The FINAL Thread on what "atheist/m" actually means!

[Cunninglinguist]

Everyone uses different definitions of the noun 'agnostic'.

I don't care how you define agnostic; I'm flexible enough to assume another person's definition in an argument. But you were clearly equivocating, and that's a pretty big problem which renders your argument incoherent. Likewise, you were equivocating on the definition of atheist, between a practical atheist and a theoretical atheist.

Some use it as in 'one can never know' (being consistent, these people would have to use the same reasoning for ghosts, unicors or Narnia), some use it as in 'I don't believe in god, but there could be one', in that case, they are atheists

Oh, they're confusing everyone? I think they're confusing you. Or, you're confusing yourself with everyone. I thought you said people used different definitions ... so what, do tell, makes yours better than his or hers or mine?

and finally, some use it in the sense 'I'm totally undecided and don't want to take a stand either way'. Those last ones are the ones I refer to as 'agnostics'

Things are much clearer, indeed, when you refer to these individuals as apatheists instead of agnostics.

The 'we just can't know' definition is probably the one most used,

And that's why you should use it too, unless you don't care about confusing people.

but I think everyone who uses it is making a huge mistake having to do with the burden of proof.

Burden of proof is in many instances a joke. So what, are the atheists trying to present a circumstantial case, through which they raise a ton of questions, thus shifting the burden of proof? That, in itself, makes two rather flimsy assumptions: 1) that every theist is trying to prove something and 2) that their policy in doing so is necessarily scientific ... for the latter, most theists use, last I checked, a policy called faith and can easily counter rationality by saying "that's why it's called faith".

any atheist who doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge is an agnostic atheist. In the same way, I'm don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I'm not dogmatic about it, which makes me an agnostic a-toothfairyist.

In other words, you're a theoretically agnostic practical a-toothfairyist ... the problem, again, with these words is that they sometimes refer to a practical POV and sometimes a theoretical opinion. Sano was using "agnostic" to refer to his theoretical POV, and you seemed to miss that in your original post ... the real joke was that, when you tried to impose your own definition onto him you couldn't even agree with yourself.

Also, of course atheists don't need to assign a probability to their beliefs. They can if they want to, but technically, as this thread here has hopefully established, atheists just don't believe in god, whether they would put the probability of non-existence at 51% (in which case there'd be a case for Pascal's wager), 99.99999999999999%, or 100%.

Anyways, anyone who makes a theoretical assertion about God is using faith ... it is as simple as that. Furthermore, atheists who make theoretical assertions about God (this category seems to comprise mostly angsty teenagers) are idiots.

Why the latter claims has more merit? Well for one thing, 'energy' doesn't claim to care about your well-being, or whether you worship it, or whether whatever it is predestined to do will produce conscious beings or not. And for another thing, scientists didn't learn of 'energy' by studying an ancient book, but they actually found evidence for its existence

This isn't responding to my question.

Ockham's razzor cuts god into tiny quantum particles (I just thought of that, how original!).

As most any Doctor of Philosophy will tell you, Occam's Razor isn't a legitimate way of measuring metaphysical claims.

If there's a million possible realities, why this one? Well, string theory suggests there's 10^500 possible realities, and they all are. Lots of parallel universes out there.

You failed to see my point. You can't explain why you're here, conscious in your body ... what, if anything, is preventing you from being conscious in another body? At some level these types of things boil down to randomness.

I definitely have more reason to trust astro-physicists on astrophysics than ancient goat herders on astrophysics.

Ah, so you're admitting your faith in what scientists say?

But yeah, you're probably talking about the 'impersonal' god, because no one with decent education takes the Bible literally.

True that ... in any case, don't think I'm arguing for faith or God. I'm essentially Kantian (see my signature) and arguing for a proper understanding of the limits of reason.

People don't have 'faith' in science. They have reasonable evidence to believe science works.

So they use science to prove the merits of science ... that's pretty much the definition of an unsound argument.

Ever flown with a plane and landed in the right spot? Even when they lost your luggage along the way, you gotta admit that this wouldn't just happen if science was nonsense.

I didn't say science was nonsense; I very much like science to the extent that it makes my life, in many respects, a lot easier to live. But there is no rule that necessitates the laws of physics and, therefore, for all we know, they may not hold true two minutes from now. There is no apodictic (strict) proof that can be done which shows they will, though through reference to experience this makes for a sensible assumption.

I'm sorry, if you abolish logic itself, I might as well say god is a ham sandwich. You lose all basis to even have a discussion. If that's truly your belief, why bother to make a (somewhat) coherent argument? Hypo(crit).

I'm not denouncing logic, you're just overstating and stepping far beyond its limits. You're demonstrating quite well the grievous fault, which I pointed out before, modern philosophy is afflicted by. Evidently, you think you can move forward without even understanding what constitutes a logical deduction.

how about this definition of truth: truth := whatever best predicts reality.

That's almost fair, though there are things that have a higher degree of certainty than even, say, laws of physics (such as the existence of space and time, as I pointed out). If we are to keep with 3000 years of tradition and reserve the epithet of truth for that which is most certain and strictly necessary, then I have to contest that your definition is quite unsuitable.

Could we be living in a matrix? Technically yes, but Ockham's razzor speaks against it

Again, the razor is meaningless in the field of theoretics. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's Razor merely states that that which makes the least number of new assumptions is the most intuitive or commonsensical. It does not say that the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions is correct ... indeed, it doesn't say anything with respect to "correctness".

[Dodo25]

Oh, they're confusing everyone? I think they're confusing you. Or, you're confusing yourself with everyone. I thought you said people used different definitions ... so what, do tell, makes yours better than his or hers or mine?".

The fact that atheism has a precise definition, and thus if someone uses the same definition for agnostic it is inefficient and confusing. If you want to distinguish between practical and theoretical, fine, but that still doesn't change the fact that people who don't believe in god but grant that he may exist are by defintion atheists. I owe you an explanation why the most common definition is nonsensical too, it's coming later when you attack 'burden of proof'.

Things are much clearer, indeed, when you refer to these individuals as apatheists instead of agnostics.

You suggested this for the ones 'totally undecided and not willing to take a stand either way. This doesn't necessarily assume that the question whether god exists itself is irrelevant to these people. They might base their position on their current view of the evidence. In many cases, they indeed are apatheists, but not always.

Actually, why don't all non-theists get rid of the freaking labels and simply emphasize they use reason instead of faith?

Burden of proof is in many instances a joke. So what, are the atheists trying to present a circumstantial case, through which they raise a ton of questions, thus shifting the burden of proof? That, in itself, makes two rather flimsy assumptions: 1) that every theist is trying to prove something and 2) that their policy in doing so is necessarily scientific ... for the latter, most theists use, last I checked, a policy called faith and can easily counter rationality by saying "that's why it's called faith".

They aren't 'countering rationality'. They're simply being irrational. The very point is that atheists don't have to present anything, the burden of proof always rests on the believer. Without a single argument or piece of evidence for the existence of flying pink unicorns, there is no reason whatsoever for you to bother about this claim, even if people have faith in them. Some agnostics use the argument (and I've seen it at least half a dozen times almost literally as follows) 'the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproven'. That's their position. Well, what about 'the existence of pink flying unicorns can neither be proved nor disproven'. See what's wrong? If they existed, why the hell shouldn't we be able to 'prove' it? Not in the mathematical sense of course, but in the same way people know evolution is true. Circumstancial, statistical evidence. Prayer might have effects. Holy texts might for once be consistent and actually accurately predict something that isn't vague. They might contain knowledge that couldn't possibly have existed two thousands of years ago. Neuroscience might show that all causality breaks down in the human brain, giving room for 'free will' or 'souls'. All of this would be evidence (though in some instances weak evidence) for the existence of god. Only non-existence is unproveable, but that's tautological because you can't prove the non-existence of any non-contradicting concept!

