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

[Libertus]

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.

You most definitely are an atheist. Do you believe in a god? If your honest and true answer is anything less than "yes, I do" then you are by definition an a-theist. Which means 'not a theist'. A theist is someone who believes in god. If you're not one of those, or not sure, or not quite sure, or if you just don't know, guess what. You're an atheist. And you're welcome.

Examples:

"well, maybe there is a god, it could be, I don't know" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe.

"it's not knowable if there's a god, so I don't know either" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe.

"it's knowable, but I don't know" = atheist. although the question is not what you know, but what you believe.

 

This is what you'd have to say in order to be a theist (meaning not an atheist)

"I don't know, but I believe there is a god" = theist

"I know, and I believe there is a god" = theist

Analogy: suppose you're sitting in a jury trial, and you find the defendant 'not guilty'. Does that mean he has convinced you of his innocence? Not necessarily. The accusing side has not convinced you that he's guilty, and that's all that is required for you to vote 'not guilty'. There was not enough evidence to prove the defendant guilty. That is sufficient. Do you believe he was innocent? Doesn't matter, and no, not necessarily. You could simply not know whether the defendant was guilty, and that is sufficient to let him go. Even if there is no evidence on either side: "not guilty".

Structure: "I don't believe proposition A to be true" is not equal in value to "I believe proposition A to be false". Think about it for a minute.

If you can accept that, and the jury example, then try and apply this structure to the term "atheist" and you have a clear definition of what the term means.

Another way of putting it: The way the word "atheist" is being used by a lot of people is wrong, they think it means "someone who believes there is no god". While that may be a sufficient condition of being an atheist, it is not a necessary one.

[Rick Horton]

Then okay, but these are all new concepts to me, and if I'm truly an Atheist because I don't know if God exists I'm fine with that and it doesn't change me in one way or the other. 

[NotDarkYet]

Which definition of gods could exist.  And which definition of gods couldn't not exist?

 

For me

1) Possible:  An extra-terrestrial super being that has techonologial power beyond our imagination.   God-like.  But not a "god" in the theological sense.

2) Not Possible:  A creator of the univere.  An entity that punishes people with Hell, and rewards with Heaven.  A thing that has consiousness without material being.  Etc

3)  Equal to Non-existence...something we'll never ever come into contact with that has no material or energetic effects.

 

Why use the word "God"...because it has religious meanings.  Why not talk about "unknown intelligences" or something?

[Libertus]

Then okay, but these are all new concepts to me, and if I'm truly an Atheist because I don't know if God exists I'm fine with that and it doesn't change me in one way or the other.

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!

[STer]

 

Then okay, but these are all new concepts to me, and if I'm truly an Atheist because I don't know if God exists I'm fine with that and it doesn't change me in one way or the other.

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.

[suomipoi]

I liked the video someone posted. Thx.

 

I still don't see why percentage points have anything to do with this. God either exist or doesn't. What someone personally believes about the existence of gods is irrelevant to the actual existence/nonexistence of those gods.

Where do you pull these  percentage points anyway? From some objective measurable standard or from someones personal opinions?

 

 

 

[STer]

 

I liked the video someone posted. Thx.

 

I still don't see why percentage points have anything to do with this. God either exist or doesn't. What someone personally believes about the existence of gods is irrelevant to the actual existence/nonexistence of those gods.

Where do you pull these  percentage points anyway? From some objective measurable standard or from someones personal opinions?

 

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."

[DoubtingThomas]

 

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief.

 

Atheism is the negation of theism. It's not a difficult word to parse.

Furthermore, if you can't define god, then you can't give any certainty to it's existence. If god can be ANYTHING. 100% certainty. I could be god. My dog could also be god. Perhaps we're both god.

Or you could simply define god as the theists do: infinite, all knowing, unknowable, invincible, everything, always, all at once, etc. By this absurd definition we can easily realize that he probability of this thing is zero. It is a description of somthing that can never be observed, can not exist in the universe, and does not fit any defintion of "existence."

