# Can America trust atheists?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 26, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906 "2006-03-26T01:07:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/401 "2006-04-04T03:50:06Z")

</div>

> [@Voyager](#):
>
> The crucial distinction, which **cosmosdan** expressed very well, is between someone who is undecided, and who may think the answer is unknowable (the agnostic) and the person who has not beliefs about god (the weak atheist.) And I see the distinction now - this phrasing in one swoop distinguishes the weak atheist from the strong atheist. Neither has a belief that any god exists, but only the strong has any belief at all. A very nice distinction.

As I mentioned earlier, I think his distinctions are excellent. I feel I must volunteer this, though. I think that the weak atheist could easily be placed into the agnostic category. Which would give us two flavors of agnosticism: those who say that they do not know if there is a god and those who believe we cannot know if there is a god.

Although I understand the argument for keeping what we call weak atheists in the atheism category, for me the whole thing would be easier to understand with two flavors of agnosticism. One reason I don’t think this will be well received is that the true strong atheist likes having the weak atheist in the atheism category—for cover. I makes it easy for them to profess that atheism means lack of belief, of which they are one “strong” flavor.

As I said earlier it’s not easy for people to feel trustful toward those they don’t understand. So I think that strong atheists would take a big first step toward their goal if they were willing to do as I suggest and carry the banner of atheism alone. A discussion would start where definitions wouldn’t change with each conversation. And that would bring people closer to understanding and acceptance.

I’ll also add, for the record, that I think that atheists, strong or weak, can be, and are, every bit as moral as theists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/402 "2006-04-04T04:12:43Z")

</div>

> [@magellan01](#):
>
> I’ll also add, for the record, that I think that atheists, strong or weak, can be, and are, every bit as moral as theists.

True. It’s the damned deists that you’ve gotta watch your back with.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/403 "2006-04-04T05:29:20Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> True. It’s the damned deists that you’ve gotta watch your back with.

Psst, **tom** , don’t look now, but there’s someone sneaking up behind you. And he’s …egad…praying!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/404 "2006-04-04T06:04:12Z")

</div>

As a confirmed (even Confirmed) theist, praying does not bother me (as long as it is not being directed by the government).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/405 "2006-04-04T07:26:02Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> As a confirmed (even Confirmed) theist, praying does not bother me (as long as it is not being directed by the government).

I know where you stand. It was for the benefit of the less enlightened. Thus, you have been useful in HIS work.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/406 "2006-04-04T08:29:42Z")

</div>

> [@magellan](#):
>
> So, are you saying that the weak atheist, as described by cosmosdan should be classified as an agnostic?

No, since every non-idiot who considers that there is possibility that they’re _wrong_ (_ie._ that one cannot **know** ) is an agnostic, theists or atheists alike. I’m saying weak atheists think god absence is only _slightly_ less likely than god presence, while strong atheists consider absence as _far_ more likely than presence. I’d call someone who considered both equally likely (as per **cosmodan** ’s definition) merely _undecided_. They could not be called theist _or_ **a** theist because they’re just as much of either.

> [@](#):
>
> Which would mean:
> 
> Atheist: There is no god(s).  
> Theist: There is a god(s)  
> Agnostic: There might be a god(s). I don’t know.

Agreed (given that both theistts and atheists can be, IMO _must_ be, agnostic also). I’d also add _Undecided_: Has no preference for _either_ belief or belief-not.

> [@](#):
>
> I think that would certainly simplify things. But it negates the two strains of athesim that people were adamant about in a previous thread. But as far as the OP goes, this clarity would, I think, be helpful.

Me too, and I’m as strong an atheist as one can reasonably be (_ie._ No matter how unlikely I consider gods, I’m still **a** _gnostic_).

> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Why would I have any belief at all about a Hoaxmaster?

Because the evidence for one is all around you.

> [@](#):
>
> If lots of people believed in one, I might decide that the lack of justification for a Hoaxmaster to be hoaxing would lead to belief he does not exist.