Some people argue science a priori rules out the supernatural. In one sense, it's true, science expects things to work according to laws and patterns, if not, there would be no motivation to even bother investigating. However, here comes the important part: Science could in principle detect the supernatural, so it doesn't totally rule it out. It only couldn't explain it if it were encountered.

In short: 'theoretical agnosticism' is simply wrong. There's been a time where lots of people didn't think black holes existed. But no one was theoretically agnostic about them, at least I hope not, because now, we KNOW they exist. There's evidence.

Anyways, anyone who makes a theoretical assertion about God is using faith ... it is as simple as that. Furthermore, atheists who make theoretical assertions about God (this category seems to comprise mostly angsty teenagers) are idiots.

If I say 'god most likely doesn't exist', there's no faith in that statement (except if theists are right about what they consider 'evidence for god', but so far no one has brought forward a sound argument. They even admit their position rests on faith). If, on the other hand, I say the likelihood of god's existence is exactly 0.00000000000001%, then I'm just being stupid, and yeah, there'd be faith in that statement.

This isn't responding to my question.

You Kant possibly mean that! It totally nailed the answer to your question. The latter claim has more merit because its explanatory power, a highly relevant concept in the scientific method and the philosophy of science, is much much much much much (go on some thousands times) greater than invoking god. You have to start with something, in the atheistic position, it's energy. In the theist one, it's god, who then creates energy. (And by 'energy', I just mean the fundamental nature of existence as represented in the relatively simple equation(s) of m-theory or some other not yet discovered theory). We already know energy exists. We don't know god exists. What does god add to energy? Does he explain it by invoking something simpler? Does he explain it the way Darwinian evolution explained the complexity of life? NO!!!!

He doesn't even attempt to explain it, instead, invoking god postulates a hyper-complex unsolveable freaking mystery. Explanatory power: ZERO. Analogy: Why does it rain? Answer 1: water vapor condenses when it gets too cold. Answer 2: Thor forces water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. Thor is a huge man with muscles who likes to wear ancient clothes. He is immortal and he lives in the sky.

You have two possible answers, one postulates the fact that it simply happens to be the nature of water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. And the other... Well you get the point.

As most any Doctor of Philosophy will tell you, Occam's Razor isn't a legitimate way of measuring metaphysical claims.

Explanatory power is. And as the scientifically literate philosophers will tell you, metaphysics is nonsense by its very own assumptions. Carnap wrote a paper about that somewhere.

You failed to see my point. You can't explain why you're here, conscious in your body ... what, if anything, is preventing you from being conscious in another body? At some level these types of things boil down to randomness.

Uhm, 'my' consciousness is the result of processes going on in my brain. In someone else's brain, there are different processes, so 'someone else' (or bether, 'something else') is conscious there. And if you think consciousness itself produces unsolveable problems, that's not the case. It would so in god, because we have nothing to explain god with. On earth however, consciousness is accounted for by the forces of evolution. There still remains 'the hard problem of consciousness' with qualia and everything, but there have been some very convincing and promising approaches, fascinating stuff. 'Consciousness Explained' by Dennett is well worth reading (twice).

Ah, so you're admitting your faith in what scientists say?

You're misusing the word faith. It's defined as 'belief without evidence'. I have reasons (-> evidence) to 'trust' scientists. Try to understand this, you're making the same mistake over and over again. What is it with 'faith' that you find so important? It's always irrational to have faith.

So they use science to prove the merits of science ... that's pretty much the definition of an unsound argument.

No. They use the achievements of science to show science works. What do you use to show math isn't nonsense? Same thing, it works, it produces great results, it makes sense. If you really want to make the point that people think science works because of their faith in it, just don't do so using a computer. It's hypocritical.

I didn't say science was nonsense; I very much like science to the extent that it makes my life, in many respects, a lot easier to live. But there is no rule that necessitates the laws of physics and, therefore, for all we know, they may not hold true two minutes from now. There is no apodictic (strict) proof that can be done which shows they will, though through reference to experience this makes for a sensible assumption.