By your "math," we are all practicing polytheists.

[STer]

 

 

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief.

 

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.

 

Furthermore, if you can't define god, then you can't give any certainty to it's existence. If god can be ANYTHING. 100% certainty. I could be god. My dog could also be god. Perhaps we're both god.

 

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.

 

Or you could simply define god as the theists do: infinite, all knowing, unknowable, invincible, everything, always, all at once, etc. By this absurd definition we can easily realize that he probability of this thing is zero. It is a description of somthing that can never be observed, can not exist in the universe, and does not fit any defintion of "existence."

 

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).

 

By your "math," we are all practicing polytheists.

 

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.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

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.

 

No, it's pretty simple. Theism: A personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably. Athism: No personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably.

If you do not define god as the personal, universe governing, unknowable, all powerful entity, you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

 

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.

 

If god is only subjective, which is what you're describing, and everyone can define it as they so please: then we have no objective thing to debate about. Giving a percentage of certainty in god as me and my dog (100%) vs. you and the flying spaghetti monster (5%) is meaningless.

 

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.

 

I have no idea what you mean. If you can define god in any way you want, then i'm 100% in belief of this thing you call god because it is whatever I want it to be. Personally, I think that's a misuse of the word and frankly I could care less what other people believe about their own made-up "god," so long as they do not follow a personal, infinite, religion god as a theist.

 

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.

 

Math was your word, not mine. You stated that god is whatever people say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your "god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is absurd?

[STer]

 

 

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.

 

No, it's pretty simple. Theism: A personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably. Athism: No personal god that governs the universe infinitely and unknowably.

If you do not define god as the personal, universe governing, unknowable, all powerful entity, you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

 

You can claim it's simple all you want. The confusion that abounds over the notion shows that it isn't. Even on this board full of philosophical people, look how many times people have to keep defining it and discussing it and yet confusion remains. It isn't a concept that people easily grasp in a similar way whether you think they should or not. They just don't and that is demonstrated repeatedly.

 

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.

 

 

If god is only subjective, which is what you're describing, and everyone can define it as they so please: then we have no objective thing to debate about. Giving a percentage of certainty in god as me and my dog (100%) vs. you and the flying spaghetti monster (5%) is meaningless.

 

You are completely missing the same point in regards to "God" as you are with "atheism." Becuase people constantly misuse these words, the useful thing to do is stop focusing on the words and just ask for more precise explanations of their meaning. What I find so frustrating is that people constantly try to go back to the words which caused confusion in the first place. Forget the words "atheism" and "God" and simply ask people precisely what they're talking about and precisely what their belief about it is. Why waste our time trying to then layer on these other words that cause more confusion than help. Only people who prefer confusion to actually getting answers would do that.

 

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.

 

 

 

I have no idea what you mean. If you can define god in any way you want, then i'm 100% in belief of this thing you call god because it is whatever I want it to be. Personally, I think that's a misuse of the word and frankly I could care less what other people believe about their own made-up "god," so long as they do not follow a personal, infinite, religion god as a theist.

 

If you are only interested in people's beliefs about what you described, then only ask them about that. That's well within your rights. My point is that you will get a lot clearer answers if instead of saying "Do you believe in God?" you ask "How likely, in % terms, do you believe it is that this entity exists" and then describe in full what you just described earlier. This is a much more effective way to get the answer you want than to use the term "God" and then deal with people's different ideas about it. Again, only someone who prefers confusion to clarity would go out of their way to insist on using a word like "God" that they know people have different ideas of than to just spell out which definition they 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.

 

 

Math was your word, not mine. You stated that god is whatever people say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your "god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is absurd?

 

I'm sorry maybe I'm forgetting something, but where did I use the word math before? I was quoting you where you said that by my "math" we're all practicing polytheists. Where did I use the word math before that you were referring to?

I am not saying "God" is whatever people say "God" is. I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

[suomipoi]

 

You stated that god is whatever people
say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I
exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your
"god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking
people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is
absurd?

