Atheism is a religion

[seventwentyseven]

I don't believe you can prove the absence of something with 100% certainty - which is precisely the point agnostics are making.

If the absence of something can't be proven with 100% certainty, then anything is possible. There could be 1 god, there could be five hundred billion gods. Since it is infinitely easier to prove that something is than it is to prove it isn't, then I'll go with the proof that something is. If there is not one shred of evidence for a position that would be simple to provide and could be done in less than 5 minutes, then that position is ridiculous. There is no proof at all for any gods. Any statements about not having perfect knowledge can be applied to an infinite number of gods, santa claus, the easter bunny, ghosts, demons, fairies, mermaids, bigfoot, magic dust, or any of the other fantasy land things that people imagine. I have questions for you about agnostics. Do they argue like this with religious people? Do they tell the religious people that they don't have evidence for their positions so there might not be a god? Do they think there might be a santa or tooth fairy? Or is ot just in the realm of god? I don't know any people that claim to be agnostic so I don't know what they do. I only knew one when I was a teenager and we didn't understand what we were talking about. To my knowledge, he did not talk to religious people about his doubts or tell them they have no evidence.

[STer]

If the absence of something can't be proven with 100% certainty, then anything is possible. There could be 1 god, there could be five hundred billion gods. Since it is infinitely easier to prove that something is than it is to prove it isn't, then I'll go with the proof that something is. If there is not one shred of evidence for a position that would be simple to provide and could be done in less than 5 minutes, then that position is ridiculous. There is no proof at all for any gods. Any statements about not having perfect knowledge can be applied to an infinite number of gods, santa claus, the easter bunny, ghosts, demons, fairies, mermaids, bigfoot, magic dust, or any of the other fantasy land things that people imagine.I have questions for you about agnostics. Do they argue like this with religious people? Do they tell the religious people that they don't have evidence for their positions so there might not be a god? Do they think there might be a santa or tooth fairy? Or is ot just in the realm of god? I don't know any people that claim to be agnostic so I don't know what they do. I only knew one when I was a teenager and we didn't understand what we were talking about. To my knowledge, he did not talk to religious people about his doubts or tell them they have no evidence.

You are correct. Since we can't prove anything 100% not to exist, anything is possible. Perhaps not very probable. But possible. It seems some people just can't accept that fact for some reason.

 

I don't think all agnostics act the same. I can speculate that atheists are more likely to be militant and aggressive about debating religious people. But I think agnostics can be too. Bill Maher is an agnostic, for example, and he is quite aggressively anti-certainty in religion.

[seventwentyseven]

But will Bill Maher debate with anyone about the existence of Santa?

 

I would agree that atheists in general would be more aggressive against religion than agnostics but that might be because of the treatment they received when trying to discuss it with religious parents and other family members and family friends. I grew up in a house with parents who did not baptize me or take me to church and the subject will not be discussed beyond god would not be mean. I couldn't imagine what would happen to a person who was raised by hyper-religious people. That seems to me to be the root of the anger more than the religion itself.

 

And anything is not possible. I will not be able to fly unassisted and the moon will not skip phases. If the probability of something is so low that it will not happen, then for all intents and purposes, it is impossible. If no evidence can or will be provided for the existence of a god, then god does not exist.

 

STer, do you hve any proof at all of the existence of any god? Does anyone? God is claimed to be all powerful. He could provide proof but he doesn't. I will say that it's because he can't because there is no god. No perfect knowledge, whatever that would be, is needed.

 

I sure do wish that my mortgage company would follow the agnostic rules. They cannot prove that I did not send them a check to pay off the house so they must assume that it has been paid off.

