"Atheists believe there is no God"

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

"Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #1

Post by Talishi »

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.


Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #141

Post by Clownboat »

What do you feel needs a rebuttal?
Any debate involving the subject of GOD whereby you take the position that god does not exist (from the position that you have no belief in any gods existing) and those which argue from the opposite position (including 'god could exist' and 'if god exists, then what would god most likely be like?' type hypothesis). Rebuttal. Do you have an argument which rebuts my own?
Please lay out your argument in quick form so I'm not trying to rebut a straw man if I even have a rebutal.
So far all you have done is make a sort of demand for evidence of the idea of god which apparently has to do with some physical sign or wonder not already an obvious aspect of the physical universe.
Actually my point was that I find statements like:
"Perhaps it (a god concept) just doesn't particularly see your position as a threat to its own?" as imaginative and unnecessary. Not explanatory.
Not my idea of a god, nor have I been saying as much.

Can you define for me again your idea of a god?
So perhaps the alternative is for those who have a problem with the idea of any GOD existing, to throw out some ideas as to what they would accept as 'evidence for GOD existing' which doesn't already exist as part of the known physical universe, and from that I can respond as to the validity of the demand (per the expected evidence) and see where that might lead?
Said god would need to be defined before this would be reasonable. I would have different expectation for a god that could create universes with words compared to a god that was just powerful or what have you. You might as well be asking me what kind of evidence I would need in order to believe in a garbleflugal.
So far it has lead to poorly thought out analogies from the opponents of the hypothetical notion of GOD existing.

Would this be a problem? Would it matter one bit if someone made a poor analogy about an invisible unicorn that lives in my garage if said unicorn didn't exist? Would statements like "Perhaps the unicorn just doesn't particularly see your position as a threat to its own" have any value at all? Perhaps I'm just not seeing the value nor a reason to speculate about ill defined concepts that we have no evidence for?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #142

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

I disagree that not believing in God is not to hold a position. Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

This is why I could never agree with the notion that Agnostics or Skeptics should be labeled as Atheists.

For a belief is defined by something we are CONVINCED by,. Agnostics and skeptics are NOT convinced, and so should not be labelled theists or atheists.

Its completely false to claim there can only be two positions, or that atheism hold no position, and after years debating with them as I was labelled to be one I found proof of this over and over.

I am not convinced by either argument, though I think the argument for God is stronger than the argument against God, and the argument against religion is stronger than the argument for religion. But to call me an atheist when I have not dismissed the idea of God is ridiculous, just like it would be to call me a theist just because I think the argument for theism is stronger. That does not mean that I am CONVINCED by the argument that God exist or the argument that God doesn't exist. In fact I am not.

If you look Atheism up you will find that the Christian are right on this point.

Atheism: "atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist."

Rejection: "the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc. "

Belief: "acceptance/confidence that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

See Websters dictionary and Wikipedia.

So Atheism is to DISMISS ACCEPTANCE of God existing. That is not what agnostics do, hence agnostics should not be labelled atheists. Further, to dismiss acceptance IS a position, just like it would be to reject a law or marriage proposal. A position can be both in favor and against.

If theism is a 1 and Atheism is a rejection of 1 (-1), that does not mean everything can be labelled simply in two categories of 1 and -1. There is also 0. And what about those who don't believe in God, but KNOW there is a God? Yes for a atheist that argument is dismissed on faith without proof, for we don't know if anyone know there is a God or not.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #143

Post by Kenisaw »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

I disagree that not believing in God is not to hold a position. Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

This is why I could never agree with the notion that Agnostics or Skeptics should be labeled as Atheists.

For a belief is defined by something we are CONVINCED by,. Agnostics and skeptics are NOT convinced, and so should not be labelled theists or atheists.

Its completely false to claim there can only be two positions, or that atheism hold no position, and after years debating with them as I was labelled to be one I found proof of this over and over.

I am not convinced by either argument, though I think the argument for God is stronger than the argument against God, and the argument against religion is stronger than the argument for religion. But to call me an atheist when I have not dismissed the idea of God is ridiculous, just like it would be to call me a theist just because I think the argument for theism is stronger. That does not mean that I am CONVINCED by the argument that God exist or the argument that God doesn't exist. In fact I am not.

If you look Atheism up you will find that the Christian are right on this point.

Atheism: "atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist."

Rejection: "the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc. "

Belief: "acceptance/confidence that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

See Websters dictionary and Wikipedia.

So Atheism is to DISMISS ACCEPTANCE of God existing. That is not what agnostics do, hence agnostics should not be labelled atheists. Further, to dismiss acceptance IS a position, just like it would be to reject a law or marriage proposal. A position can be both in favor and against.

If theism is a 1 and Atheism is a rejection of 1 (-1), that does not mean everything can be labelled simply in two categories of 1 and -1. There is also 0. And what about those who don't believe in God, but KNOW there is a God? Yes for a atheist that argument is dismissed on faith without proof, for we don't know if anyone know there is a God or not.
I googled "define atheism". The first thing that came up was: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." The next link was to the American Atheists website which states: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

This might be a trivial difference to you, but it is not to most of the atheists I know, both at this website and other places. Most atheists do not claim that gods DON'T exist. They state that they have no reason to think that they do. I personally lack belief in any of the gods that humans have come up with, because there is zero empirical data supporting such things existing.

You, by the way, are also an atheist. I assume you don't believe in Mumbo or Zeus or Odin. We are both atheists, you just happen to believe in one less god than I do.