Why is your belief-not contingent on the number of believers, in a kind of reverse _argument ad populum_?

> [@](#):
>
> Right now, knowing nothing about what such a beast would be like, he doesn’t raise to the level of being worth believing in non-existence.

So like me, you believe there’s no such thing, yes? I don’t understand how that requires “effort”.

> [@](#):
>
> The problem with proving an existential negative is that proving the nonexistence of x in a finite number of places does not prove the nonexistence of x in other places not considered.

Of course, but the fallacy is that the **negative has nothing to do with it**. The scope and properties of the subject are what matters, not the positive _or_ negative phrasing of the proposition. In the case of **a** theism, those examples in which belief-not _is_ different from not-belief are similarly irrelevant.

> [@](#):
>
> I never said there was no evidence for even this God’s existence.

Good, so we agree that the evidence _against_ this God’s existence is still contingent on natural-first OR (which many theists reject)?

> [@](#):
>
> Not all evidence is true evidence.

Evidence is neither true nor false, _propositions_ are.

> [@](#):
>
> Plus, the possibility of a trickster god is why this evidence can’t be said to lead to knowledge - only, in some cases, to belief.

Agreed – glad you’re tossing out most of that Theory of Knowledge module along with me.

> [@](#):
>
> No one has committed this fallacy around here for years. Enough of us correct them if they try.

My hope is that “weak atheists lack belief but don’t believe-not” will be similarly corrected.

> [@](#):
>
> Some atheists believe that no gods exist so strongly that they say that no amount of evidence would convince them otherwise.

That would be me.

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t say that - I can construct scenarios where the existence of a god would become very convincing - no, not 100%, but close enough. So, that argument doesn’t work for me.

Well, it would only have to rise somewhere above _50%_ for you to become theist. That’s how I’d, personally, distinguish weak atheism from strong: the weak is turned theist by miracles, while the strong considers these evidence of Hoaxmaster _aliens_ or _future technology_. Can you see how I’d be in a similar minority to those Young Earth Creationsists who now effectively believe in a Hoaxmaster _god_?

> [@](#):
>
> I can say that I think a 7 is more likely to come up than any other number when I roll two fair dice without believing a 7 will come up.

But, _yet again_ you have now introduced **FURTHER OPTIONS**. If the question was phrased “Do you believe that _any other number_ than 7 will come up?” you _could_ say “Yes, and therefore I believe that 7 will _not_ come up, _ie._ I _don’t_ believe 7 will come up.”

> [@](#):
>
> There is a difference between the statement “Liverpool will either win or not win the championship” which is a binary statement and the statement “I believe Liverpool will win the championship” which is a ternary statement - I believe they will win, I believe they will not win, I don’t know.

We don’t know **anything, ever** : When I say “I believe Liverpool will not win” I \*_still don’t know_ they will not win. Please, can we eject this irrelevance once and for all?

Just, please, answer the question I _ask_, not the different one you’d _like_ to answer.  
**Given** binary exclusisvity (_ie. no ties_), believing Liverpool will not win is **equivalent** to _not_ believing they _will_ win: **AGREED?** How could they _possibly_ be different, since there is no situation ( **given no ties** ) in which one could be true but the other false?

> [@](#):
>
> So, the third value is important even in practical situations. I’m saying belief is for, against, or X.

But there is _no_ X in this situation. And in the atheist case, atheists are 0ists but neither 1ists or Xists, yes?

> [@](#):
>
> Actually this says that every time is more likely to not win than to win, but the chance of each team winning is the same.

Of course. A die is more likely to throw a non-6 than a 6, but the chance of number being thrown is the same.

> [@](#):
>
> Okay, I’ll go through all the teams with you. I ask “Is the statement - I believe ti will not win” for i = 1 to n true?

Yes: I ascribe a probability of \<50% for each team.