 

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God.

It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore.

 

 

I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

 

So it's important to describe the terms you are using?

It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist".

See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used.

 

What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties.

What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else?

What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making?

On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls?

What are you looking for in this thread?

[STer]

 

 

You stated that god is whatever people
say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I
exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your
"god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking
people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is
absurd?

 

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God.

It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore.

 

 

I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

 

So it's important to describe the terms you are using?

It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist".

See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used.

 

What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties.

What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else?

What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making?

On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls?

What are you looking for in this thread?

 

When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance.

This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs.

It's that simple.

If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing.

My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out.

[Formelyknown]

Confusion doesn't come from definition or how people define knowledge. Since the beginning of philosophy, It is coming from poeple claming false philosophical problems.

The question is simple:

If it is possible that God could exist, what make this concept of God even 1% possible.

Surely those poeple are basing on something other then I can't know everything, right?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

You stated that god is whatever people
say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I
exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your
"god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking
people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is
absurd?

 

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God.

It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore.

 

 

I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

 

So it's important to describe the terms you are using?

It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist".

See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used.

 

What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties.

What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else?

What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making?

On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls?

What are you looking for in this thread?

 

When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance.

This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs.

It's that simple.

If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing.

My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out.

 

 

How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement.

I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both.

1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance.

2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned.

    Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing".  

[STer]

 

Confusion doesn't come from definition or how people define knowledge. Since the beginning of philosophy, It is coming from poeple claming false philosophical problems.

The question is simple:

If it is possible that God could exist, what make this concept of God even 1% possible.

Surely those poeple are basing on something other then I can't know everything, right?

 

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion certainly does come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful.

The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s.

If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why.

[STer]

 

Confusion doesn't come from definition or how people define knowledge. Since the beginning of philosophy, It is coming from poeple claming false philosophical problems.

The question is simple:

If it is possible that God could exist, what make this concept of God even 1% possible.

Surely those poeple are basing on something other then I can't know everything, right?

 

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion very often seems to come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful.

The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s.

If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

You stated that god is whatever people
say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I
exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your
"god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking
people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is
absurd?

 

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God.

It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore.

 

 

I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

 

So it's important to describe the terms you are using?

It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist".

See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used.

 

What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties.

What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else?

What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making?

On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls?

What are you looking for in this thread?

 

When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance.

This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs.

It's that simple.

If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing.

My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out.

 

 

How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement.

I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both.

1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance.

2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned.

    Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing".  

 

It's not up to me to assign a % value. It's up to you. You say about the #1 version "He is not real." How sure are you of that? 100%? 99%? 5%?

We're not asking which idea has more impact on your life. That's a completely different question. We're simply asking how likely you think it is that either of these things actually objectively exist. Not whether people's beliefs in them affect you. Just whether you think they really do exist.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

 

You stated that god is whatever people
say god is. I say I am god and so is my dog. I am 100% certain that I
exist and that my dog exists, therefor I am 100% certain that your
"god," exists. I just gave an accurate rendition of what you were asking
people to report about their beliefs. Do you not agree that it is
absurd?

 

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God.

It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore.

 

 

I'm saying since people inevitably respond to the word in too many different ways, it's rather useless to assume when you say the word that they are responding to it as you think they should. This is why in research, people have to define even the most commonplace terms. You are learning about other people, not yourself. It doesn't matter how clear you think the definition of God is. If you want to find out their beliefs accurately, you have to make sure they understand what you're asking about as you mean it. It's irrelevant if you think their idea of what "God" is is completely wrong. What's relevant is that if you want to learn about their beliefs on something you have to make sure they're responding to the question you mean to ask and not some other interpretation of it, no matter how false you may think that misinterpretation is.