So what? You're still using the damn computer. No one is claiming that science is 100% ultimate infallible explanation of everything, including the future. It just has an impressive track record, and it makes accurate predictions over and over again. If I were to offer to bet with your for ten dollars whether the next stone you throw will come down or hover into the void of the cosmos, you surely would take the bet.

That's almost fair, though there are things that have a higher degree of certainty than even, say, laws of physics (such as the existence of space and time, as I pointed out). If we are to keep with 3000 years of tradition and reserve the epithet of truth for that which is most certain and strictly necessary, then I have to contest that your definition is quite unsuitable.

Tradition isn't a good reason. Also, I don't quite get your distinction. Let's just keep it at the 'almost fair', I'm good with that.

Again, the razor is meaningless in the field of theoretics. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's Razor merely states that that which makes the least number of new assumptions is the most intuitive or commonsensical. It does not say that the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions is correct ... indeed, it doesn't say anything with respect to "correctness".

Actually, I suppose your right, in this one case, invoking Ockham's razzor as evidence against the matrix possibility isn't sound. It's not too implausible that sometime in the future of this universe, beings will be able to create a matrix just like our universe. That's still way different from the god proposition, because whoever would have created the matrix would still be the product of evolution in some universe, so the explanation would still go on and lead to simpler things that started the chain of causation.

[jajdude]

I don't believe in this thread.

<smirk>

[Dodo25]

I don't believe in this thread.

<smirk>

hav sum f8 m8! lol

[AuntShecky]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

[YesNo]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

At the risk of giving the wrong answer, I'll say, "They pretty much mean the same thing."

[Dodo25]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

There are some subtle differences, the first one is very polite but it lacks certainty. The second one lacks certainty and, while not being literally impolite, can be interpreted as personally threatening. The thrid one is full of certainty but factual. The fourth is totally certain too, but again with a connotation one could interpret as being personal.

So thanks, good point, thinking about it I realized I may have phrased some of my responses in a bad way, sorry about that. It wasn't intended, it just tends to get that way, especially with 'dissecting' posts. I'll be more careful next time.

[The Atheist]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

Is there a point to that? None of them relate to atheism in any way.

Mind you, precious little else recently in this thread does either!

[Musicology]

Atheism is the carnal mind revolting against itself. In public.

[AuntShecky]

Is there a point to that? None of them relate to atheism in any way.

Mind you, precious little else recently in this thread does either!

That's what I mean, Mr. A! It's one thing for a LitNetter to explain that atheism is wrong/right because. . . . It's quite another to say the person who espouses atheism or its opposite is wrong.

The first is part of a reasonable debate and the second is an ad hominem attack.

The difference is subtle, but I'm sure you can see it.

[The Atheist]

Atheism is the carnal mind revolting against itself. In public.

Just in the way that the universe doesn't orbit the earth.

That's what I mean, Mr. A! It's one thing for a LitNetter to explain that atheism is wrong/right because. . . . It's quite another to say the person who espouses atheism or its opposite is wrong.

The first is part of a reasonable debate and the second is an ad hominem attack.

The difference is subtle, but I'm sure you can see it.

No problem with that - I just wasn't sure what you were aiming it at.

The thread was simply supposed to be what atheism meant and not whether it's right/wrong/indifferent.

One way or another, you've put it back on track!

[Musicology]

Atheism is, by its words and actions, the carnal mind revolting, against itself. In public.

[The Atheist]

Atheism is, by its words and actions, the carnal mind revolting, against itself. In public.

Does repeating a fallacy render it less fallacious?

[Musicology]

Atheism is the smartest kid in the block - (in his own mind). He lives only for argument - most of which is with himself.

He should be put to bed and given some molasses. It will pass.

Those who live to prove a negative deserve atheism. It makes their life meaningful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0Q2UY_l0g

Does repeating a fallacy render it less fallacious?

[The Atheist]

Yes, it does.

Why doesn't it surprise me you'd think that?