On to the agnostic thing - While I do know of agnostic theists, that is people that aren't sure if a god exists or not but believe that there must be one and therefore are believers, those two parts are not related. Gnosticism deals with knowledge, NOT belief. If someone says they aren't sure whether or not a god exists, that's a statement of their knowledge. Belief, in my opinion, is a two sided sword. Either you do believe, or you don't. If you say you aren't sure you believe, then you don't actually believe. It's like being sort of pregnant - it isn't an option. Thiesm deals with belief. If you are agnostic then you have defined your knowledge, but that doesn't define your belief or lack thereof.

Now I see you are new here and you don't know me and I don't know you, so please realize that I am not trying to call you a liar. Definitions matter here, and people tend to be careful with how they say things. I wouldn't be surprised if everything I've said so far about belief and knowledge you've already run across wherever you were debating with people in years past. But I'm rather picky about this particular topic, because agnostic is not a belief position. It is a knowledge position, and that is an important difference.

There are people on here who agree with you though, so no worries. Some take the stance that if you are, say, 90% sure that a god exists, then you can be considered a believer. You will find agreement with how you define the thing...

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #144

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 143 by Kenisaw]
I thought I made it clear that I had googled the word and debated this topic with countless of atheists before, so I am well aware of what many atheists claim, I am also aware of different definitions given to the word, and I made a argument for why I agree with one and disagree with another.

You will not have proven a point by just quoting different people or sites, for then we have to debate which people and sites has authority on the word "atheism" otherwise we are just left with a "you say" "i say" and you can't prove or disprove anything with that.

Peoples opinions are trivial to me yes, but the truth isn't. So if you can prove that there is logic and reason beyond any doubt that the way you and some atheists use the word is better, more logical or correct than the way most others do, you will convince me. If not then this is just a arrogance power-play in which few atheists wish to stamp authority over many who define differently.

But to win such a case, you would have to argue why these atheists opinion should count over others opinions.

I don't know if you are aware that the word can be dated back thousands of years and to the Greek, where most people believed in God and there was no evolution theory, and both science and religion was at its infancy.

You say
Most atheists do not claim that gods DON'T exist.
Really? Can you prove that statement? For most atheists I have talked to DO, and most I have met who are unsure do not go around calling themselves atheists. In fact I have only know 3 or 4 who do next to thousands who don't. Sure this can be a rare coincidence or a difference in culture, but regardless...

Do atheists has more authority than others to decide to call them atheists just because they prefer a broader term of the word to include people who think very different than they do?

You write:
You, by the way, are also an atheist
If that is true, then it should not be difficult for you to prove it. Go ahead and try, for so far all you have given is claims of what most atheists say, which is neither proof nor relevant to what the word means or what I am.

No I do not believe in Zeus or Odin. It takes a lot to convince me of anything, so I am slow to use the word belief or disbelief, for as far as I am concerned the jury is still out. I think it is very probably and logical that a God could exist, but am I convinced that one does? No, but I am also not convinced that one doesn't.

About Agnostic theists. If they aren't sure if a God exists, but believe there MUST be one. Wouldn't that mean that they are pretty sure? You seem to use the word belief and sure very different than the meaning used where I come from.

If Agnostics are Atheists, then would an Agnostic Theists be a Atheist Theist? That makes no sense.

Yes I know Gnosticism deals with knowledge, but this is not where we have difficulty in communication. It is about what the worlds: knowledge, belief, sure, faith, evidence actually mean.

For yes we have both proven we can look these words up, but we still clearly define them differently. So my question is why and how we can know how to use these words correctly. I will not be defined by something I am not.
And I have known enough atheist and theists to know that they believe very different than me, therefore I can not be one.

I have not met any who called themselves a Agnostic Theist or Gnostic, so I would accept that label until it is proven not to apply. But I know I am not a atheist or theist.

I know atheism and theism deals with beliefs and Gnosticism and agnosticm about knowledge. But the problem is that knowledge and belief is related, maybe the Greeks did not know that, maybe American's don't. But that has been proved long time ago. So you can not just put belief and knowledge in such simple labels unless we call knowledge 100% sure truth, but then no one is gnostic or agnostic, for no one knows nothing or everything. But since the word belief is connected with being convinced and the word convinced implies leaning in a direction (meaning more than 50%) then we are left with a lack of label for those who are in the area in between.

If we say
0% sure, no knowledge = Agnosticsm
1-35% sure, less evidence or belief = Atheism
66-99% sure, more evidence or belife = Theism
100% sure knowledge = Gnosticsm

Then we lack a label for the most common or scientific people of all. Those between 36% and 65% sure.

Do you follow?

No I know you are not calling me a liar, and I appreciate the way you debate this time around, which is far better than the way you did the first time ;)

It is good you are picky about topics, you have to be when dealing with truth. I am the same. This is why I was picky about you and 2 others at this site having failed to read or acknowledge the word "IF" I clearly put in my comment, which changes the entire meaning of what I wrote and caused all of you to misunderstand my comment, make false assumptions and a pointless argument.
There are people on here who agree with you though, so no worries. Some take the stance that if you are, say, 90% sure that a god exists, then you can be considered a believer. You will find agreement with how you define the thing..
I know, thanks :) I have many friends who do, and several of them are scientists.
So either we can leave the point about what a atheist is as a subjective term, or you must provide proof for why some peoples definition is more valid than others, and why I should be put in a category with people who believe differently than me ;)[font=Impact][/font][font=Impact][/font]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #145

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 142 by Hector Barbosa]

I very much enjoyed your post.
HOWEVER, I found a little something to criticize:


[center]

Using a dictionary as an authority on philosophical positions is a mistake.
[/center]

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I disagree that not believing in God is not to hold a position. Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.
I think that it's pretty safe to say that atheism is a position. It's a negative on on the existence of gods or goddesses.

Beliefs have no burden of the proof.
Only people who make claims have that burden.