[STer]

But will Bill Maher debate with anyone about the existence of Santa?I would agree that atheists in general would be more aggressive against religion than agnostics but that might be because of the treatment they received when trying to discuss it with religious parents and other family members and family friends. I grew up in a house with parents who did not baptize me or take me to church and the subject will not be discussed beyond god would not be mean. I couldn't imagine what would happen to a person who was raised by hyper-religious people. That seems to me to be the root of the anger more than the religion itself.And anything is not possible. I will not be able to fly unassisted and the moon will not skip phases. If the probability of something is so low that it will not happen, then for all intents and purposes, it is impossible. If no evidence can or will be provided for the existence of a god, then god does not exist.STer, do you hve any proof at all of the existence of any god? Does anyone? God is claimed to be all powerful. He could provide proof but he doesn't. I will say that it's because he can't because there is no god. No perfect knowledge, whatever that would be, is needed.I sure do wish that my mortgage company would follow the agnostic rules. They cannot prove that I did not send them a check to pay off the house so they must assume that it has been paid off.

People don't usually debate whether something exists if they find it highly improbable, even if there is a tiny chance it's possible. If Bill Maher admits a tiny tiny possibility that Santa exists, however miniscule, he can still find it absurd for someone to act as if he certainly does exist. What you're not getting is that greatly overestimating the probability looks silly even if the probability is not absolute 0. It would be like me betting everything I own on something with a 0.000001% chance of happening. That's still a stupid bet even if it's not 0% chance.

 

I think there are two different reactions to parents who act with certainty about God. You could become equally certain against God and thus be an atheist. Or you could react with disdain for certainty itself and become agnostic. Both are understandable reactions to dogmatic parenting.

 

Your other arguments are old classics discussed ad nauseum for centuries. Look up "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and you can read all sides of that discussion until you fall asleep.

 

Again, people act on probabilities EVEN IF they are less than 100%. If your company doesn't see your check, has no evidence of it being sent, they don't need to say with 100% certainty it wasn't sent. 99.999% certainty is good enough. We don't require 100% certainty in life. We can still make decisions and still label many choices absurd or outrageous even without certainty simply based on terrible probability assessment.

 

I think that's all there is to say on this topic. It's been explored to no end in previous threads and all around the web and throughout philosophy. No new ground is going to be broken here, seventwentyseven. Your arguments are very common ones that have been dealt with countless times.

[seventwentyseven]

People don't usually debate whether something exists if they find it highly improbable, even if there is a tiny chance it's possible. If Bill Maher admits a tiny tiny possibility that Santa exists, however miniscule, he can still find it absurd for someone to act as if he certainly does exist. What you're not getting is that greatly overestimating the probability looks silly even if the probability is not absolute 0. It would be like me betting everything I own on something with a 0.000001% chance of happening. That's still a stupid bet even if it's not 0% chance

 

 

I think this is a true statement. I just don't understand why it would not be true if the word "Santa" was replaced by the word "god". Do agnostics put a significantly higher probability on the existence of god compared to Santa?

I think there are two different reactions to parents who act with certainty about God. You could become equally certain against God and thus be an atheist. Or you could react with disdain for certainty itself and become agnostic. Both are understandable reactions to dogmatic parenting.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Your other arguments are old classics discussed ad nauseum for centuries. Look up "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and you can read all sides of that discussion until you fall asleep.

 

Again, people act on probabilities EVEN IF they are less than 100%. If your company doesn't see your check, has no evidence of it being sent, they don't need to say with 100% certainty it wasn't sent. 99.999% certainty is good enough. We don't require 100% certainty in life. We can still make decisions and still label many choices absurd or outrageous even without certainty simply based on terrible probability assessment.

 

I think that's all there is to say on this topic. It's been explored to no end in previous threads and all around the web and throughout philosophy. No new ground is going to be broken here, seventwentyseven. Your arguments are very common ones that have been dealt with countless times.

I didn't expect them to be original. And I would imagine that over the next year, there will be new threads repeating all of this. My arguments are very common and agnostic arguments are very common. But it appears you have not dealt with them countless times since you didn't look at my posts, yawn, then say "done this already", and just post links to where you've made these same arguments (or ignored the thread all together), and go to an original thread and post there.

 

I get the probability thing. I understand that people make choices based on probability. I understand that if I try to get someone to jump out of the window and fly because he can't prove that he can't do it, he will probably not go along with it because the probability of success is so low. I understand that adults would find it absurd if I tried to seriously argue the existence of Santa. I get all of that. What I don't understand why this type of thinking does not apply to god.

