Spirituality
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by apathist“Lack of belief” that P (and, for the sake of this discussion, I will expand that to “considered lack of belief that P”—in order to get rid of the rocks and babies), and “belief that not-P” are two different logical positions. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I'm glad you managed to exclude rocks, seriously. But an atheist is one who [b]rejects a belief in the existence of gods. Or at least refuses to accept it. Same difference.[/b]
They are different because one entails belief as a mental act, and the other does not. To withhold belief from a proposition because I do not know is not the same as claiming that I know that that proposition is false. A claim of knowledge constitutes holding a belief that one can justify; to actually know entails that said belief is also true (the standard epistemological definition of knowledge as justified, true belief).
There are really three options (on the part of one who has considered the question)—
1. One believes the proposition;
2. One withholds belief; or
3. One believes the negation of the proposition.
One might adopt 2. because one is agnostic (or skeptical). Nevertheless, one withholds belief. If one asserts either a belief (1.) or its negation (3.), epistemic justification comes into play.
This is why it seems clear to me that the distinction between “strong” (or positive, or Gnostic) atheism and “weak” (or negative, or agnostic) atheism is valid. It is also why I do not see agnosticism per se as a kind of “middle ground” or alternative stand-alone position.
Twhitehead is correct that a definition is not true or false (a definition is not a logical proposition, or a statement of fact). A definition may be more or less useful or useless—in the context of the question at issue. The substantive distinction, between not holding (or withholding) a belief and holding a belief, makes the definitional distinction between negative and positive atheism useful. The definition does not create the substantive distinction—recognizing the substantive distinction gives rise to the definitional distinction.
_______________________________________________
EDIT: As a practical matter, both kinds of atheism may come to the same thing; as a philosophical (or conceptual) matter, they do not. That is the reason for the distinction between theoretical (or philosophical, or conceptual, or epistemological) atheism and practical atheism. For example, if one is asked why, in practice, they behave is if there is or is not a god, their (considered) answer will fall under one of the three options listed above.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by apathistLook the only thing you are doing here is convincing me that you are a complete idiot.
I'm glad you managed to exclude rocks, seriously. But an atheist is one who [b]rejects a belief in the existence of gods. Or at least refuses to accept it. Same difference.[/b]
I don't know what your problem is and don't care.
What I mean by the word atheist is someone who is not a theist.
A theist is someone who has a firm conviction [belief] that god/s exist.
An atheist is someone who lacks that firm conviction [belief].
I have shown you that all the major atheist organisations and many prominent
atheists define it that way.
I have shown you philosophical and entomological arguments for it being defined that way.
And it's what I always have and always will mean by the word atheist.
If you don't like it then tough excrement.
I'm done talking to you about this.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipThe mistake you are making here is in confusing [as twhitehead rightly says] the definition
I consider this a popular modification designed to rig the debate so that no burden is left upon the atheist for proof.
of a word with an argument.
1) YOU as a theist, are making a claim that a god exists.
As with all claims this claim requires evidence sufficient to justify believing it.
2) There are people who lack a belief that god/s exist.
These people are NOT making a claim and need no evidence to justify their absence of belief.
3) There are people who believe that god/s do not exist.
These people ARE making a claim and they need to provide evidence sufficient to justify believing it.
This is true regardless of what label you apply to these people.
Your problem of having to provide evidence for your claim exists regardless of what those in the
second two groups call themselves.
In fact you have that problem even if the people in the second two groups do not exist.
The problem exists even if you are right and they are wrong.
If I say that the world is [roughly] a ball spinning in space then I am making a claim and I need to be
able to provide evidence sufficient to justify it, both to myself and to others.
ALL claims come with a burden of proof.
However not claiming anything has no burden of proof.
I mean what would you be showing evidence for if you are not claiming anything?
The fact that both groups 2 and 3 label themselves as being atheists does absolutely nothing to change
any of this.
It has no bearing on whether or not we are right, and it does nothing to alter the strength of our arguments.
It is just a label so that we have a convenient word for denoting someone who lacks a belief in god/s as opposed
to someone who believes that god/s do exist.
The fact that even that threatens you is a sign of how pathetically weak your position is.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
ALL claims come with a burden of proof.
However not claiming anything has no burden of proof.
The fact that even that threatens you is a sign of how pathetically weak your position is.
