Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In order to be an atheist, one must hold a belief that god does not exist. If one admits that he is not sure about the non-existence of god, even if they think it is the most plausible theory, then they are not an atheist.
The thing is, that the term "god" is insufficiently defined such that the existence of a god cannot even begin to be assessed.

We are all ignostics until such a point as when the term "god" is sufficiently defined. At such a point we will then most likely look at the evidence and determine that god has either "been falsified and hence has been proven to not exist" or "that remarkably even though we would have expected the fasifiable evidence to prove that there is no god, that remarkably the evidence does not falsify gods and hence gods likely exist".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 04:04 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Some of this hinges on the definition of knowledge.

Different disciplines use different definitions but the generally accepted definition in Philosophy is "a justified true belief". Therefore knowledge is a subset of belief.

I prefer the IT definition but hey-ho, we're talking flossfy here.

So by this definition one can hold a belief (either way) without it being a justified, true belief (yet) ... so one can legitimately say "I don't know but I still believe that something does / does not exist".
Using the scientific method you can prove things to be false but you can never prove things to be true. You can get a fair idea that something is true because you look at its predictions, you look at all the other possibilities and if all the data points exist on the path that is consistent with the proposed theory then it may seem remarkable to consider why the data points are on that path rather than away from that path.
But even when you think you have it all down along comes some smart arse (Einstein) who says something like "Yeah that is all true until you consider things that are moving really really fast, like near the speed of light, then things are different" then Newton goes "Well, I was right for 100 years or so then I was only almost right."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
11-08-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In order to be an atheist, one must hold a belief that god does not exist. If one admits that he is not sure about the non-existence of god, even if they think it is the most plausible theory, then they are not an atheist.
The thing is, that the term "god" is insufficiently defined such that the existence of a god cannot even begin to be assessed.

We are all ignostics until such a point as when the term "god" is sufficiently defined. At such a point we will then most likely look at the evidence and determine that god has either "been falsified and hence has been proven to not exist" or "that remarkably even though we would have expected the fasifiable evidence to prove that there is no god, that remarkably the evidence does not falsify gods and hence gods likely exist".

I can accept that. Except for the part when you used "proven". Nothing can be proved without any doubt attached to it.

The simple fact is that we define "proved/proven" as something that has been demonstrated as truth and the attached doubt is negligible to belief.

However, when talking about belief vs knowledge, you have to take "proved/proven" at its face value - i.e. absolutism, 100%.

If not, there is no difference between the two.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 04:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  In that case, they would have to admit to holding an unjustified belief, which is really the only thing the atheists have been arguing for.
I agree with this statement.

The term belief which is colloquially used is different to this strict version that DLJ used.

The way I consider "belief" it is the recognision that there are plausible alternatives but the believer has chosen to forsake the alternatives in favour of just one "plausible" option.

Religious believers do this by using "faith" which is a fancy term for picking the option that they are most optimistic about a.k.a. wishful thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In order to be an atheist, one must hold a belief that god does not exist.

It was my understanding that the term atheism would apply so long as one lacks a belief that god does exist. i.e. someone who doesn't believe that god exists, but also does not believe that god doesn't exist, also known as agnostics, would also be considered atheist.

(11-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If one admits that he is not sure about the non-existence of god, even if they think it is the most plausible theory, then they are not an atheist.

See how this works?

If you're going by your explanation, EVERYONE is an agnostic. There is no such thing as atheism or theism because, as aforementioned, no one can have omniscience.

You have no idea what you're talking about. A person doesn't have to believe that god doesn't exist to be an atheist, he merely needs to lack a belief that god does exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  But you've changed the claim of belief to a claim of knowledge...

Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, but I don't believe god exists.
Gnostic theism = god exists
Gnostic atheism = no god exists

This isn't consistent.
To be consistent you would have to say
Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, but I believe god doesn't exist

But as we know this isn't the case
A person who believes that god doesn't exist isn't agnostic, they are gnostic.
So we must reason that a person who believes god does exist as also being gnostic.
So now we have
Agnostic atheism = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.
To be consistent we would also have to describe agnostic theism as the same
Agnostic theism = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

Since we don't have a different definition of agnostic atheism to agnostic theism we should really drop the theism/atheism qualifier.

Agnostic = I don't know if god exists, I don't believe god exists but I also don't believe that god doesn't exist.

BUT, since this definition includes the phrase "I don't believe god exists" then this qualifies as "atheist" hence agnostic can't be a position of theism.


BUT REALLY, this isn't the way it works.
agnostic means without knowledge as apposed to a belief claim.
atheist means lacking belief in gods as apposed to a knowledge claim.

So we have to consider the consistency of the above. Is knowledge and belief two different things?

It comes down to your epistemology.
If you have an epistemology based on evidence then you can claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X but inconsistent with Y therefore Y is untrue and X is likely to be true" you can also claim knowledge such as "all the evidence is consistent with X and also consistent with A therefore X is likely to be true and A is likely to be true, I understand that X and A are incompatible therefore if one is true the other is false but I have insufficient evidence to know which one (if any) is true".
For an epistemology based on evidence it isn't acceptable to wishfully choose one plausible alternative over another. If you did then you would be invoking belief as opposed to knowledge.

If you have an epistemology based on faith then you just believe in whatever you want to believe and you call that knowledge. For this epistemology there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Given this epistemology then a theist must be a gnostic theist and can't be an agnostic atheist.

A gnostic atheist is similar to a gnostic thiest, they have chosen an epistemolgy of faith rather than evidence, they choose to equate knowledge with belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:55 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 12:53 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Right, even though I would guess that god doesn't exist, I'm not a gnostic atheist because I don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist. It would be silly to jump to that conclusion IMO.

Okay then... per you... everyone is an agnostic and atheism and theism are non-existent.

No, you're not getting it at all. If someone holds the belief that god exists, they are a theist. If someone doesn't hold the belief that god exists they are an atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 12:57 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I guess the real question is, "Do you believe there are gnostic atheists?"

If so, please show me where to find a gnostic because I have some questions to ask him/her/it about the upcoming lottery.

There are plenty of atheists who claim knowledge that god doesn't exist. Go find free, he'll help you out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 01:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I can accept that. Except for the part when you used "proven". Nothing can be proved without any doubt attached to it.
We can prove things to be false.
We can prove that a square circle doesn't exist.

We can prove that Newton's theory of gravity doesn't hold in conditions where velocity approaches the speed of light.

We can't however prove beyond all doubt something to be true.
This is why it is important for a definition to include falsifiable criteria.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(11-08-2015 02:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We can prove things to be false.
We can prove that a square circle doesn't exist.

Is the circle a jerk though?

Christ... all dese definitions. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: