any value to the debates you were in, and your behaviour is often in contradiction to the claims you're making, so really, what are you doing debating here? What possible motivation could you have for doing that?

 

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.

 

[TheRobin]

you seem to have utterly missed my point: Your epistemology makes debates impossible (since there's no certainty, what are we debating about aside from personal preferences, which by definition are neither true nor false, so there's no debate possible (as debate involves correction in regards to a standard (a standard which according to your epistemology doesn't even exist)).So, even according to your own standards, you're not discussing philosophy, you're not even having a debate with people, you're simply acting in complete contradiction to your own assumptions and utterly ignore that even when it's pointed out.So, again, what possible puropse would that have?

[STer]

 

you seem to have utterly missed my point: Your epistemology makes debates impossible (since there's no certainty, what are we debating about aside from personal preferences, which by definition are neither true nor false, so there's no debate possible (as debate involves correction in regards to a standard (a standard which according to your epistemology doesn't even exist)).

So, even according to your own standards, you're not discussing philosophy, you're not even having a debate with people, you're simply acting in complete contradiction to your own assumptions and utterly ignore that even when it's pointed out.

So, again, what possible puropse would that have?

 

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."

[TheRobin]

I never said one needs 100% certainty to debate, I said one needs a clear standard.If you don't have a clearly defined standard (which you always adhere to) in a debate, then it's not a debate, but mere opinion-slinging.If your standard of truth is that "ultimately nothing is certain and there is no truth" then debating about truth is by your own definition not possible and debating becomes impossible and self-contradictory.Even with probabilities, if you don't clearly define what 100% is, then talking about probabilities doesn't mean anything.

[STer]

 

I never said one needs 100% certainty to debate, I said one needs a clear standard.

If you don't have a clearly defined standard (which you always adhere to) in a debate, then it's not a debate, but mere opinion-slinging.
If your standard of truth is that "ultimately nothing is certain and there is no truth" then debating about truth is by your own definition not possible and debating becomes impossible and self-contradictory.

Even with probabilities, if you don't clearly define what 100% is, then talking about probabilities doesn't mean anything.

 

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.

[TheRobin]

 

 

I never said one needs 100% certainty to debate, I said one needs a clear standard.

If you don't have a clearly defined standard (which you always adhere to) in a debate, then it's not a debate, but mere opinion-slinging.
If your standard of truth is that "ultimately nothing is certain and there is no truth" then debating about truth is by your own definition not possible and debating becomes impossible and self-contradictory.

Even with probabilities, if you don't clearly define what 100% is, then talking about probabilities doesn't mean anything.

 

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

[STer]

 

 

 

I never said one needs 100% certainty to debate, I said one needs a clear standard.

If you don't have a clearly defined standard (which you always adhere to) in a debate, then it's not a debate, but mere opinion-slinging.
If your standard of truth is that "ultimately nothing is certain and there is no truth" then debating about truth is by your own definition not possible and debating becomes impossible and self-contradictory.

Even with probabilities, if you don't clearly define what 100% is, then talking about probabilities doesn't mean anything.

 

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.

[TheRobin]

so you say you find it important to define things and the refuse to define things.That at least proofs my claim that you don't really care about truth or debating, regardless of what you claim in regards to these matters.

[STer]

 

so you say you find it important to define things and the refuse to define things.

That at least proofs my claim that you don't really care about truth or debating, regardless of what you claim in regards to these matters.

 

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.

[Arius]

True and false are only mutually exclusive because of the law of non-contradiction.  If you reject non-contradiction, there is no basis for making rational claims.

[STer]

 

True and false are only mutually exclusive because of the law of non-contradiction.  If you reject non-contradiction, there is no basis for making rational claims.

 

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.

[Arius]

If you don't accept the law non-contradiction as axiomatically true, there is no basis for making rational claims.  A equals A, A does not equal not A.  It cannot be any other way.

[Rick Horton]

This all seems really weird to me because since this is a philosophy forum it should NEVER close its doors on a person who has a different possible way of looking at philosophy. 

[Rick Horton]

And I have to tentatively say that Ster has a very good point. You can say there can be no existing contridiction, but that's a pretty big claim, and I'd like to be shown that there are absolutely no contridictions in nature before I totally buy into the non contridiction theory. The non contridiction theory has the claim, so the theory must meet a pretty big bar to prove that claim. If even a couple of contridictions exist, it fails.

[TheRobin]

 

And I have to tentatively say that Ster has a very good point. You can say there can be no existing contridiction, but that's a pretty big claim, and I'd like to be shown that there are absolutely no contridictions in nature before I totally buy into the non contridiction theory. The non contridiction theory has the claim, so the theory must meet a pretty big bar to prove that claim. If even a couple of contridictions exist, it fails.