 

What is it about god that people will overlook the low probability and say, there might be a god? If this thread was arguing that you can't prove there's no Santa, I would think it was a joke and I would not have hung around this long. Maybe this question is a topic for another thread or maybe it's just boring.

 

So I think my real question is, if it's OK to find the pro Santa position absurd, is it also OK to find the pro God position absurd?

[RestoringGuy]

Ultimately, what someone believes is an internal factor. We can try to figure it out from various external indicators (their verbal responses to questions being just one of those and not always, or even usually, the most effective). Perhaps one day neuroscience will give us ways - for better or worse - to identify beliefs directly in some manner.

 

We rely on faith to suggest internal and external are categorically different, because the exact placement of a "boundary" between the two is a matter of subjective taste.  If belief is internal and that is distinct from verbal and other responses (ie. one can lie and act hypocritically throughout and yet secretly hold an alternate belief) then the problem just moves to another level.

 

Hypothetical assertion: I am a meta-atheist and I hold that, at a deep enough level, nobody believes in God.  Religion is more than a hoax, but it's a lie that it exists at all even as a belief.  Universally, everybody who claims to believe in God is really just concealing their true internal atheism.  The "believer's" external actions are simple denial of their true internal belief that God is absent from reality. 

 

Now if it's true that belief is distinct from external behavior, who can prove me wrong?  Even if you hook up a lie detector or any neuroscience sensor, you can always say it does not measure the deeper belief that is being concealed.  By picking a concept of belief that is "internal" enough, we cannot measure belief at all because the internal/external boundary lies outside our epistemic range almost by definition.  By the same reasoning, it seems we cannot deny my meta-atheism either.  It is a logical impasse.

[STer]

I think this is a true statement. I just don't understand why it would not be true if the word "Santa" was replaced by the word "god". Do agnostics put a significantly higher probability on the existence of god compared to Santa?

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

I didn't expect them to be original. And I would imagine that over the next year, there will be new threads repeating all of this. My arguments are very common and agnostic arguments are very common. But it appears you have not dealt with them countless times since you didn't look at my posts, yawn, then say "done this already", and just post links to where you've made these same arguments (or ignored the thread all together), and go to an original thread and post there.

 

I get the probability thing. I understand that people make choices based on probability. I understand that if I try to get someone to jump out of the window and fly because he can't prove that he can't do it, he will probably not go along with it because the probability of success is so low. I understand that adults would find it absurd if I tried to seriously argue the existence of Santa. I get all of that. What I don't understand why this type of thinking does not apply to god.

 

What is it about god that people will overlook the low probability and say, there might be a god? If this thread was arguing that you can't prove there's no Santa, I would think it was a joke and I would not have hung around this long. Maybe this question is a topic for another thread or maybe it's just boring.

 

So I think my real question is, if it's OK to find the pro Santa position absurd, is it also OK to find the pro God position absurd?

Again I don't think agnostics are all the same in their views. All agnostic means - as far as how I'm using it - is someone who believes we don't and/or can't have complete certainty regarding something. When it comes to probability, one agnostic could believe there is only a tiny tiny chance of God existing and another could think it's 50/50. So agnostic alone isn't enough to tell you, which is why I'm always harping on it being more useful to just ask people what their estimate of the probability is. That one number tells you more than verbal labels.

 

I didn't post links to all the previous threads because I don't have the energy to go search for them. You can do searches and you'll find them. You can also google these things and find entire websites about them.

 

I think the difference with God vs. Santa is that nobody has been able to explain the origins of the universe. This leaves open the possibility of a God. The concept of a creator God, for instance, fills a role that really does exist to be filled. The concept of Santa is completely gratuitous. We already know with a very high level of confidence how presents get to children. There is no need for any extra explanation. But we don't know with a high level of confidence many answers to questions about the origins and nature of existence, so speculating on God is not quite as absurd as when it comes to Santa. You can at least understand a "God of the gaps" mindset. A "Santa of the gaps" mindset makes little sense because it isn't filling any gaps since there aren't really any in that area (other than for small children who don't yet know answers the rest of us already know.)