So my point is do people want to learn the answer to what they really are trying to ask? Then if so simply define your terms clearly for the other person. Or if they are talking about something else without realizing it, make that explicit with them so you know what they're actually referring to.

 

So it's important to describe the terms you are using?

It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist".

See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used.

 

What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties.

What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else?

What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making?

On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls?

What are you looking for in this thread?

 

When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance.

This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs.

It's that simple.

If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing.

My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out.

 

 

How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement.

I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both.

1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance.

2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned.

    Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing".  

 

It's not up to me to assign a % value. It's up to you. You say about the #1 version "He is not real." How sure are you of that? 100%? 99%? 5%?

We're not asking which idea has more impact on your life. That's a completely different question. We're simply asking how likely you think it is that either of these things actually objectively exist. Not whether people's beliefs in them affect you. Just whether you think they really do exist.

 

What do you mean, objectively?  Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Therefore it doesn't matter that something is subjective or objective because it only matters whether it has an actual affect on reality. Christianity has a huge impact on my reality. The more vague definitions have zero impact. So it doesn't matter if one, none, or either one is more objectively real. It's far more "real" to my existence in reality if it has an affect. My experience of reality whether it's argued that that is subjective or objective "still" has ultimate authority in reality, because the only reality that is self evident and provable is "mine". 

[STer]

 

What do you mean, objectively?  Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Therefore it doesn't matter that something is subjective or objective because it only matters whether it has an actual affect on reality. Christianity has a huge impact on my reality. The more vague definitions have zero impact. So it doesn't matter if one, none, or either one is more objectively real. It's far more "real" to my existence in reality if it has an affect. My experience of reality whether it's argued that that is subjective or objective "still" has ultimate authority in reality, because the only reality that is self evident and provable is "mine". 

 

We're not asking here whether you think others ideas affect you. Yes they do to varying degrees.

What we're asking here is what you believe about the existence of God. Not about the idea of God or others' beliefs about God. But your belief about God.

Yes objectively means has its own existence outside of yourself.

So what % likelihood would you give that God in those two definitions you gave exists? Since you said "NO chance" on #1, I take it you believe there is 0% likelihood of that version of God existing? What about the second definition?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

What do you mean, objectively?  Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Therefore it doesn't matter that something is subjective or objective because it only matters whether it has an actual affect on reality. Christianity has a huge impact on my reality. The more vague definitions have zero impact. So it doesn't matter if one, none, or either one is more objectively real. It's far more "real" to my existence in reality if it has an affect. My experience of reality whether it's argued that that is subjective or objective "still" has ultimate authority in reality, because the only reality that is self evident and provable is "mine". 

 

We're not asking here whether you think others ideas affect you. Yes they do to varying degrees.

What we're asking here is what you believe about the existence of God. Not about the idea of God or others' beliefs about God. But your belief about God.

Yes objectively means has its own existence outside of yourself.

So what % likelihood would you give that God in those two definitions you gave exists? Since you said "NO chance" on #1, I take it you believe there is 0% likelihood of that version of God existing? What about the second definition?

 

Well it would be irrational to argue outside of myself, or I'd not be arguing from first principal. I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. But I already answered the question. I can't put some kind of percentage on that. You must be mad to try and equate things like this with percentages. It is nonsense because I'd have to say that the Christ God exists 100 percent in my experience of reality "as an idea" As a thing. Zero. All vague Gods have no affect on my life at all in any way. I don't know if they or it exists for sure, or at all so putting a percentage number would literally be insane.

[Formelyknown]

 

 

Confusion doesn't come from definition or how people define knowledge. Since the beginning of philosophy, It is coming from poeple claming false philosophical problems.

The question is simple:

If it is possible that God could exist, what make this concept of God even 1% possible.

Surely those poeple are basing on something other then I can't know everything, right?

 

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion certainly does come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful.

The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s.

If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why.

 

You just repeat what you said before. I disagreed with your obervation and showed that you are a muddler either. There is nothing to investigate.

I don't want investigate

[Libertus]

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief.