 

The problem is not in that reality might not end up being really weird and maybe even allow for things to exist that we now presume to be impossible. Say if it turns out that something which we'd call a circle would turn out to also be a square in some respect then that wouldn't show that there in fact exist square circles, but merely that the label of "circle" was incorrectly applied to begin with.

BUT if the language we use to communicate should have any meaning then the definition can't change on the spot or on the whims of an individual. Thus if you define a circle to be a circle, you can't then claim that it might also not be a circle whenever you wish it so, because if you do that you make language and claims become meaningless, thus practically exiting any dialogue you could have with other people about reality, truth and all those nice philosophy thingies

so saying stuff like "there can't be a square circle" simply implies that there IS in fact a defintion of the words "square" and "circle", which doesn't change whenever we want it to. and if someone would then go on and say that "but there MIGHT be square circles anyway" what they're really saying is that "circle" and "square" no longer means "circle" and "square" and that they do not wish to have a meaningful dialogue based on actual language and words that have meaning.

Also saying "contractions might exist" makes no sense, since contradiction implies a claim according to which an thing or attribute exists and does not exist at the same time and respect. so saying "a contradiction exists" would be saying "a thing, which exists and doesn't exist, exist without not-existing", but of course if it simply exists without at the same time not-existing, then it's no longer a contradiction, so the claim "contradictions exist" can by definition never have any meaning and thus never be true.

[Rick Horton]

Things only become proven once I prove them. Until then they are statements that I either accept or don't. I accept things based on what seems to fit in with the confinements of reality. Contridictions seem not to exist in reality, therefore I accept that contridictions in reality prove to be very problematic. I see contridictions as tools to rule out nonsense. If there is a contridiction then there is nonsense, apparently. So far this has been the case in every single instance in the reality I'm aware of so I stick with it. I will go that far without a problem.

[TheRobin]

 

Things only become proven once I prove them. Until then they are statements that I either accept or don't. I accept things based on what seems to fit in with the confinements of reality. Contridictions seem not to exist in reality, therefore I accept that contridictions in reality prove to be very problematic. I see contridictions as tools to rule out nonsense. If there is a contridiction then there is nonsense, apparently. So far this has been the case in every single instance in the reality I'm aware of so I stick with it. I will go that far without a problem.

 

Well, the moment you define something using contradictory properties, the claim becomes literally meaningless. Which means you can't verify or falsify it anymore (as no one knows what is talked about or described, therefore nothing could even hypothetically be tested).

I was incorrect in saying contradictions don't exist. in order to make such a statement the term "contradictions" would need to actually describe something that could be said to either exist or not exist, but it doesn't even do that.
If something exists or doesn't exist, it's no longer a contradiction. That's like saying if something is either blue or red it can no longer be called green (assuming it only has one color).

[Rick Horton]

That sounds about right.

[Alan C.]

You can say there can be no existing contridiction, but that's a pretty big claim, and I'd like to be shown that there are absolutely no contridictions in nature before I totally buy into the non contridiction theory. The non contridiction theory has the claim, so the theory must meet a pretty big bar to prove that claim. If even a couple of contridictions exist, it fails.

Why is it a big claim to say that contradictions don't exist? A contradiction is, ipso facto, false. Why do you need to be shown that no contradictions exist in nature?

Do you apply the same rigid standard of proof to all other claims in your life, or do you make decisions based upon reasonable certainty?

There isn't a fine line between being thorough and being foolish.

Submitting research for peer review is being thorough.

Claiming something like, "We can't be certain that 2+2=4 because 2+2 might equal 5 somewhere else in the universe," is being foolish.

[Rick Horton]

Not at all. I don't require the same level of proof for situations I'm involved in every day. But when it comes to a HUGE claim, the evidence required is also HUGE.

[Formelyknown]

People getting sick was a good reason to start searching for the cause. We found out bacteria and virus was the cause.

What reason I have to start searching for the cause. God is the that thing that suppose to be the cause witbout even trying to search. Where i should point my telescope or micoscope that show  even an indirect effect of god. Some planets was a good answer for some strange gravitational observation. Yes I can say God doesn't exist because nothing create the starting point for it existence.

And no, the beginning or the why of existence is not a good reason to come up with an hypothesis of God.

[STer]

 

 or do you make decisions based upon reasonable certainty?

 

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.

[NotDarkYet]

What are gods?

 

It seems silly to talk about the percentages of somethinge existing...if that something is not defined at all. 

 

Of course there is a chance that (X) exists if you dont define (X).

[STer]

 

What are gods?

 

It seems silly to talk about the percentages of somethinge existing...if that something is not defined at all. 