The one who appears threatened and weak is the person who has to jury rig the definition of his position so as to conveniently absolve himself of all burden of proof.
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipWell said.ALL claims come with a burden of proof.
However not claiming anything has no burden of proof.
The fact that even that threatens you is a sign of how pathetically weak your position is.
The one who appears threatened and weak is the person who has to jury rig the definition of his position so as to conveniently absolve himself of all burden of proof.
Kelly
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipThanks for letting us know that the reason you want to jury right the definition is because you feel threatened. I don't get how this absolves you of all proof though.
The one who appears threatened and weak is the person who has to jury rig the definition of his position so as to conveniently absolve himself of all burden of proof.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonshipDid you actually read my post?ALL claims come with a burden of proof.
However not claiming anything has no burden of proof.
The fact that even that threatens you is a sign of how pathetically weak your position is.
The one who appears threatened and weak is the person who has to jury rig the definition of his position so as to conveniently absolve himself of all burden of proof.
Or did you just conveniently skip over the part where I said that those claiming
that god/s don't exist also have a burden of proof?
I claim that [for most definitions of god] that gods don't exist.
I have a burden of proof because I AM making a claim.
And unlike you I can meet that burden.
I am not arguing that the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods because
it strengthens my position.
My position is my position regardless and independent of what you call it.
I am, as you really should know by now, a strong atheist, tending to gnostic atheist.
I HAVE a burden of proof.
Unlike you I admit that, AND am prepared to meet it.
So which one of us is threatened and weak again?
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhy should I have to justify my beliefs - obviously I should if I were advocating them to others, but that is part of advocacy. I see no reason why someone should have to justify their belief in a religion, unless they were evangelical, or chose to enter a debate.
The mistake you are making here is in confusing [as twhitehead rightly says] the definition
of a word with an argument.
[i]
1) YOU as a theist, are making a claim that a god exists.
As with all claims this claim requires evidence sufficient to justify believing it.
2) There are people who lack a belief that god/s exist.
These people ar ...[text shortened]...
The fact that even that threatens you is a sign of how pathetically weak your position is.
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI beg to differ, there are more than a few people here that jump through all
Well given that everything he said was wrong... It was pretty poorly said really.
kinds of hoops to avoid their own beliefs being presented in such a way they
have to defend them.
Kelly
10 Aug 13
Originally posted by apathistAtheism must find a natural explanation to explain away everything that
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
would or could include God or gods. It will always rely on any explanation
no matter how far fetch what could be a natural explanation to keep God
or gods out of all possible explanations, there are no exceptions to this,
this is a systematic view of the world or universe we find ourselves in.
If you don't think this is a belief system, you are kidding yourself.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI know many atheists who feel no such need to find such an explanation. They don't care and aren't interested in such matters. So that claim is patently false.
Atheism must find a natural explanation to explain away everything that
would or could include God or gods. It will always rely on any explanation
no matter how far fetch what could be a natural explanation to keep God
or gods out of all possible explanations, there are no exceptions to this,
this is a systematic view of the world or universe we find ourselves in.
If you don't think this is a belief system, you are kidding yourself.
Kelly
Having trawled the web, almost every reputable definition of atheism I found included those who, for whatever reason, do not have a belief in God.
For you to claim that all the people who fall within this definition have an active belief that God does not exist rather demonstrates your bias.
I mean, do you believe that I am 46 years of age?
You don't know and don't care?
Ok - you clearly believe I am not 46 years of age.
Can you please prove that I am not 46, as you made the claim?
You can't and think it's silly being asked to prove something you have never actually claimed and don't have any view on?
Welcome to the world of the atheist that simply doesn't believe in Gods.
Now, are you going to carry on claiming that all atheists actively believe that Gods don't exist or will you accept that this is simply not the case.
11 Aug 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWe only classify atheists as those claiming to be atheist and who claim God does not exist. Therefore, babies and those with no concept of God are not considered atheists. Agnostics are those that do not believe in God, because of their lack of knowledge of God.
I know many atheists who feel no such need to find such an explanation. They don't care and aren't interested in such matters. So that claim is patently false.
Having trawled the web, almost every reputable definition of atheism I found included those who, for whatever reason, do not have a belief in God.
For you to claim that all the people who ...[text shortened]... vely believe that Gods don't exist or will you accept that this is simply not the case.
The Instructor