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition.

[STer]

 

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief.

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition.

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on.

My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

This thread is, and has always been, about atheism. Atheism is a belief.

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition.

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on.

My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s.

 

 

Well it would be irrational to argue outside of myself, or I'd not be arguing from first principal. I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. But I already answered the question. I can't put some kind of percentage on that. You must be mad to try and equate things like this with percentages. It is nonsense because I'd have to say that the Christ God exists 100 percent in my experience of reality "as an idea" As a thing. Zero. All vague Gods have no affect on my life at all in any way. I don't know if they or it exists for sure, or at all so putting a percentage number would literally be insane.

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on.

My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s.

 

Accepting that theism implies contradictory premises is all that has to be "believed." Since that's a pre-requisite (a == a && a != !a) for all rational thought, I don't think it matters one iota what percentage one wants to put behind their conviction.

My point is that it's a completel waste to ignore the fact that by-definition theism is a non-starter:

Something is everywhere all the time != Something is unknowable and undetectable (ever) : Implies that the speaker knows about the entire future of human knowledge.

Something is unknowable != We know something about it (theology) : Obvious contradiction.

 

Theism is not Deism.

Atheism is not Adeism.

[Libertus]

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple.

Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty:

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience

Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."

Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

[STer]

 

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on.

My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s.

 

Accepting that theism implies contradictory premises is all that has to be "believed." Since that's a pre-requisite (a == a && a != !a) for all rational thought, I don't think it matters one iota what percentage one wants to put behind their conviction.

My point is that it's a completel waste to ignore the fact that by-definition theism is a non-starter:

Something is everywhere all the time != Something is unknowable and undetectable (ever) : Implies that the speaker knows about the entire future of human knowledge.

Something is unknowable != We know something about it (theology) : Obvious contradiction.

 

Theism is not Deism.

Atheism is not Adeism.

 

You basically keep sharing your belief system about this topic while not understanding that others have different ones, even if you might find them incorrect. However wrong you might find them, billions of people do not believe theism is a non-starter. If we want to know their beliefs, we have to ask them. I've offered a method I think is more effective for asking them and learning as much as possible as clearly as possible about what they believe. That's all.

It's not really that difficult a concept. There are atheists of many different stripes with many different beliefs. I understand it doesn't interest you what they believe. You are not obligated to have any such interest. I am interested in understanding the spectrum of beliefs among those labeled atheists, as well as others. And this thread was started because of a question about the level of knowledge necessary to be an atheist. My point is atheists are a more diverse group than some consider so there is no one-size fits all answer. 0%'ers claim certainty, while 10%'ers would not. So the answer to OP's post is that it does not require certain knowledge to be an atheist, only to be a 0%'er atheist.

[STer]

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple.

Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty:

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience

Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."

Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

 

You've done a tremendous job of showing why I harp on getting away from the words. I could respond to your points and we could go back and forth for hours. But what would it accomplish? Those with a vested interest in focusing on the words rather than the meaning will spend all day making a fuss over the subtle distinctions you make. I disagree that those distinctions make a difference as you claimed. But more importantly, the entire argument can be ignored completely by going to the %'s. So what possible motive is there to waste time debating them?

I think you can roughly categorize two groups in this:

One group primarily wants to know as much as possible, as accurately as possible about what people's beliefs are regarding God

Another group primarily wants to bicker about the subtle distinctions in the labels we give to the people with various beliefs and non-beliefs

I am in the first camp. I find that a much higher priority and much more important to the world. To me every minute wasted on debating the labels is time wasted on what really matters - understanding and responding to the actual beliefs.

Imagine a patient comes in to see a pair of doctors. They both agree on what the patient has wrong with them and what they need for treatment. But instead of treating him, they sit there debating for hours the name of the condition. Does that seem worthwhile? Perhaps if they are linguists. But not physicians.