 

Of course there is a chance that (X) exists if you dont define (X).

 

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)."

 

[KyleG]

 

 

Let me ask you, is there anything which doesn't exist?

 

According to science, the universe is unlimited therefore there is probability that enything exists.

 

What do you mean by "according to science"?

 

According to science, the universe is unlimited therefore there is probability that enything exists.

 

universe is a word which refers to the set of all stuff.

universe is a concept, it does not have physical form.

So the universe is actually itself an example of something that does not exist.

 

According to science, the universe is unlimited therefore there is probability that enything exists.

 

Do you include 0% as a probability?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

What are gods?

It seems silly to talk about the percentages of somethinge existing...if that something is not defined at all. 

Of course there is a chance that (X) exists if you dont define (X).

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

 

What are gods?

It seems silly to talk about the percentages of somethinge existing...if that something is not defined at all. 

Of course there is a chance that (X) exists if you dont define (X).

 

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.

[suomipoi]

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.

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:

An opinion, whether it is grounded in fact or completely unsupportable,
is an idea that an individual or group holds to be true. An opinion does
not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's
own personal feelings, or what one has been taught.

 

 

An argument is an assertion or claim that is supported with concrete,
real-world evidence. Many people confuse or lump the two terms because
they cannot recognize the difference between evidence and reasons. In
this case, reasons are typically associated with 'feelings' or commonly
accepted ideals, while evidence is associated with measurable, objective
truths or realities. While arguments may not always be ''right'' or
true, they must at least be supported by some kind of external evidence.

 

 

Quotes from STer

The sad thing is we overwhelmingly agree. But the
fact that I allow room for that tiny possibility leads to endless,
probably irresolvable, debates. That's why I rarely get involved in
the agnostic/atheist debate anymore, especially when it ends up just
being a semantic debate on those labels rather than the actual beliefs. But for some reason I felt like indulging in this aspect of it today for a bit.

I have long found these discussions annoying because they end up being more about the labels than the issue at hand. All of this could be avoided if we just skipped the labels and went right to the heart of the matter.

......

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.

[STer]

 

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.

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:

An opinion, whether it is grounded in fact or completely unsupportable,
is an idea that an individual or group holds to be true. An opinion does
not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one's
own personal feelings, or what one has been taught.

 

 

An argument is an assertion or claim that is supported with concrete,
real-world evidence. Many people confuse or lump the two terms because
they cannot recognize the difference between evidence and reasons. In
this case, reasons are typically associated with 'feelings' or commonly
accepted ideals, while evidence is associated with measurable, objective
truths or realities. While arguments may not always be ''right'' or
true, they must at least be supported by some kind of external evidence.

 

 

Quotes from STer

The sad thing is we overwhelmingly agree. But the
fact that I allow room for that tiny possibility leads to endless,
probably irresolvable, debates. That's why I rarely get involved in
the agnostic/atheist debate anymore, especially when it ends up just
being a semantic debate on those labels rather than the actual beliefs. But for some reason I felt like indulging in this aspect of it today for a bit.

I have long found these discussions annoying because they end up being more about the labels than the issue at hand. All of this could be avoided if we just skipped the labels and went right to the heart of the matter.

......

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.

[Rick Horton]

 

Well said. Personally I don't know if there is a God, although, there surely could be. What do I know? I'm definitely not Atheist. What I do know is that the entity of greatest control over my life seems to be myself because I know my total experience better than anybody else that I'm aware of or that I have proof of. So on that basis, whether or not God exists is pretty insugnificant when it comes to the reality of the situation on the ground. My argument is that there are far more urgent and pressing priorities in facilitating the direction of my life than pondering the existence of something that appears not to exist.  So really, who cares? I'm not going to force a person to believe or not believe in God, or "a" god. Nobody has the ability to force me to believe, or not, in God, or "a" god. So it's a complete wash, and waste of time. IMHO. Now, when it comes to God as defined by Christians there are huge implications, and huge amounts of force that enter my experience of reality and that must be dealt with when a Christian invades my reality with nonsense and abuse like that. And since Christians are not creatures of logic, or reason, they can only be shamed in order to shake them out of the cult, and even that has a small chance, although greater than trying to use reason with them.  

 

[KyleG]

Atheists believe there is 0% chance that God exists [as they define God].

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?

Agnostics believe there is a probability greater than 0%.

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]

[STer]

 

Atheists believe there is 0% chance that God exists [as they define God].

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?

Agnostics believe there is a probability greater than 0%.

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.

[KyleG]

 

You're just reinforcing yet again why I don't even like debating using the words. They do nothing but create unnecessary confusiong.

 

I asked a few questions and then shared my personal experience. What words did I use that create unnecessary confusion?