Lacking a belief, or simply not believing something is not a claim.
It's a position.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
This is why I could never agree with the notion that Agnostics or Skeptics should be labeled as Atheists.
It's very common that people get confused by these labels. It all depends on what they are used for to mean.

I think that most atheists and most agnostics in here rather agree on these definitions, but "agnostic" is still complicated for a lot of people. Apparently, that term is used a bit more "variably".

To some people, I think it means a "little bit of belief in gods" or something like a 50/50 position... That's why it's important to ask what the person means by his terms.

Not everyone uses the same words to mean the same thing.

I think that's your biggest mistake right now.
You seem to think that words can only have one fixed meaning.

Words don't work like that. Especially when it comes to philosophical terms.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
For a belief is defined by something we are CONVINCED by,. Agnostics and skeptics are NOT convinced, and so should not be labelled theists or atheists.
We atheists hold positions that we aren't convinced of?
As soon as a position doesn't CONVINCE me anymore, I just drop it.

I label myself as an agnostic, an atheist, AND a skeptic...

I am convinced that I don't have a clue about any gods or goddesses, that I don't believe in any gods or goddesses, and that I am very doubtful of extravagant claims like the existence of gods or goddesses.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Its completely false to claim there can only be two positions, or that atheism hold no position, and after years debating with them as I was labelled to be one I found proof of this over and over.
When it comes to belief, you either have it or you don't.
There are some concepts that are quite binary like that. Like a light switch... all or nothing, I'm afraid.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I am not convinced by either argument, though I think the argument for God is stronger than the argument against God, and the argument against religion is stronger than the argument for religion.
If you aren't convinced, you can't really say you believe.
The word "belief" is synonymous with "conviction".

If you aren't convinced that there is a "God", then welcome to the club: You're an atheist, my friend.

Some people have an aversion to the word.
It's been used as an insult for a long time.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
But to call me an atheist when I have not dismissed the idea of God is ridiculous, just like it would be to call me a theist just because I think the argument for theism is stronger. That does not mean that I am CONVINCED by the argument that God exist or the argument that God doesn't exist. In fact I am not.
You are allowed to label yourself any way you like.
You might have to explain yourself if you use a term in a special way.


Atheists don't have to dismiss the idea of "God" in order to not believe the idea.

____________________

The PINK UNICORN example:

An idea doesn't necessarily have to be real.
"Pink unicorn" is an idea.

If someone seriously claims that pink unicorns exist, then my skepticism would be triggered, I would seriously ask for evidence for pink unicorns, I would only believe in pink unicorns if there was a good reason to do so.

I am agnostic about "pink unicorn"..
I am skeptical about "pink unicorn"

And until I have a good reason to believe that there are any such thing.. I don't believe in "pink unicorn". There isn't a word for not believing in "pink unicorn" but if enough people make claims about them, I will not just dismiss the idea. I would be, however, an "Apinkunicornist", if "pinkunicornism" was a philosophical position.

The letter "A" in the front of the word means "NOT". ( it could also mean "AGAINST", but that's not exactly what we mean by "atheist". Words aren't always perfectly coined )

____________________

Hector Barbosa wrote:
If you look Atheism up you will find that the Christian are right on this point.

Atheism: "atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist."
I am an atheist and I can endorse that definition, even though, it's a bit vague.
We can and we have done much much better than that one.

But of course, a dictionary isn't a book of philosophy.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Rejection: "the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc. "
Maybe when it comes to atheism, it's more a refusal to believe... although, I dare say that belief ( conviction ) isn't so much of a choice. Something makes sense of it doesn't. Something is convincing to me or it's not. The whole key here, is that you presenting this definition as if it could be the only one. There are lots of ways to describe a philosophical position. Maybe the best people to explain those are the people who subscribe to the position.

But there we go.. in dictionaries, we get common definitions.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Belief: "acceptance/confidence that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
Just to be clear...

The only "PROOF" that we get for anything is in Math and other simple, completely closed systems.

Philosophy isn't a closed system. When it comes to thinking about thinking, the subject is WIDE open.

What we usually get ( and some say it's the only thing that we CAN get ) is evidence that something is true, not "proof" as proof is an absolute. The more evidence that the hypothesis conforms to what we call "realty", the more we can say that it is "true". But proof is really too absolute a goal to be very useful to check out things in the real world, such as what exists and what does not. We don't have to have a perfect score to "pass" if you see what I mean.

As an atheist, though, your definition for belief is pretty good as a start. I wish it used the word "conviction" instead of "confidence", though.

But when it comes to using these definitions to define "atheism" properly, they mostly fail. They approximate .. but they don't get a glowing review, as you can see, from this atheist.

As I said, in philosophy, words have to be defined VERY rigorously. And dictionary definitions, my friend, are very very GENERAL definitions. Useful, perhaps, to learn what the words mean if you never encountered them before, but dictionaries are not good at all for philosophical discussions about the terms.

That's just not the JOB of a dictionary.

If you would take a look at a dictionary of philosophy, you will instantly be bombarded by MANY pages for each of these words. Whole books have been written about the "meaning" of these words. And of course, even a dictionary of philosophy is not an authority on the terms it discusses.

And what makes it even MORE difficult is that people invent new meanings all the time. So, it's just MUCH safer to ask someone what they mean by a philosophical term that they are using.


[center]You don't tell THEM.. you allow them to tell YOU.[/center]


Right now, you have the cart before the horse, and you are using dictionary definitions as if they came from on high. They don't. Dictionaries attempt to list the many uses of the words they contain. And I do mean ATTEMPT.

:)

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #146

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 145 by Blastcat]


Glad you found both something you enjoyed and could criticize. Anything else would be boring :D

We are that atheism is a position. As far as burden of proof goes, I was making a comparision of one belief to another, so your argument that beliefs have no burden of proof, is not a argument against what I said.