> [@](#):
>
> I ask is the statement “I believe ti will win” false for i = 1, n.

Agree.

> [@](#):
>
> I agree T1 will win || I agree T2 will win || … || I agree Tn will win  
> =false || false || … || false = true?

Yes, what’s the problem? For 10 teams, P(ti)=0.1, _ie._ \<50% so I don’t believe (=believe not). However, P(t1 **or** t2 **or** t3 **or** t4 **or** t5 **or** t6) = 0.6, so I believe that that group will contain the winner. Where’s the contradiction? Again, I think you missed this obvious truth: _Of course_ \<50% probabilities can add up to 1.

> [@](#):
>
> We can group teams, so a grouping of m such that m / n \< .5 means you still think believe no team in that group will win.

**Careful** : better phrase it as “I think that group will not contain the winner”. We’re now considering _groups_, not individual teams.

> [@](#):
>
> But what happens when we hit m = m/2? Does a team in one side or another suddenly become one of the winners when nothing has changed with regard to your knowledge of the teams?

No, both groups are then equally likely to contain the winner. Again, be careful with the precise question you’re asking if you don’t wish to misrepresent me.

> [@](#):
>
> about if m/n becomes .75? This is exactly the sort of problem I mentioned before.

What’s the problem? I would then simply believe that that group _would_ contain the winner (_ie._ that the other group wouldn’t, _ie._ I wouldn’t believe that the other group contains the winner, _etc. etc._)

> [@](#):
>
> Whoops.

Whoops what? I have said [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7251303&postcount=370) and  
[time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7259551&postcount=382) and [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7261194&postcount=394) and [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7260100&postcount=385) again in this thread that I understand the difference between not-belief and belief-not **where there is a third option**. But gods _either exist or not_. “I don’t know” is a _non sequitur_, not a third option – think about that carefully. It’s not even a third option in “I do or don’t think there’s a god” – the third option there is “I have no preference one way or the other”, which is **not** said by **a** theists.

> [@](#):
>
> Does this mean you agree with my point about the Mongolian football league?

That one can believe-not without not-believing for a given team? Of course: you can ascribe precisely 50% (for whatever reason). But that _wasn’t my question_, if you remember. It was, **given** that you believe a given team will not win (for whatever reason), **ie. ascribing a LESS THN 50% chance** , that is equivalent to not believing they _will_ win. It is a far simpler question than your example (whose relevance I don’t fully grasp, but I hope I’ve walked you through it to your satisfaction.)

> [@](#):
>
> As I hope I just demonstrated, saying that the teams have an equal chance to win, and believing based on that leads to problems.

Like?

> [@](#):
>
> So a weak atheist might say that he has no idea of the odds. but choose to not believe as the default.

Then he wouldn’t be an **a** theist, since that requires considering gods’ absence more likely than presence.

> [@](#):
>
> Now, even if I say this is a logically consistent position, I don’t have to agree with it since we do have knowledge of a set of god claims, and the evidence for and against them. But that is a totally different matter.

Agreed. Can we agree that perfect indecision is a different matter to **a** theism?

> [@](#):
>
> The crucial distinction, which cosmosdan expressed very well, is between someone who is undecided, and who may think the answer is unknowable (the agnostic) and the person who has not beliefs about god (the weak atheist.) And I see the distinction now - this phrasing in one swoop distinguishes the weak atheist from the strong atheist. Neither has a belief that any god exists, but only the strong has any belief at all. A very nice distinction.

Here’s the crucial falw in this distinction. You can ignore the rest of this post except this if you like:

_What’s the difference between weak atheist and undecided? Neither_ has a belief in god.

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Because by having a lack of belief then it can be truly said that this person does not believe in god. Is that not an atheist?