So I guess it depends on what role you feel you take on these issues. My concerns are more of an activist nature, wanting to improve the world as much as we can. So I'm focused more on getting the information needed to understand what's going on. Once you have that in the roughest form - pure data - you can then name categories. But when the debates over category names start taking up more time than the focus on the actual data and what to do about it, I think it is misguided.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

You basically keep sharing your belief system about this topic while not understanding that others have different ones, even if you might find them incorrect.

 

Actually i'm just evaluating statements rationally based on literal definitions. If you, as you have, want to insist on changing definitions or not being concerned with them, you are free to argue about super-human things and what percentage we believe in our own idea of super-human-things. I simply ask that you stop misusing words for which we already have definitions.

 

 

[STer]

 

 

You basically keep sharing your belief system about this topic while not understanding that others have different ones, even if you might find them incorrect.

 

Actually i'm just evaluating statements rationally based on literal definitions. If you, as you have, want to insist on changing definitions or not being concerned with them, you are free to argue about super-human things and what percentage we believe in our own idea of super-human-things. I simply ask that you stop misusing words for which we already have definitions.

 

But many - even most people out there - do NOT evaluate statements rationally based on literal definitions. So if you want to know what they believe you cannot just assume what they mean by a word is the same as you mean when you use it. I get the idea that you have little interest in knowing what those people believe. I and some others do. So if you are not interested in accurately assessing their beliefs, this discussion really isn't very relevant for you. If you are then it will be crucial to work as hard as you can to clarify what people mean rather than simply focus on being frustrated that they are using words in ways you deem incorrect.

[suomipoi]

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple.

Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty:

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience

Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."

Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

 

That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple.

Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty:

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience

Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."

Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

 

That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks.

 

What belief is involved with Atheism? A lack of belief doesn't magically = a belief

[STer]

 

 

 

Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited.

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple.

Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty:

Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience

Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists."

Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747

 

That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks.

 

What belief is involved with Atheism? A lack of belief doesn't magically = a belief

 

I respond with another post explaining how misguided it is to continue focusing on debating the labels at the expense of actually assessing the beliefs themselves and responding to them. The next couple posts go right back to the terminology. I give up.

I really think there needs to be a separation between the issue of debating terminology, which is a linguistics endeavor, and the issue of assessing as accurately as possible what people's beliefs are, which is a research endeavor and possibly an activist endeavor depending on what you want to do with that information.

Linguistics are interesting and important. They deserve a discussion of their own. But when I see activists getting bogged down in linguistics, I find it a shame. The terminology has stopped serving as an aid and become an obstacle itself.

I am going to assume at this point that this has become a linguistics thread. I'm not very interested in that aspect at the moment.

If anyone is interested in the research/activism aspect primarily, perhaps start another thread for discussion of that.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

 

You basically keep sharing your belief system about this topic while not understanding that others have different ones, even if you might find them incorrect.

 

Actually i'm just evaluating statements rationally based on literal definitions. If you, as you have, want to insist on changing definitions or not being concerned with them, you are free to argue about super-human things and what percentage we believe in our own idea of super-human-things. I simply ask that you stop misusing words for which we already have definitions.

 

But many - even most people out there - do NOT evaluate statements rationally based on literal definitions. So if you want to know what they believe you cannot just assume what they mean by a word is the same as you mean when you use it. I get the idea that you have little interest in knowing what those people believe. I and some others do. So if you are not interested in accurately assessing their beliefs, this discussion really isn't very relevant for you. If you are then it will be crucial to work as hard as you can to clarify what people mean rather than simply focus on being frustrated that they are using words in ways you deem incorrect.

 

You make a strong case that most people are ignorant of the definitions; however, that's clearly not the case on this forum so I don't believe that's a fair point. I want as much to understand their meaning as you; however, you are repeatedly coming back to your mis-use of words (like atheist) and follow with complaints related to being called on that mis-use of the word. 

If you want to clarify what you mean, or simply make up a term for it, by all means do so. Just stop taking words we do know and re-tooling them to fit your arguments.