We rely on faith to suggest internal and external are categorically different, because the exact placement of a "boundary" between the two is a matter of subjective taste.  If belief is internal and that is distinct from verbal and other responses (ie. one can lie and act hypocritically throughout and yet secretly hold an alternate belief) then the problem just moves to another level.

 

Hypothetical assertion: I am a meta-atheist and I hold that, at a deep enough level, nobody believes in God.  Religion is more than a hoax, but it's a lie that it exists at all even as a belief.  Universally, everybody who claims to believe in God is really just concealing their true internal atheism.  The "believer's" external actions are simple denial of their true internal belief that God is absent from reality. 

 

Now if it's true that belief is distinct from external behavior, who can prove me wrong?  Even if you hook up a lie detector or any neuroscience sensor, you can always say it does not measure the deeper belief that is being concealed.  By picking a concept of belief that is "internal" enough, we cannot measure belief at all because the internal/external boundary lies outside our epistemic range almost by definition.  By the same reasoning, it seems we cannot deny my meta-atheism either.  It is a logical impasse.

There is a theme in this thread of people ignoring probability for some reason. I agree, we can't know with 100% certainty what someone's actual belief is. It's questionable whether people can even know with 100% certainty their own true beliefs as we learn all the time when people suddenly realize they've held a belief for years without realizing it.

 

However, that doesn't negate the fact that if someone acts in consistent accordance with a belief, it's more likely they hold it than if they constantly contradict it, for example. The relationship between indicators and actual belief held is not 0.

 

So, as with all else, we do our best to estimate and assess the likelihoods of things and act accordingly. As far as I can see, that's all humans can do, along with trying to find ways to improve those estimates and assessments.

[RestoringGuy]

There is a theme in this thread of people ignoring probability for some reason. I agree, we can't know with 100% certainty what someone's actual belief is. It's questionable whether people can even know with 100% certainty their own true beliefs as we learn all the time when people suddenly realize they've held a belief for years without realizing it.

 

However, that doesn't negate the fact that if someone acts in consistent accordance with a belief, it's more likely they hold it than if they constantly contradict it, for example. The relationship between indicators and actual belief held is not 0.

 

I would like to discuss probability.  But first, a belief is primarily a conscious realization, is it not?  What is an unrealized belief?  It seems to me, by refering to probabilistic indicators, that means we're partly talking about behavior instead of belief.  A person could have religious behavior and lack belief, or vice versa.  Same thing with morality, the free market, or nutritional eating.  My gut feeling is beliefs are things you have already reflected on and have immediate access to.  People I think are more likely to expose their beliefs by speaking words than they are to expose their beliefs by acting them out.  There is probabilistic error in both methods of detection.  You can make an argument just one of these concepts is a person's "true belief".  Which one defines atheism?  I think it's the conscious and verbalized one. 

[STer]

I would like to discuss probability.  But first, a belief is primarily a conscious realization, is it not?  What is an unrealized belief?  It seems to me, by refering to probabilistic indicators, that means we're partly talking about behavior instead of belief.  A person could have religious behavior and lack belief, or vice versa.  Same thing with morality, the free market, or nutritional eating.  My gut feeling is beliefs are things you have already reflected on and have immediate access to.  People I think are more likely to expose their beliefs by speaking words than they are to expose their beliefs by acting them out.  There is probabilistic error in both methods of detection.  You can make an argument just one of these concepts is a person's "true belief".  Which one defines atheism?  I think it's the conscious and verbalized one. 

I don't think belief is "primarily a conscious realization." In fact, I think many of the most deeply held beliefs are held unconsciously. Of all places, FDR is one where surely people realize this. People are constantly talking here about issues that exist due to the unrecognized premises that drive people. If you are talking only about beliefs that people hold consciously, then we are not talking about the same thing. Look at things like Implicit Association tests, which reveal biases that a person may not have even realized they have.

 

The rest of what you say, about exactly how behaviors and beliefs match up and what we can and cannot infer about beliefs from behaviors, is a very complex subject. There are many ways that people's behaviors can either reflect or contradict their actual beliefs. 