But they’re _just as much theists_ if they think god’s presence is as likely as absence. If they can’t bring themselves to say “there’s no such thing as god, I reckon”, why not class them as _theists_?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/407 "2006-04-04T08:42:56Z")

</div>

And just to clarify my own definitions[ul][li]Agnostic: Admits they might be wrong. (Belief-O-Meter needle _anywhere except_ 0% and 100%)[/li][li]Theist: Considers god more likely than no god. (Needle \>50%)[/li][li]Atheist: Considers no god more liekly than god. (Needle \<50%)[/li][li]Undecided: Considers absence and presence of god equally likely. (Needle = 50.000 … %)[/li][li]Weak atheist: Considers absence only lightly more likely than presence (such that \*eg.\*miracles could push the needle past 50%).[/li][li]Strong atheist: Considers absence so much more likely than presence that miracles would be taken as evidence for a [simulation](http://www.simulation-argument.com/) instead.[/ul]I don’t understand why atheism is claiming the undecided position, nor why considering absence more likely than presence isn’t “believing there’s no gods”.[/li]I’m happy to let it lie here - I’m sure it will come up again.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/408 "2006-04-04T11:51:36Z")

</div>

[QUOTE]

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> No, since every non-idiot who considers that there is possibility that they’re _wrong_ (_ie._ that one cannot **know** ) is an agnostic, theists or atheists alike. I’m saying weak atheists think god absence is only _slightly_ less likely than god presence, while strong atheists consider absence as _far_ more likely than presence. I’d call someone who considered both equally likely (as per **cosmodan** ’s definition) merely _undecided_. They could not be called theist _or_ **a** theist because they’re just as much of either.

I don’t see it as undecided. The person I describe has decided that there isn’t enough evidence to believe {be a theist} They may be the non idiot you describe and understand that new evidence will come and beliefs will change.

> [@](#):
>
> Agreed (given that both theistts and atheists can be, IMO _must_ be, agnostic also). I’d also add _Undecided_: Has no preference for _either_ belief or belief-not.

And since atheism can be described as a lack of belief in god{s} this person qualifies.

> [@](#):
>
> I have said [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7251303&postcount=370) and  
> [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7259551&postcount=382) and [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7261194&postcount=394) and [time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7260100&postcount=385) again in this thread that I understand the difference between not-belief and belief-not **where there is a third option**. But gods _either exist or not_. “I don’t know” is a _non sequitur_, not a third option – think about that carefully. It’s not even a third option in “I do or don’t think there’s a god” – the third option there is “I have no preference one way or the other”, which is **not** said by **a** theists.

I think the point being made is that it can be said by a weak atheist.

> [@](#):
>
> Then he wouldn’t be an **a** theist, since that requires considering gods’ absence more likely than presence.

I think we’re splitting hairs unessicarily but I think this is incorrect. A “lack of belief in god” can be acurately described as atheism.

> [@](#):
>
> Agreed. Can we agree that perfect indecision is a different matter to **a** theism?

I don’t think belief is as linear as 0 to 100% and besides , nobody’s perfect. 🙂

> [@](#):
>
> Here’s the crucial falw in this distinction. You can ignore the rest of this post except this if you like:
> 
> _What’s the difference between weak atheist and undecided? Neither_ has a belief in god.

Who is claiming there is a difference? I don’t see any crucial flaw since undecided qualifies. Beisdes that, as I pointed out earlier, I don’t think undecided is accurate.

> [@](#):
>
> But they’re _just as much theists_ if they think god’s presence is as likely as absence. If they can’t bring themselves to say “there’s no such thing as god, I reckon”, why not class them as _theists_?