 

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?

 

I do not possess a belief in "nog d'fubar." That is an absence of a belief. Do you consider my lack of possession of a belief as a belief itself? What is "nog d'fubar"? I don't know.

 

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.

 

So, if you ask three people "what is the probability that God exists?" They respond with:

• 0% chance
• 23% chance
• 100% chance

What utility does this provide for the conversation/debate? What is your next question, for each of the individuals involved? They haven't even defined what they mean by "God"

 

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.

 

So, like myself, you don't feel that the word "believe" or "belief" has any particular utility in these discussions. Where we differ is that I don't feel that the solution to that problem is to discuss percentages or probability.

 

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.

 

I agree that this example demonstrates an absurdity where obviously a discussion of percentages is more appropriate.

However I don't think this is an accurate extrapolation of what is occuring with respect to theism vs atheism. The weatherman's response isn't consistent with how I would expect
myself to respond. I don't use "lack of a
belief" as an answer to such questions.

For example, "rain" has almost zero possibility of referring to a self-refuting entity. If it did, then the weatherman would first need to clear up any assumptions that may be built into the word.

Person: Do you believe it's going to rain tomorrow?

Weatherman: Can you explain what you mean by rain?

Person: [pause] Uh. The water stuff, falling from the sky...

Weatherman: OK. In that case, why do you care what my belief is? Would you instead prefer to review the computer model and radar? Based on this information, there's a 30% chance of rain tomorrow. 

This is why weather programs often include more information that just a guy in a suit saying "ITS GONNA RAIN" (or not).

Here's what I see occuring with respect to theism vs atheism:

• There exists individuals who, in discussion with others, make claims regarding the existence of supernatural beings.
• There are individuals who acknowledge that these claims are irresolvable or self-refuting.
  
• There are individuals who don't make any claims, but also don't acknowledge anything about the claims being made.

Those in group 1 are generally referred to as theists, but that isn't particularly necessary.

Those in group 2 are generally referred to as atheists, but they could just simply be unconvinced.

Those in group 3, in my opinion, are not relevant since they choose not to participate in the discussions.

In this extrapolation, there's no need for discussions of belief, or even the labels that you justifiably find confusing.

[STer]

 

I asked a few questions and then shared my personal experience. What words did I use that create unnecessary confusion?

 

Atheist, agnostic. And posted a video which touches on the even finer distinctions in these terms.

 

I do not possess a belief in "nog d'fubar." That is an absence of a belief. Do you consider my lack of possession of a belief as a belief itself? What is "nog d'fubar"? I don't know.

 

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.

 

So, if you ask three people "what is the probability that God exists?" They respond with:

• 0% chance
• 23% chance
• 100% chance

What utility does this provide for the conversation/debate? What is your next question, for each of the individuals involved? They haven't even defined what they mean by "God"

 

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.

 

So, like myself, you don't feel that the word "believe" or "belief" has any particular utility in these discussions. Where we differ is that I don't feel that the solution to that problem is to discuss percentages or probability.

 

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.

[KyleG]

 

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.

 

The video I posted articulates best what I mean by "lacking a belief." That is why I posted it. Does the video not sufficiently answer this question for you? You keep asking as if it wasn't sufficient.

 

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.

 

My point was not to beat a dead horse (I apologize for that).

My point is given the reality that you're going to need to work out the definition anyway, why not do that first? Then, if it really interests you, ask whatever follow up questions you want. If that includes "what is the probability of such an entity existing?" then so be it. I don't see that as a particularly useful follow-up question for the discussions I have. I could be wrong, it could be very useful and I just don't understand how.

 

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.

 

My goal in such discussions is challenging my notions of truth. Thus far, discussions involving "belief" have never served any utility toward that end.

 

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.

 

As I have said, I don't think I would ever ask anyone a question like that. Perhaps that is why I am having a hard time processing the purpose if it.

How do these discussions usually occur for me?

1. They say something to me which suggests that they possess a belief in a supernatural entity.

2. I ask them, "what is X?"

Alternatively, I might just, out of the blue, ask someone how they would define "God" if asked.

Neither of these scenarios has to get into belief. I'm relying on the other person making claims.

 

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.

 

That's fair. Suppose a person who claims to forecast weather that relies entirely on intuition and uses no models, or uses models that haven't been demonstrated to have any degree of predictive power. Could such a person be accurately called a weatherman?

 

Those who believe God is a self-refuting concept would be 0%ers.

 

For definitions of God which are actually self-refuting.

 

But those in group 2 who say the claim is irresolvable could fall anywhere on the spectrum other than 0 and 100%.

 

The same person may find one claim regarding "God" self-refuting, and another claim irresolvable.