[RestoringGuy]

I don't think belief is "primarily a conscious realization." In fact, I think many of the most deeply held beliefs are held unconsciously. Of all places, FDR is one where surely people realize this. People are constantly talking here about issues that exist due to the unrecognized premises that drive people. If you are talking only about beliefs that people hold consciously, then we are not talking about the same thing. Look at things like Implicit Association tests, which reveal biases that a person may not have even realized they have.

 

The rest of what you say, about exactly how behaviors and beliefs match up and what we can and cannot infer about beliefs from behaviors, is a very complex subject. There are many ways that people's behaviors can either reflect or contradict their actual beliefs. 

I only have access to words people tend to say (I call it belief) and what people tend to do (I call it behavior).  If there is any behavioral bias, I don't consider it to be belief.  People may overeat or drink booze believing fully that it's wrong.  If behavior is your test, they must be hiding some alternative belief deep down.  Maybe it's true.

 

But sure I can totally entertain the bias idea, and if a person has a tendency to do one thing versus another we might call it "belief" no matter what they consciously know or verbalize.  But I wonder what is the distinction now between belief as inferred motivator versus, let's say hunger, fear, anger, etc. that is doing the motivating?  Given a particular environment, human A can behave differently than human B.  We could call it a difference in belief, based strictly on observing behavioral difference.  But it seems now as observers we have free discretion to invent beliefs inside others primarily to explain their behavior.  My cat believes stuff, so does my computer, I observed them expose a behavioral bias to me.  Their action "speaks to me" in some way.  It seems to be a useful tool, but why should it be philosophically accurate?  It all seems slightly problematic to me, because now there are two layers (the belief that is inferrred, and the belief the observer holds about what is inferred).  Really I should not simply listen is said about the second belief, because well, that could be a lie also!

 

To use my opposing way of thinking, I think if two people both claim to believe in God, I consider them both to be believers.  Perhaps you may discover one of them has a hidden atheism exposed consistently on the Implicit Association Test.  But I am wondering if that is the kind of thing we are talking about when discussing philosophy?  I am thinking you can have one belief and have totally opposite habit, mental routine, discipline, etc., because only humans seem to have these kinds of discussions.  I tend to take the nature of belief at face value, otherwise I can't know what anybody believes, and we may as well assume everybody is a closet atheist.  If I go with your definition, I observe them all failing to meet up with God, and that is my Implicit Association Test.  It is how they act, they do not even leave God a cookie as an overnight snack.

[STer]

I only have access to words people tend to say (I call it belief) and what people tend to do (I call it behavior).  If there is any behavioral bias, I don't consider it to be belief.  People may overeat or drink booze believing fully that it's wrong.  If behavior is your test, they must be hiding some alternative belief deep down.  Maybe it's true.

 

But sure I can totally entertain the bias idea, and if a person has a tendency to do one thing versus another we might call it "belief" no matter what they consciously know or verbalize.  But I wonder what is the distinction now between belief as inferred motivator versus, let's say hunger, fear, anger, etc. that is doing the motivating?  Given a particular environment, human A can behave differently than human B.  We could call it a difference in belief, based strictly on observing behavioral difference.  But it seems now as observers we have free discretion to invent beliefs inside others primarily to explain their behavior.  My cat believes stuff, so does my computer, I observed them expose a behavioral bias to me.  Their action "speaks to me" in some way.  It seems to be a useful tool, but why should it be philosophically accurate?  It all seems slightly problematic to me, because now there are two layers (the belief that is inferrred, and the belief the observer holds about what is inferred).  Really I should not simply listen is said about the second belief, because well, that could be a lie also!

 

To use my opposing way of thinking, I think if two people both claim to believe in God, I consider them both to be believers.  Perhaps you may discover one of them has a hidden atheism exposed consistently on the Implicit Association Test.  But I am wondering if that is the kind of thing we are talking about when discussing philosophy?  I am thinking you can have one belief and have totally opposite habit, mental routine, discipline, etc., because only humans seem to have these kinds of discussions.  I tend to take the nature of belief at face value, otherwise I can't know what anybody believes, and we may as well assume everybody is a closet atheist.  If I go with your definition, I observe them all failing to meet up with God, and that is my Implicit Association Test.  It is how they act, they do not even leave God a cookie as an overnight snack.

