Here, for instance, is someone stating that “I know there is no God”
In fact, he laughs at people who “say that they are 99.99999% sure there is no God but they can’t rule it out so they only lack belief”
Does he sound like a nutter to you?
Or maybe this scientist
While we cannot prove that every conceivable god does not exist, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god that plays such an important role in the universe such as the Abrahamic God would have been detected by now. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence that should be there is not.
I don’t think your summation actually works. This person’s explanation of their viewpoint is quibbling about being able to say, literally, what we can “know” and what we don’t “know”, as opposed to the 99.9etc% formulation. He “laughs” in the sense that he feels they’re foolishly quibbling, not because of their comparative lack of certainty. They explicitly talk about the fact that their beliefs in general and in the specific case of a god are not infallible and that there is a chance (one they describe as extremely low, but a chance) that they are wrong. They just take issue with the idea that saying they “know” something when what they’re talking about is that 99.9etc% certainty is the same as saying they have a belief on the same “level” as religious faith.
Which of course is another argument entirely. But you are, at least, wrong that they are claiming “I am utterly certain that there is NO god.” Here is a quote;
[QUOTE=your cite]
And given the extraordinary failure of supernatural entities to show themselves in the world under modern conditions for verifying and falsifying beliefs, the likelihood of supernatural entities actually existing is extremely low. Well well below 1%.
[/QUOTE]
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is part of the bit you yourself quoted. So… there’s* un*reasonable doubt? And thus no certainty either.
In it, God (the idea of, or proposition) is enveloped by a religion, supported by people who believe in that proposition called theists.
Outside of this proposition for belief lies a void for those that are not part of the belief system (theism in this particular diagram). A religion can only exist around a fundamental proposition. Therefore atheism is not a religion.
That link doesn’t work for me (no Flickr account). cmyk, do you believe that this universe we’re in is empty of supernatural divine beings–that if you were able to count them, you’d come up with “zero” as the answer?
If you think that zero is the answer to the question of how many divine beings is in the universe, then and only then would I consider you an atheist. If, on reflection, you think you have insufficient data to make an estimate, I’d consider you agnostic. And if you’re incapable of understanding the question, I’d consider you to have no stance on the issue at all, in the way a coffee mug or infant exists.
I think there is zero evidence of “supernatural, divine beings”, therefore, Atheist.
The introduction of the belief in such is from a manmade construct, not from any supernatural or divine influence. In that sense, Buddha, God, Allah, Zeus, unicorns, etc. are all in the same category: Non-belief.
Does that Flickr link work for anyone else?
Allow me to answer your second part more sufficiently.
I don’t believe in any deities. Athiest.
I’m not 100% certain they can’t exist, since this particular idea is unique as a matter of my philosophy that either the universe came from Something or Nothing, though I cannot rule out that if it came from Something, that Something isn’t “supernatural or divine” in some way, but I don’t put much credence in that anymore.
I can allow for the secular “belief” in Buddhism, which really comes down to maintaining the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama and/or its various flavors developed over the centuries, but to believe that the Buddha was a divine being would require a hard-theistic outlook.
We’re trying to figure out the definition of a word. That is literally what semantics is. If you disagree about what you think the word means when people typically use it, you’re disagreeing about semantics. He thinks people are giving an explicit definition of “atheism” that seems to contradict the implicit assumptions that we can infer from when they actually use the word.
This isn’t the first thread he’s offered this opinion in, and I wasn’t originally convinced – maybe because I didn’t quite understand what he was driving at – but after seeing all the pointless bobbing and weaving as he’s sharpened his questions into more precise instruments, I’m starting to re-evaluate my opinion of this. Here’s a great example of a silly dodge:
What the hell is a “null value”?
Do you realize there’s a difference between a set with zero inside {0}, and a set with nothing inside { }? Dorkness isn’t asking for an empty box, he’s asking for a number. If you believe that gods come in discrete packages, then he’s asking for a whole number, and they start with 0 and work their way up by unit increments. 0 is just as much a number as any other, and given the apprehension that people are having answering this simple question, I think I’m coming to understand the point he’s trying to make.
My answer is 0. I think the number of gods in this world is 0. I’m not 100% positive about it (I’m not 100% positive about anything), but I’m pretty damn close to 100%. My internal probability distribution has almost all of its weight on 0, and there’s only a tiny sliver left for any other possibility, because there’s no objective evidence at all for any other possibility. And I soon as I write it out like that, I feel I finally understand what he’s been saying.
We’re not children who haven’t yet formed an opinion. As soon as the question is asked for the first time, the likelihoods start to form in most of our minds. Some of us are all like, “I have no idea!” and that’s fine. But that’s not where I stand, and I seriously doubt that’s where most atheists stand. The balance of probability has tipped. Gods of the usual definition are unparsimonious, and there’s no reason to put any significant weight of probability in their existence when we have no objective evidence of them.
Sure, it’s a number, but he was using the definition of a number, rather than the definition of the value of a number.
Zero is special in that sense, because, of course, it has no value. Invoking Set Theory only plays semantics even further: You’re saying that the Set is Religion, and the integer inside that set is zero. Fine. But it’s still a meaningless application of mathematics to something that is not, inherently, math.
You asked “What the hell is a ‘null value?’” It’s zero. It’s nothing. It’s a void.
Null (adjective)
2) having or associated with the value zero.
• Mathematics (of a set or matrix) having no elements, or only zeros as elements.
• lacking distinctive qualities; having no positive substance or content: his curiously null life.
No, I’m not. I’m asking for an answer to a question, and you’re going through what look to me to be bizarre contortions to avoid answering the question. It’s a simple question, not a trap at all: how many gods exist? It sounds like your answer is zero; is this correct?
No: the set is Gods, and I’m asking how many members of that set exist. If the set were “posters on this board with Dorkness in their name,” you could answer “2”. If the set were “posters on this board with asdkf;jaseioefrwejf in their name,” you could answer “zero.” The set is “Gods that exist.” How many members are there of that set? Zero? Something else?
Zero is something. It has actual properties that can be described.
But most importantly for this particular discussion, zero can be used as the answer to a question about the cardinality of a set.
Responding with “a void” is not a valid answer to the question of “How many dogs do you own?” But you can answer 0 and everyone will understand.
No. The set is not religion.
The set is gods.
He’s asking everyone what the cardinality of the set of gods is. Cardinality is not the element inside the set, but the number of elements in the set. And he is not asking for proof of our answers, but our best guess at the number.
Are you seriously claiming that the question “How many gods are there?” has nothing to do with math?