I am not arguing that beliefs have burden of proof. I am arguing that non-belief has as much burden of proof as belief. 0=0, so on this point we do not disagree ;)

Yes the term agnosticm likely used to be a bit more "variable" and there are also many different types of agnostics, just like there is with atheists and theists.

I have no objection to many types of beliefs, for there are many beliefs.

I have objection to label everything as just two beliefs: Atheist and Theist. For in beliefs there is so big difference from one position to another, that it makes no sense to label them all in just two categories. That may have made sense 2000 years ago when most people believed in God and there was very few different religions.
But today it makes no sense whatsoever. These labels will give more confusion, than solution and make communication more difficult. And since the point of communication is common understanding of ideas, then we need to move away from 2 labels in beliefs until we have more proof or knowledge, to simplify categories and dismiss some of the many idea's available today.

Since neither evolution THEORY, or BELIEF in God can be proven it makes no sense to have 2 categories, for that means that everyone is on a scale of knowing something, but lacking knowledge of something, and so having various degrees of beliefs or confidence in an idea.

So it is bunkers to try to put it all in two categories today, where the belief in God is not held as proven truth.

You make a good point about not everyone using the terms to mean the same, but that in itself is why we need better defined terms than these two blanket categories, to speed and increase understanding in conversation.

For no one would understand what you really believe today simply by stating you are a atheist, agnostic or theist.

No no ....I am not saying words CAN only have a fixed meaning. I am saying they SHOULD have a fixed meaning, to ease conversation and increase understanding.

You may just drop a position you are not convinced of any more, but I keep investigating until I am convinced of something, for I seek the truth.

You write
"when it comes to belief, you either have it or you don't"


That is totally false. Beliefs are in degrees, just like confidence, ability, love etc.

Gambling is a perfect example of this. In gambling you have "ODDS". Odds you have because no one is sure that one team will win or loose, and you can not simply say that the belief that a underdog will win is equal to the belief that any other underdog will win, for there is a difference in strength of opposition.

That is the case with beliefs too. There is a difference in strenght of arguments, conviction etc.

To say you either believe or you don't, is like saying you either love someone or you don't, or you either trust someone or you don't.

And though this may SOUND right, it is total nonsense when it comes to what is actually taking place. Love, trust and beliefs are in degrees since no one is perfect and no argument is perfect or complete. If it was it wouldn't be BELIEF. It would be KNOWLEDGE.

So you can believe in something 67% or 84%, the difficulty of cause is measuring the strength of this belief. But to say that all belief is either 100% sure belief or 0% belief is nonsense, for if we were that sure of something it would be knowledge, and if we were 100% convinced of something we did not know, then we would be complete fools.

The evolution theory is another proof of this fact. Why is it called a theory? Because it is NOT 100% sure to be true and has not convinced all scientists completely. And yet is is one of the more common beliefs of scientists, which shows and proves that this theory is believed in various degrees, or you might say there could be placed odds or probability of it being true, if we knew enough to know all the variables.

Whether you say that atheism is a conviction that there isn't a God or a refusal to believe or not, my argument still holds true, in fact it proves my point.

For if I do NOT believe in God, I can not be a theists. But if atheism is to refuse to believe and I don't then I can also not be a atheist. Right? This is simple logic!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #147

Post by William »

Clownboat wrote:
What do you feel needs a rebuttal?
Any debate involving the subject of GOD whereby you take the position that god does not exist (from the position that you have no belief in any gods existing) and those which argue from the opposite position (including 'god could exist' and 'if god exists, then what would god most likely be like?' type hypothesis). Rebuttal. Do you have an argument which rebuts my own?
Please lay out your argument in quick form so I'm not trying to rebut a straw man if I even have a rebutal.
GOD=Self Aware Consciousness.

While that in itself explains 'what GOD is', in relation to this universe, and specifically this planet and human beings, more explanation is required.
I touch on this in more detail in this thread.
So far all you have done is make a sort of demand for evidence of the idea of god which apparently has to do with some physical sign or wonder not already an obvious aspect of the physical universe.
Actually my point was that I find statements like:
"Perhaps it (a god concept) just doesn't particularly see your position as a threat to its own?" as imaginative and unnecessary.
...Not explanatory.
Why? How do you know that this might not indeed BE the case?

So perhaps the alternative is for those who have a problem with the idea of any GOD existing, to throw out some ideas as to what they would accept as 'evidence for GOD existing' which doesn't already exist as part of the known physical universe, and from that I can respond as to the validity of the demand (per the expected evidence) and see where that might lead?
Said god would need to be defined before this would be reasonable. I would have different expectation for a god that could create universes with words compared to a god that was just powerful or what have you. You might as well be asking me what kind of evidence I would need in order to believe in a garbleflugal.
Exactly my point. There is no particular reason for anyone to demand 'burden of proof' without first establishing the idea of GOD under consideration.
Actually in following blastcat and Hector Barbosa's interactions above, I think the better term to use would be 'burden of truth' but that would mean redefinition, right? But I think it would be far more appropriate. 'Burden of Proof' invokes scientific means of establishing fact from fiction - 'Burden of Truth' invokes a more philosophical approach.
So far it has lead to poorly thought out analogies from the opponents of the hypothetical notion of GOD existing.

Would this be a problem?


It is always a problem because it ignores logic in its attempt to use something as an analogy for something else, when the two are not even close to resembling each other (as ideas).

Would it matter one bit if someone made a poor analogy about an invisible unicorn that lives in my garage if said unicorn didn't exist?