All I can say is that, as far as I'm aware, you can't know with 100% certainty what anyone believes. It's questionable if you can even be 100% certain of what you yourself believe. You can and do, however, make your best educated guesses at people's beliefs. The question is why that isn't enough for some people? The question is why some people insist on certainty where it isn't really feasible. Our visual system lies to us. There are optical illusions. It's not perfect. But its approximations are good enough to get us through life pretty well in most cases. The same is true with our perception of beliefs. We can keep trying to improve it, as we do with glasses and contact lenses and telescopes in the case of vision. Innovations can improve our belief perception abilities. But it's not 100% and the important thing is that's ok!

[Mick Bynes]

There are some atheists who feel that treat atheism as a religion.  It is not a religion at all.  I do not put in my religious views on Facebook as "Atheist" or "Atheism".  I simply put in "None" in there.  I simply have no religion.

[RestoringGuy]

"None" is a consistent description, but perhaps incomplete.  A newborn baby, and all cavemen from 50,000 years ago, might also be described by no religion.  As atheist myself, I consider atheist a stronger statement than "none".  Religious or not, atheist seems to describe having a mental defense to their infectious lies, after having pondered the problem carefully.

 

I still maintain that belief is a shallow and immediate surface property, mainly just a verbal assertion, because we often act opposite to our beliefs.  Unlike truth, beliefs do not have to be consistent, but they do seem to have to be verbalized or described in some way and not just acted out like emotions.  My proof for this is as follows: 

 

As a skeptic I will first disbelieve the following sentence.  "The reader of this sentence does not believe this sentence."  Now after having read the sentence and doubting it, I come to realize it must be true.  Now I have come to believe the sentence.  However, now I find conflict between my belief and the very nature of what it says.  Unlike truth, I suggest that belief is momentary, and all probability aside, it serves only a momentary purpose.

[Mick Bynes]

There are "evangelical atheists" out there, those are the ones who treat atheism as a religion.  They jam atheism down people's throats like a Christian fundamentalist forcing their Christian beliefs.

[RestoringGuy]

There are "evangelical atheists" out there, those are the ones who treat atheism as a religion.  They jam atheism down people's throats like a Christian fundamentalist forcing their Christian beliefs.

Sometimes the word antitheism is used.

[Mick Bynes]

It gets quite confusing.  Do you know about the term "nontheism"?  I was kinda considering myself a nontheist.

[STer]

Yet another thread exhibiting perfectly why I try to just ask "What do you think is the probability of a God, defined as [fill in definition you want to ask about], existing?" The response is a number that expresses just what their belief is. It's 0% or 100% or 50% or whatever. After that, if you feel the need, you can make some verbal label for it (atheist, non-theist, agnostic, whatever). But I don't even see why.

 

You see in this thread how the debates become sidetracked endlessly by the meanings of these words, rather than what really matters - how probably the person believes the existence of God is.

[RestoringGuy]

Yet another thread exhibiting perfectly why I try to just ask "What do you think is the probability of a God, defined as [fill in definition you want to ask about], existing?" The response is a number that expresses just what their belief is. It's 0% or 100% or 50% or whatever. After that, if you feel the need, you can make some verbal label for it (atheist, non-theist, agnostic, whatever). But I don't even see why.

 

You see in this thread how the debates become sidetracked endlessly by the meanings of these words, rather than what really matters - how probably the person believes the existence of God is.

The reason for the labels is to distinguish what is possible from what is probable.  I do not believe this is a simple matter of gathering observations and now magically there is a fixed probability in mind.  To me, probability is a function of physics.  I am a weak atheist, so while I am fully convinced belief in god(s) is an incorrect belief,  it is in the same way that I do not believe there is currently a living Tyrannosaurus rex.  The only distinction I make is that, while Tyrannosaurus rex was once present on Earth,  god never was.

