Well, let’s just first say it doesn’t matter. The semantics don’t matter.
In so far as it matters at all, it’s because of the game of saying atheism is a “faith” and has a burden of proof. It doesn’t.
I don’t have a burden of proof to show there’s no Godzilla because I never claimed to know there’s no Godzilla (and even those that claim to know, are usually not trying to convince others to hold that position).
As long as we’re not playing that game, I don’t care if someone wants to call me a weak atheist, agnostic atheist or anything else. But I would still balk at someone calling my position a “belief”. What, supposedly, is my belief?
Look at it like this. In terms of forming an opinion on a claim, C, there are at least these 3 states:
1 A person who has never heard of C
2 A person who’s heard C and drawn no conclusion
3 A person who has decided that they believe C to be true or false
I wouldn’t call (1) an atheist, but I would say that (2) is. And to be honest, it’s a bit of a trick, since adults belonging to group (1) for the claim “God exists” are pretty rare. So, no, I wouldn’t agree that this implies that atheism is actually a belief.
This matches how I think about atheism. After researching and looking at the evidence I concluded god(s) don’t exist. It’s a positive belief, different to if I’d never been introduced to the idea.
I’m not asking for linked cites to support your claims. I’m just curious about where all this is coming from. What led you to the conclusion that the ultimate aim of science is eugenics?
He never struck me as a religious nutball while he was posting as Paul_in_Saudi. So I’m slightly intrigued by the change in tone since he left the Kingdom. Perhaps he’ll return to explain.
I assume you just missed it upthread (since you clearly tend to read threads pretty thoroughly), but he did give some concrete examples of his concerns.
It might be that, with his postings no longer subject to possible scrutiny by his bosses and/or Saudi authorities, he feels comfortable letting his freak flag fly.
Or, he got bored with JAQing off on Middle East issues.
The problem is that many theists conflate “faith” with “belief.” IOW, theists talk about a “belief” based on weak or no empirical evidence and not a rigorous logical examination. Then, they claim that atheists also have a “belief” so there is no difference between the two.
This is wrong, because extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence. As mentioned above, the belief in Santa is not the same as a belief that there is no Santa.
His debate style in other matters is equally lacking.
I’m not sure your nitpick is right actually.
Matt usually shows the jar of gumballs. The point is you cannot tell that it is an odd or even number just from a glance while talking over a call. Yes, you could count them if you had the jar in hand, but that’s besides the point, which the caller usually understands.
Belief is required for object permanence. We have to be able to believe in things that we cannot currently sense. I “believe” that my car is parked where I left it. This allows us to also “believe” in other things that we cannot directly sense, like atoms or electrons, based on reason.
This is entirely different from believing in something for which there is no evidence, and in fact, is often contrary to the evidence that we do have.
I was not meaning to nitpick your description of Matt’s analogy, I was just fleshing out what I thought would be an even better analogy.
And he’s just been officially warned for a post shitting on atheists in another thread, after being instructed to leave it alone:
My guess is that he has recently “found” Christianity, and has subsequently turned into one of those recently converted assholes who think they know it all.
In his brilliant act “Thank You God” the Australian singer and comedian Tim Minchin relates a challenge by a Christian who attempted a gotcha by saying “You don’t go through life only believing in things that you have evidence.” To which Tim replied that how he lives. “What about love?” Tim’s reply: “Love without evidence is stalking.”
That reminds me of a quote I heard once attributed to Ronald Reagan. Which I’m pleased to say I can actually find online.
Sometimes when I’m faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there’s a cook.
Speaking to your point, there should be little doubt that cooks exist. So that wasn’t a particularly clever quote on Ron’s part.
Am I misremembering that Paul recently used Reagan as an example of an atheist? I thought I read that but I can’t find it.
How about a gourmet dinner that includes genocide and childhood cancer, after which he asks if the chef is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and worthy of worship?