An invisible unicorn in your garage is exceptionally lacking as a useful analogy for GOD.
(And you saying 'GOD does not exist' is besides the point)

Would statements like "Perhaps the unicorn just doesn't particularly see your position as a threat to its own" have any value at all?
Was I arguing for invisible unicorns existing in your garage? No. It wasn't even close.

See? You are using extremely bad analogy to somehow bolster your argument against something which isn't even remotely related to the idea of an invisible unicorn in your garage. So yes, you (and any who use this type of arguing) are arguing against a strawman created through that false representation - the illogical attempt at making good argument from bad analogy.
It cannot ever work, in truth.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the value nor a reason to speculate about ill defined concepts that we have no evidence for?
No. I have already explained now what it is you are doing. It is up to you to consider my argument for merit.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #148

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 146 by Hector Barbosa]



[center]
To believe or not to believe, some people can't figure out the question
[/center]

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Glad you found both something you enjoyed and could criticize. Anything else would be boring :D
True, dat, bro !!

Hector Barbosa wrote:
We are that atheism is a position.
Good, we agree.
Atheism is a position.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
As far as burden of proof goes, I was making a comparision of one belief to another, so your argument that beliefs have no burden of proof, is not a argument against what I said.
Hmmmm

Lets say that I believe that I am handsome.
How do I now have the burden of the proof?

Is a belief the same as a claim?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I am not arguing that beliefs have burden of proof. I am arguing that non-belief has as much burden of proof as belief. 0=0, so on this point we do not disagree ;)
We agree that BELIEF has no burden of the proof, only people making CLAIMS have the burden of the proof.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Yes the term agnosticm likely used to be a bit more "variable" and there are also many different types of agnostics, just like there is with atheists and theists.
True dat.

People have different positions, alright.
That's why I keep repeating that we have to define our terms.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I have no objection to many types of beliefs, for there are many beliefs.
Yep.
Maybe billions of beliefs on the planet.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I have objection to label everything as just two beliefs: Atheist and Theist.
Ok... you might think it's a false dichotomy.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
For in beliefs there is so big difference from one position to another, that it makes no sense to label them all in just two categories.
I'd love to see your list of more than two options when it comes to if one believes something or not. To me, that's a binary position. Like a light switch. It's on or it's off... we don't really care about any "middle" state.

When I ask someone if they believe in something, I expect a yes or no answer. If they say "maybe" as many do, that's avoiding the question.


"Maybe" means they might believe or they might not.

I know that they might or might not. I'm ASKING them which one?



So, when it comes to a question about having a belief, how many options are there? I'd like to see your list

Hector Barbosa wrote:
That may have made sense 2000 years ago when most people believed in God and there was very few different religions.
I think you are getting confused between what KIND of belief and IF you have one at all. I don't currently have any theistic beliefs, so I call myself an "atheist".

If I HAD some theistic beliefs, I would call myself some kind of THEIST.

  • Theistic beliefs = Theist
    No theistic beliefs = Atheist
Hector Barbosa wrote:
But today it makes no sense whatsoever. These labels will give more confusion, than solution and make communication more difficult.

And THAT my friend, is where "defining your terms" comes into the picture.


Hector Barbosa wrote:
Since neither evolution THEORY, or BELIEF in God can be proven
lol.. I saw what you did there...

I see that you are a creationist.
I wonder how much of Genesis you can prove?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
it makes no sense to have 2 categories, for that means that everyone is on a scale of knowing something, but lacking knowledge of something, and so having various degrees of beliefs or confidence in an idea.
Degrees of beliefs...
Interesting concept.

Yep, I agree that there are different degrees of beliefs.
But each and every degree of belief is a belief.

A qualified belief is still a belief, my friend.


Lets say that you have the TEENIEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A teensie little bit you do.

Lets say that you have the BIGGEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A BIG bit you do.


A big or small amount is STILL an amount, my friend.


Belief is like "wetness" something is wet or dry.
You seem to be saying that something that is a little wet is dry.
And that would mean that something that is a little dry is wet.

Is it really wet or dry?
It's both, all the time.

It looks like you cannot decide.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
So it is bunkers to try to put it all in two categories today, where the belief in God is not held as proven truth.
I think to be more clear, we should shy away from using the word "proof" for God, or any hypothesis that tries to describe something that is said to exist in reality. And if you aren't talking about reality... I tend to zone right out. I have lots of fiction books to read if I want to indulge in fiction.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... c_proof.22

We should stick to "evidence' when we are trying to see if our hypothesis has any merit. As an agnostic and a skeptic, I say that no good evidence has been given to establish the truth of the God Hypothesis. Lots of BAD evidence is given, though. LOTS AND LOTS.

Let's leave the word "proof" for maths, where it belongs so as to not get confused with words.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You make a good point about not everyone using the terms to mean the same, but that in itself is why we need better defined terms than these two blanket categories, to speed and increase understanding in conversation.
There we go.
We agree.

So, LETS define our terms.

There is little use to discuss something if we don't really know what we are talking about. That right there is beginning to be my mantra in here... I repeat it often enough.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
For no one would understand what you really believe today simply by stating you are a atheist, agnostic or theist.
These labels are like any other labels.. they are shortcuts to the actual concepts which need to be well defined.

If we could not use shortcuts, everything we wanted to talk about would take many many pages. It would just be too much.

I'm an agnostic, and atheist and a skeptic. I have lots of other labels, but in discussions with religious people, that tends to be enough. I'm a father and a secular Taoist, too, for example. Hardly ever comes up in here.

If you need my definitions for ANY of my terms, I am very happy to oblige.
Just ask.

I do that all the time.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
No no ....I am not saying words CAN only have a fixed meaning. I am saying they SHOULD have a fixed meaning, to ease conversation and increase understanding.
There we are.
We agree.

LETS affix MEANING to our LABELS and then STICK to the definitions.
That's why one of my mottos on the left is "Define our terms".

People think I'm boring because I keep insisting on that.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You may just drop a position you are not convinced of any more, but I keep investigating until I am convinced of something, for I seek the truth.
You should not think that just because I drop a position that I stop seeking.
For I seek the truth, too, bro.

Did you really think I sought the false?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You write
"when it comes to belief, you either have it or you don't"

Yep.
I sure did.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
That is totally false. Beliefs are in degrees, just like confidence, ability, love etc.
Let me know what you think of my justification above...
We can discuss it later.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Gambling is a perfect example of this. In gambling you have "ODDS". Odds you have because no one is sure that one team will win or loose, and you can not simply say that the belief that a underdog will win is equal to the belief that any other underdog will win, for there is a difference in strength of opposition.
A belief is a belief.
Yes.

Doesn't matter how much of it we got. Belief is like cancer that way.
You got it or not. It's a binary thing. Medical tests come positive OR negative.

When it comes to existence, we either have it or we don't.

I don't see any middle ground.

We believe something, or we do not.
How MUCH we believe something is another matter entirely.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
That is the case with beliefs too. There is a difference in strenght of arguments, conviction etc.
I'm either convinced, or I'm not.
You can be as indecisive as you want.

But as I recall, at first you said that you were more convinced by the theistic arguments. That makes you a theist in my book.

That's all it really takes.
If you weren't convinced, you wouldn't be.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
To say you either believe or you don't, is like saying you either love someone or you don't, or you either trust someone or you don't.
That's precisely what I say.
I either love someone or I don't, and I either trust someone or I don't.

If I love someone a wee tiny bit, I LOVE them... a wee tiny bit.

If I say I love someone 1% and HATE them 99%.. do you know what I would say?
What I would say is that i don't love them, that's what I would say. But I would not say that I hate them 100%. That would be a slight exaggeration, you see.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
And though this may SOUND right, it is total nonsense when it comes to what is actually taking place.
Ok, that's interesting.
Go on.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
Love, trust and beliefs are in degrees since no one is perfect and no argument is perfect or complete.
I agree that nobody is perfect.
I'm not talking about perfection.

I'm either in love or I am not. I don't have to know absolutely everything in the universe to figure that out. I don't have to love someone 100% to say that I love them. I tell my kids that I love them 100%, but that's it, I'm afraid. The rest of you have to get in line.

I either trust someone or I do not. Again, no perfect knowledge required for the feeling. By the way, I don't trust my kids 100%. I LOVE them 100%

I either believe something or I don't.
And I believe that I have kids almost 100%... maybe like

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

But, that's not quite 100%
People make their fortune with extra small differences like that.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
If it was it wouldn't be BELIEF. It would be KNOWLEDGE.
Belief ≠ Knowledge
I also agree that there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

We can believe that we know something is true, AND be wrong.


That happens to me all the time.
What about you?

But when it comes to ME.. I KNOW if I believe something or not. I'm the very best judge of that, you see.

I also KNOW if I trust someone or not, and I happen to KNOW if I love someone or not. My mental states.. I'm kindof aware of them.


It's not hard to do.. I just feel my feelings.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
So you can believe in something 67% or 84%, the difficulty of cause is measuring the strength of this belief.

As SOON as a belief has ANY strength all it's a belief.


If the "belief" has a ZERO "strength" its no longer a belief.

It could be 1% belief, and that would be a very weak belief, but it's still a belief.
It could be 100% belief. When it comes to belief, the percentage doesn't matter.

As SOON as it's a belief, well, heck mam, it's a belief.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
But to say that all belief is either 100% sure belief or 0% belief is nonsense,
I agree that what you just wrote sounds nonsensical.
That's not what I am saying.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
for if we were that sure of something it would be knowledge,
Actually, no.


Certainty ≠ Knowledge


We can be sure about something, and YET , be wrong.
How is being wrong about reality "knowledge"?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
and if we were 100% convinced of something we did not know, then we would be complete fools.
I don't agree.
Just because we are WRONG about something does NOT mean we are fools.


Being wrong ≠ Being "foolish"


Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.
Do you consider Einstein foolish?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
The evolution theory is another proof of this fact. Why is it called a theory? Because it is NOT 100% sure to be true and has not convinced all scientists completely.
I don't take you at all for a fool, but you are wrong.
That's not how the word "theory" is used in science.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments.Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory does NOT depend on 100% certainty but on evidence, and it's a an EXPLANATION of how things in what we call "reality" works.

And I don't happen to care if some part of the scientific community isn't convinced by the theory of evolution. I only care if the theory works, if it's been tested, if there is evidence, and if it fits in with every other scientific theory we have.

I don't care about the useless scientific theories.
There are lots of those.

Most scientific theories don't stand the test of ... well, anything, really.
Only the good ones survive.

Science is EXTREMELY competitive, you see.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
And yet is is one of the more common beliefs of scientists,
Scientists are not IN the "belief" business.. that's the preacher's job.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
which shows and proves that this theory is believed in various degrees, or you might say there could be placed odds or probability of it being true, if we knew enough to know all the variables.
Everything that we say that we know is probabilistic, since as we agreed, we don't happen to know everything.

If you recall, I agree with you that humans can't know absolutely everything. So there are things we don't know. We more properly say that something is true if it most PROBABLY fits in with everything else that we know with a high degree of probability.

Yeah, knowledge is a probability game, alright.
Which theory is more probably right?

How are we to decide?

Well, my friend, science goes a long way figuring those pesky questions out.
LO and behold.. science seems to work.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Whether you say that atheism is a conviction that there isn't a God or a refusal to believe or not, my argument still holds true, in fact it proves my point.
Not quite sure how it proves your point.

I agree though, that "to be convinced" and "to believe" are synonymous.

I label myself an atheist because I am NOT convinced and I DO NOT believe that there is good evidence for any gods or goddesses.


In fact, I'd say all of the proffered evidence for gods or goddesses are the very worst kinds.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
For if I do NOT believe in God, I can not be a theists.
Right.
We agree.

If you lack a belief in any gods or goddesses, you are an atheist, because that's the accepted definition of the word "atheist".

Hector Barbosa wrote:
But if atheism is to refuse to believe and I don't then I can also not be a atheist. Right? This is simple logic!
If you don't refuse to believe, where does that leave you?
Maybe your logic is simple.. but I would say wrong.

Do you believe in gods or goddesses, or do you not?



:)

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #149

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 148 by Blastcat]

Phew that was a long, but good post, and another win-win for there was both things I enjoyed and could criticize! :)

Ok we agree atheism is a position, and that claims have burden of proof, belief doesn't meaning one belief vs another belief has equal burden of proof : none!

We also agree on variable terms for agnosticism and variable beliefs, so even if you do not agree that the 2 belief dichotomy of atheism and theism, you at least must have understood part of the point why I don't agree beliefs can be put up in just 2 categories.

In fact you use the light switch on or of comparison and binary position. Which is good, I can use this one to prove my point ;)

Even if you switch a light on or of does that mean that LIGHT can only be on or of? Isn't it in fact true that there are so many degrees of lighting, that it would be virtually impossible to define them all?

If the moon is shining is the light on or off? Can you switch the moon or sun light on or off? Even IF light IS binary, the brightness of light vary and is experienced to various degrees just like heat. But if we are talking of binary position, then we are talking of the source, NOT the experience of the source. So Binary would be more like Gnostic/Agnostic because the binary position would KNOW if something exist or not, is on or of. In other words binary applies to knowledge, NOT to beliefs. For beliefs are beliefs because they are NOT at the source.

So the only way you can justify having just 2 positions, is if you are at the source, but then the position would be either KNOW or NOT know...not belief or not belief.

In other words, to have just 2 positions for belief is total bogus ;)

Doing so would is an attempt of those who believe to arrogantly claim to KNOW which they don't. Ironically its a way of preaching rather than debating. It's a ONE-way communication rather than a TWO way communication. For from its vantage point it seems to argue that their beliefs is more valid than other beliefs or lack there of, despite having no evidence to convince anyone that their belief or lack of belief is more valid.

Can you see the obvious contradiction?

Like you may expect a yes or no answer in asking if someone believe in something, but really its a bogus question if a TRUE answer can not be found.

ITs a manipulative answer. It would be like me asking you. Who do you like more your son or your daughter expecting a answer, or do you believe music is good expecting an answer, when the answer I like both the same or I think some music is good and some music is not good is not just a valid answer, it is a far more honest answer than just saying "music is good" or "music is bad"

For you it may be black and white, because you REFUSE to see another position, or are very fast to conclude and be convinced in a BELIEF argument you don't KNOW.

But that is a very unscientific approach, and not a very open-minded one.

Just because you can conclude that the Dallas Cowboys are Angels and the Oakland Raiders Devils, you can not expect others to draw such a black and white comparison when there is nothing to prove either claim.

So for me to say that I like the Cowboys and the Raiders the same is a perfectly valid point, belief and argument.

Yes I KNOW THEIST = BELIEF, ATHEIST = NON BELIEF. But can you really not see that it is possible NOT to believe either argument, or to be open for both arguments being true?

Can you really not see that it is possible to be UNDECIDED about what to believe?

Belief means to be CONVINCED. Are you always convinced about something right of the bat? That's not a very smart approach, if science was that way, then we would not know half of the things we do today.

Being scientific and open-minded should mean to be SLOW to convince, to have a fair deal of skepticism in a world full of lies.
And when it comes to theism and atheism there is a hell of a lot of lies, and since neither argument can be shown or proven...I think you have to be a liar or idiot to be convinced right of the bat that one argument is correct and the other not.

What about a new born child? Are they atheist or theist? No! They can't be either. For they can not be convinced a God exist they don't know about, but they can also not reject a belief they have not been presented.
lol.. I saw what you did there...

I see that you are a creationist.


What do you mean I am a creationist? Is that your definition of a category between theism and atheism?

Over here creationist are normally associated with believing in God.

Degrees of beliefs is not just a interesting concept its a very easily proven idea, as I just have.

And you just said
Yep, I agree that there are different degrees of beliefs. But each and every degree of belief is a belief.


Absolutely, and everyone believe in something, but that does not mean they believe in God!

I agree that a qualified belief is a belief mate....are we getting somewhere in this debate now? I hope so :)

You say:
Lets say that you have the TEENIEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A teensie little bit you do.

Lets say that you have the BIGGEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A BIG bit you do.


Well on that account everyone are creationists or theists. For we all live as if we expect to live without proof do we not?

So the TEENIEST belief in extended life we all have, heck the very notion that we debate there is a truth, is a tiny belief in objective truth suggest a tiny believe in a Godly truth we believe in the moment we say something is right or wrong.

So you just proved my point with your own words. The fact there CAN be both tiny and large belief is proof that belief is in degrees, and proof that everyone believe to SOME degree, and disbelieve to some degree.

Heck most of the strong atheists I have talked to have claimed they used to believe in God and religion. Most of the atheists I have talked to who have not, are not so dogmatic about if they believe in God or not.