 

If you toss a (fair) coin infinitely many times, the probability it will be heads on every toss forever is zero.  Yet it is possible in principle, even though probability is zero.  This is called "almost never" in mathematics, and is logically different than "never".  I am willing to say god almost never exists.  That is, the probability is strictly zero.  Yet I do not claim god is impossible, and that makes a logical difference.  If some guy, let's say using power tools, builds a machine in his garage and the machine has all the power god is supposed to have, I will become a believer and not lose any sleep over it.  Until then, I believe god is completely bogus and don't think this is a matter of being sidetracked.   It's just a matter of knowing why we believe stuff beyond some numerical estimation.

[STer]

The reason for the labels is to distinguish what is possible from what is probable.  I do not believe this is a simple matter of gathering observations and now magically there is a fixed probability in mind.  To me, probability is a function of physics.  I am a weak atheist, so while I am fully convinced belief in god(s) is an incorrect belief,  it is in the same way that I do not believe there is currently a living Tyrannosaurus rex.  The only distinction I make is that, while Tyrannosaurus rex was once present on Earth,  god never was.

 

If you toss a (fair) coin infinitely many times, the probability it will be heads on every toss forever is zero.  Yet it is possible in principle, even though probability is zero.  This is called "almost never" in mathematics, and is logically different than "never".  I am willing to say god almost never exists.  That is, the probability is strictly zero.  Yet I do not claim god is impossible, and that makes a logical difference.  If some guy, let's say using power tools, builds a machine in his garage and the machine has all the power god is supposed to have, I will become a believer and not lose any sleep over it.  Until then, I believe god is completely bogus and don't think this is a matter of being sidetracked.   It's just a matter of knowing why we believe stuff beyond some numerical estimation.

Possible vs. probable is dealt with too. 0% means someone believes something is impossible. Any other value means they believe it is possible. So that single number provides your answer to their belief about possibility (which is just a subset of probability) too.

 

Remember, we're not asking here what the ACTUAL probability is. We're just asking people what they believe is the probability. Terms like atheist, agnostic, non-theist, etc. all have to do with someone's belief about the probability, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it may be.

 

The "almost never" thing is very interesting. I didn't know there is a term "almost never" in mathematics. You are saying that "almost never" means that the probability is both 0 and not 0 at the same time? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

I certainly think there is value in digging deeper to find out why someone believes the probability is what they believe it is. But when you try to reduce it down to a one or two-word label, that's when I see people just ending up in distraction.

[RestoringGuy]

Possible vs. probable is dealt with too. 0% means someone believes something is impossible. Any other value means they believe it is possible. So that single number provides your answer to their belief about possibility (which is just a subset of probability) too.

 

Remember, we're not asking here what the ACTUAL probability is. We're just asking people what they believe is the probability. Terms like atheist, agnostic, non-theist, etc. all have to do with someone's belief about the probability, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it may be.

 

The "almost never" thing is very interesting. I didn't know there is a term "almost never" in mathematics. You are saying that "almost never" means that the probability is both 0 and not 0 at the same time? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

I certainly think there is value in digging deeper to find out why someone believes the probability is what they believe it is. But when you try to reduce it down to a one or two-word label, that's when I see people just ending up in distraction.

When I learned probability, I didn't believe it either.  Technically 0% does not mean "impossible".  There are two kinds of 0%:  possible and impossible, distinguished only whether an event can happen in principle.  Almost never is not some tiny probability bigger than zero, because there would still be room for an even smaller chance.  Imagine being fairly dealt a royal flush over and over without end, no law of physics forbids it.  Yet probability is zero that it will truly go forever, and you can say "impossible" but physically it is not ruled out.  Think of it like throwing an infinitely narrow dart at an infinitely small target (radius=0), what is the probability you will hit the target?

 

I just felt if we discuss probability, it is worthwhile to discuss possibility and certainty.  Sorry to distract.  I think the actual probability enters the discussion somehow, sort of like genetics.  Nobody ever asked "what is your personal assignment to probability of a twenty leaf clover?".  If you ask about god and probability, I want to answer with how likely will there actually be some dude transcending time and space. 

