Zid said: So, Essan, if you're going to claim that 'god' exists, WHICH GOD???
Lol so if I'm not an Atheist I must be a Theist? So many people aren't aware of a third option. No wonder so many people are wrongly labeling themselves 'Atheists".
Posts by Essan
-
243Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Jeff said: You take Sagan's point out of context, first of all.
How so? "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a truism and speaks for itself. It has universal application. Logically, nothing is ever categorically proved false by absence of evidence. And as I said, Theists have evidence, just not conclusive proof.
Jess said: Secondly, while it is true, Sagan also allowed that something can indeed, be proven false.
Sagan didn't say that everything could be proven either way, or that it could always be proven now. Of course some things can be proven true or false. But not everything. The point is God is not one of those things, not yet. If you think you can without using the argument from ignorance, then go ahead.
Jeff said: From wikipedia (the same one you selectively quoted from)
I didn't selectively quote, I just didn't continue into a section that wasn't relevant. As I said, not everything can be proven either way, God is one of them, so why quote the obvious truth that some things can be proven false, which is not relevant to something which can't be?
Jeff said: So, for the sake of this discussion, it seems appropo to say that there is a high probability that god doesn't exist. There is a small probability that Jesus is looking at this conversation and laughing his ass off.
LOL. Seeing as we have so little knowledge to base this judgement on there is no way to reliably gauge probability. So, again, it's just opinion, belief, dressed up in ill-fitting disguises like "conclusions" and "probability". And, in any case, even if probability could be gauged, that would not be a truly atheistic position - which is "God does not exist" - but rather the "God probably doesn't exist", and probability does not establish fact.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Jeff, you are using a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance":
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
General forms of the argument:
- P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
- P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".'
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Zoiks asid: "I have examined the evidence that is available to me, and in my own mind have concluded that said evidence is not sufficient to convince me to believe in the assertion. Therefore I am atheist. I am not taking a stance, and I am open to any new evidence that becomes available to me."
LOL, that is the textbook stance of an agnostic. You're not an atheist.
"... an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." - Marcello Truzzi
Jeff, above, takes an atheistic position, because he makes a claim for disproof, saying "God does not exist". Yet, he cannot meet the burden of proof for that claim:
"Critics who assert negative claims ... often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic". - Marcello Truzzi
Why only appropriate for the agnostic? Because the agnostic makes no claim, neither negative or positive, for or against, and therefore has no burden of proof to meet.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Jeff said: Prove that statement wrong.
LOL Easy. :)
Ever heard the phrase "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? The guy who said that was arch-Skeptic Carl Sagan. Yet even as a noted skeptic, he acknowledged this truth.
The first element of your statement - "God doesn't exist" - is atheistic and quite wrong. It's a claim which you cannot prove. Prove God does not exist! You cannot, of course. So it's just a belief.
The next element of your statement - "There is no evidence that he exists" - is also incorrect. There is evidence, there just is not absolute proof. They are different things. Both 'sides' in a court case produce "evidence" but only one sides case will eventually be considered "proven". Theists provide "evidence", but not absolute proof, so far.
The last element - "She/He hasn't spoken to anyone at all in a verifiable way, ever" - is agnostic and true. This cannot be verified. But something not being verified does not prove that "God doesn't exist", it only means that they can't be verified, at least not yet.
The present absence of verifiable evidence does not "prove" that something doesn't exist. At one time the there was no verifiable evidence available that the earth travelled around the sun. Does that mean it did not do so, simply because no one could yet prove that it did? Obviously not.
The same thing goes for the existence of God.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
ATJ said: "Athiests with varying ideas have formed conclusions based on available facts, including how much God has had to say in our 20th century for example. Such data leads to conclusions."
Atheists have belief based on data. Calling it a "conclusion", while lending a dignified air, doesn't disguise the fact that it is merely a belief. If it were cast iron, proven fact, then agnostics would accept it too, but it is not. It is opinion, treated as fact. Data +interpretation +a leap of faith. A negative unproven claim - "X doesn't exist" - is still just a claim, a mere belief, just as "X exists" is. Christian could - and do - use exactly the same argument and terminology and it would be just as inaccurate: "Christians with varying ideas have formed conclusion based on available facts... such data leads to conclusions." Or to quote Rutherford "Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable."
ATJ continues: "but those conclusions (i.e. there is no god as theists describe it) is much different then saying all atheists have beliefs and believe the same thing".
All true atheists do believe the same thing: That there is no 'God'. Aside from that their various opinions may differ, but this is exactly the same with Theists, they share a central belief in God/s but after that their opinions vary greatly.
The disagreement I have with atheists is their attempt to dignify and elevate a position which is actually little different in process than Theism, but different only in conclusion. That, or their attempt to redefine (or blur) 'Atheism' according to their own personal tastes and preferences even though it already had and has a clear definition.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
IsaacJ22, I agree that your definition 2 is how 'Atheist' is often used (or misused) today and that this common usage is now reflected in some definitions which are mirroring what people mean when they use the word 'atheist' rather than what the word actually means and it's definition when it originated. This trend has lead to a lot of needless confusion and essentially rendered many words meaningless, as are the attempted combination labels in your post, IMO. This is shown by the fact that you claim atheism legitimately has both meanings 1 and 2, yet they are quite different. They are different, IMO, because only one of then is legitimate - number 1.
I see it as a kind of 'fast-food' or corporate 'coffee-shop' approach to words, based on what we want things to mean rather than what they do mean: "I'm a Christian-double-decaf-skinny-mochagnostic" Lol. Having chosen a basic label to identify with people try to change the label's original meaning to better suit their preferences as their sense of identity is now bound up with it. Strangely enough, the Society has taken a similar approach to interpreting Scripture, with similar nonsensical results.
As I said earlier, I feel a similar adulterating of meaning has blighted the word "skeptic".
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Cantleave, atheism isn't "an aknowledgement that there is no proof for for the existence of God". That is agnosticism.
Atheism is the opposite of theism - a-theism - it's the denial of the existence of God/s.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
You think there are nuances between being "anti-belief" and agnostic? Can you explain.
PS. I edited to add a few details in my post above.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
"Hmmm, so a 2, an atheist who has no belief, is actually an agnostic? No my friend, they just don't have a belief, which makes them an anti-believer "
OK, your 3, An "anti-believer" - one who does not accept the validity of unproven beliefs - is the definition of an agnostic. An agnostic dismisses the belief in God and the belief that there is no God, because he is "anti-belief" and will not accept, either way, that which cannot be proven. He has no dealings with "beliefs".
Atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" - http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atheist
An atheist does have belief. If he had no belief he'd be agnostic. Theist and Atheist are opposite beliefs, two sides of the same coin, two ends of the same stick. Same process, different conclusion. A-theism is defined by theism, that which it stands in polar opposition to and is a re-action to. That is why "theism" takes up most of the word "atheism" LOL. Think about the basic meaning of the words.
Theism - Advocating existence of God/s
A-theism - Denying existence of God/s
A-gnosticism - Not knowing either way.