The word "proof" can and should be applied to anything which can be true or false. It has nothing to do with one position or not, its a unbiased word connected with truth, which is also unbiased. You could equally say that it has not been proven there is no aliens. That neither means there are aliens or that there isn't.

Proof is just a word to describe the amount of evidence there is for or against a claim and that can be applied to anything from God, to the possibility of living on Mars, to flying unicorns and the milkman banging the neighbor.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: "Atheists believe there is no God"

Post #150

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 148 by Blastcat]

Phew that was a long, but good post, and another win-win for there was both things I enjoyed and could criticize! :)

Ok we agree atheism is a position, and that claims have burden of proof, belief doesn't meaning one belief vs another belief has equal burden of proof : none!

We also agree on variable terms for agnosticism and variable beliefs, so even if you do not agree that the 2 belief dichotomy of atheism and theism, you at least must have understood part of the point why I don't agree beliefs can be put up in just 2 categories.

In fact you use the light switch on or of comparison and binary position. Which is good, I can use this one to prove my point ;)

Even if you switch a light on or of does that mean that LIGHT can only be on or of? Isn't it in fact true that there are so many degrees of lighting, that it would be virtually impossible to define them all?

If the moon is shining is the light on or off? Can you switch the moon or sun light on or off? Even IF light IS binary, the brightness of light vary and is experienced to various degrees just like heat. But if we are talking of binary position, then we are talking of the source, NOT the experience of the source. So Binary would be more like Gnostic/Agnostic because the binary position would KNOW if something exist or not, is on or of. In other words binary applies to knowledge, NOT to beliefs. For beliefs are beliefs because they are NOT at the source.

So the only way you can justify having just 2 positions, is if you are at the source, but then the position would be either KNOW or NOT know...not belief or not belief.

In other words, to have just 2 positions for belief is total bogus ;)

Doing so would is an attempt of those who believe to arrogantly claim to KNOW which they don't. Ironically its a way of preaching rather than debating. It's a ONE-way communication rather than a TWO way communication. For from its vantage point it seems to argue that their beliefs is more valid than other beliefs or lack there of, despite having no evidence to convince anyone that their belief or lack of belief is more valid.

Can you see the obvious contradiction?

Like you may expect a yes or no answer in asking if someone believe in something, but really its a bogus question if a TRUE answer can not be found.

ITs a manipulative answer. It would be like me asking you. Who do you like more your son or your daughter expecting a answer, or do you believe music is good expecting an answer, when the answer I like both the same or I think some music is good and some music is not good is not just a valid answer, it is a far more honest answer than just saying "music is good" or "music is bad"

For you it may be black and white, because you REFUSE to see another position, or are very fast to conclude and be convinced in a BELIEF argument you don't KNOW.

But that is a very unscientific approach, and not a very open-minded one.

Just because you can conclude that the Dallas Cowboys are Angels and the Oakland Raiders Devils, you can not expect others to draw such a black and white comparison when there is nothing to prove either claim.

So for me to say that I like the Cowboys and the Raiders the same is a perfectly valid point, belief and argument.

Yes I KNOW THEIST = BELIEF, ATHEIST = NON BELIEF. But can you really not see that it is possible NOT to believe either argument, or to be open for both arguments being true?

Can you really not see that it is possible to be UNDECIDED about what to believe?

Belief means to be CONVINCED. Are you always convinced about something right of the bat? That's not a very smart approach, if science was that way, then we would not know half of the things we do today.

Being scientific and open-minded should mean to be SLOW to convince, to have a fair deal of skepticism in a world full of lies.
And when it comes to theism and atheism there is a hell of a lot of lies, and since neither argument can be shown or proven...I think you have to be a liar or idiot to be convinced right of the bat that one argument is correct and the other not.

What about a new born child? Are they atheist or theist? No! They can't be either. For they can not be convinced a God exist they don't know about, but they can also not reject a belief they have not been presented.
lol.. I saw what you did there...

I see that you are a creationist.


What do you mean I am a creationist? Is that your definition of a category between theism and atheism?

Over here creationist are normally associated with believing in God.

Degrees of beliefs is not just a interesting concept its a very easily proven idea, as I just have.

And you just said
Yep, I agree that there are different degrees of beliefs. But each and every degree of belief is a belief.


Absolutely, and everyone believe in something, but that does not mean they believe in God!

I agree that a qualified belief is a belief mate....are we getting somewhere in this debate now? I hope so :)

You say:
Lets say that you have the TEENIEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A teensie little bit you do.

Lets say that you have the BIGGEST ever possible amount of belief in the truth of proposition X. Do you believe it? Yes. A BIG bit you do.


Well on that account everyone are creationists or theists. For we all live as if we expect to live without proof do we not?

So the TEENIEST belief in extended life we all have, heck the very notion that we debate there is a truth, is a tiny belief in objective truth suggest a tiny believe in a Godly truth we believe in the moment we say something is right or wrong.

So you just proved my point with your own words. The fact there CAN be both tiny and large belief is proof that belief is in degrees, and proof that everyone believe to SOME degree, and disbelieve to some degree.

Heck most of the strong atheists I have talked to have claimed they used to believe in God and religion. Most of the atheists I have talked to who have not, are not so dogmatic about if they believe in God or not.

The word "proof" can and should be applied to anything which can be true or false. It has nothing to do with one position or not, its a unbiased word connected with truth, which is also unbiased. You could equally say that it has not been proven there is no aliens. That neither means there are aliens or that there isn't.

Proof is just a word to describe the amount of evidence there is for or against a claim and that can be applied to anything from God, to the possibility of living on Mars, to flying unicorns and the milkman banging the neighbor.

No reason to zone out because you can not see evidence in a argument bro, then you really should not be in a debate forum, for some evidence can take a long time to produce.

Post Reply