[STer]

When I learned probability, I didn't believe it either.  Technically 0% does not mean "impossible".  There are two kinds of 0%:  possible and impossible, distinguished only whether an event can happen in principle.  Almost never is not some tiny probability bigger than zero, because there would still be room for an even smaller chance.  Imagine being fairly dealt a royal flush over and over without end, no law of physics forbids it.  Yet probability is zero that it will truly go forever, and you can say "impossible" but physically it is not ruled out.  Think of it like throwing an infinitely narrow dart at an infinitely small target (radius=0), what is the probability you will hit the target?

 

I just felt if we discuss probability, it is worthwhile to discuss possibility and certainty.  Sorry to distract.  I think the actual probability enters the discussion somehow, sort of like genetics.  Nobody ever asked "what is your personal assignment to probability of a twenty leaf clover?".  If you ask about god and probability, I want to answer with how likely will there actually be some dude transcending time and space. 

Very interesting. I guess in pure mathematical terms, you're talking about issues of infinity. So you may be right. And I guess if you're asking this question about belief to a mathematician who knows about "almost never" then his answer of 0% may mean impossible or possible so you'd have to dig further. For 99.9999% of the population, if they say 0% they mean they believe it's impossible. And since all we're talking about is understanding their level of belief as they understand it, that's good enough.

 

The reason we don't ask people's belief of the probability of a 20 leaf clover is that, for whatever reason, a 20 leaf clover hasn't become a symbol people around the world do believe in and base huge life decisions on. If it did, that question would become very relevant.

 

"How likely will there actually be some dude transcending space and time?" is a legitimate and related question. And, much to your chagrin, those who believe there is any kind of serious probability of a God will likely say there is thus some probability that some dude has already transcended space and time.

[RestoringGuy]

"How likely will there actually be some dude transcending space and time?" is a legitimate and related question. And, much to your chagrin, those who believe there is any kind of serious probability of a God will likely say there is thus some probability that some dude has already transcended space and time.

That is a good point, many people believe probability is high.  I think that is because the universe expresses a surprising amount of complexity and some elegant behaviors.  Without understanding of dynamical systems, relativity, quantum mechanics and the magic of complex numbers, all acting without devine purpose, it seems necessary to estimate god at some higher chance.  On the other hand, with such understanding, god appears to have less choice in the matter, and god seems bound up in mathematics.  Complex behavior can emerge from a simple system, and god becomes entirely optional.  That is, god has no effect one way or the other, so probability zero becomes an optimal estimate given all the other (infinitely many) nonexistent things that also have no effect.  I think that is roughly why Hawking says god is "not necessary" for the universe to exist, but that is not the same as a strong atheist position declaring it impossible.

[Hannibal]

 

 

Atheism is the proud stance against religion and agnosticism is the cruel center that condones such moral hypocrisy.

 

+1  "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win." - Ayn Rand.

 

Compromising men are the most dangerous, and are responsible for almost all of the worlds evils, past and present.

[JeriLynn]

According to Webster's, religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.  Individuals who do not believe in god or feel that that the existance of god is unknowable are sometimes organized and there are vocal advocates of such views.  However, these two facts do not make atheism a religion.  By such an extreme distortion of the definition, any group organized by a common belief such as a charity to end poverty would be a religion. Once you take the notion of a belief in a deity out of the equation, no religion remains--only doubt or negation of the deity claim. Simply put, there is no reasonable evidence to support the claim that atheism is a religion and I must wonder why religionists even use the statement as part of their argument. 

[STer]

According to Webster's, religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.  Individuals who do not believe in god or feel that that the existance of god is unknowable are sometimes organized and there are vocal advocates of such views.  However, these two facts do not make atheism a religion.  By such an extreme distortion of the definition, any group organized by a common belief such as a charity to end poverty would be a religion. Once you take the notion of a belief in a deity out of the equation, no religion remains--only doubt or negation of the deity claim. Simply put, there is no reasonable evidence to support the claim that atheism is a religion and I must wonder why religionists even use the statement as part of their argument. 

But the very place I think you quoted, Merriam-Webster's definition of religion, has a third definition you left out:

 

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

[Mick Bynes]

Well let's see... atheism and I.  I don't believe in a god or a group of gods.  I don't deal with an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.  I don't find it interesting, I don't find it to be a belief and it's certainly not an activity I find very important.