No they’re not. A weak atheist may waffle between agnostic and atheism from day to day but being a theist does require positive belief.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/409 "2006-04-04T12:29:26Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> And just to clarify my own definitions[ul][li]Agnostic: Admits they might be wrong. (Belief-O-Meter needle _anywhere except_ 0% and 100%)[/li][li]Theist: Considers god more likely than no god. (Needle \>50%)[/li][li]Atheist: Considers no god more likely than god. (Needle \<50%)[/li][li]Undecided: Considers absence and presence of god equally likely. (Needle = 50.000 … %)[/li][li]Weak atheist: Considers absence only lightly more likely than presence (such that \*eg.\*miracles could push the needle past 50%).[/li][li]Strong atheist: Considers absence so much more likely than presence that miracles would be taken as evidence for a [simulation](http://www.simulation-argument.com/) instead.[/ul]I don’t understand why atheism is claiming the undecided position, nor why considering absence more likely than presence isn’t “believing there’s no gods”.[/li]I’m happy to let it lie here - I’m sure it will come up again.

I have little problem with your definitions here. I think perfectly undecided would have to be incredibly rare but I maintain that anything other than a positive belief can qualify as atheist.

Let’s face it. There are as many shades of atheism and theism as there are people. My friend at work has described himself as an atheist but will speak of the possibility of reincarnation and other extraordinary phenomenon.

My experience has been that many people in the US reject certain concepts of God and in that regard I have a lot in common with them. Many people believe in some concept of God but would be hard pressed to really define what that concept is. That’s the I believe in something …crowd. Others haven’t encountered any concept of god they can accept and find it unnecessary to look for or consider any concept.

I think what the OP has pointed out is that there is a widespread misunderstanding about atheism and perhaps there needs to be more public discussion about it to help folks understand. Look how often people here on the SDMB consider atheism some sort of belief.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/410 "2006-04-04T13:19:31Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> They may be the non idiot you describe and understand that new evidence will come and beliefs will change.

But that can be true of _anyone_, theist or not. Why apply it only to atheism?

> [@](#):
>
> And since atheism can be described as a lack of belief in god{s} this person qualifies.

And since theism can be described as lacking a belief in an \*absence[/]i of god, this person qualifies similarly.

> [@](#):
>
> I think the point being made is that it can be said by a weak atheist.

And that is the point I am strenuously disagreeing with.

> [@](#):
>
> A “lack of belief in god” can be acurately described as atheism.

Then a “lack of belief in god’s _absence_” can be accurately described as theism.

> [@](#):
>
> Who is claiming there is a difference?

Good, I assume this means you agree there _isn’t_. So, if we ask some people who describe themselves as “weak atheists” whether they think god’s absence is more likely than presence and they say “yes”, we have to tell them “sorry, you are **strong** atheists”. And we can tell people who genuinely don’t think absence is an more or less likely than presence “sorry, you’re now atheists”. I don’t think either group will be particularly enamoured of your taxonomy, frankly.

> [@](#):
>
> A weak atheist may waffle between agnostic and atheism from day to day

For crying out loud, **AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE**. How many times must I write this?

> [@](#):
>
> but being a theist does require positive belief.

So long as being an atheist requires a _negative_ belief, I agree.

> [@](#):
>
> I maintain that anything other than a positive belief can qualify as atheist.

Why not allow anything other than _negative_ belief to qualify as _theist_? It seems just as sensible to allow theists to claim the undecided position as atheists, which is why I’m suggesting _neither_ ought to.

> [@](#):
>
> Look how often people here on the SDMB consider atheism some sort of belief.

I’m saying it _is_: a belief in an absence of gods, rather than in a presence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/411 "2006-04-04T18:01:49Z")

</div>

Due to lack of time, I’m going to answer big gobs of this later, but will concentrate on a few crucial points, including the one you feel most important.

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> But, _yet again_ you have now introduced **FURTHER OPTIONS**. If the question was phrased “Do you believe that _any other number_ than 7 will come up?” you _could_ say “Yes, and therefore I believe that 7 will _not_ come up, _ie._ I _don’t_ believe 7 will come up.”  
> We don’t know **anything, ever** : When I say “I believe Liverpool will not win” I \*_still don’t know_ they will not win. Please, can we eject this irrelevance once and for all?
> 
> Just, please, answer the question I _ask_, not the different one you’d _like_ to answer.  
> **Given** binary exclusisvity (_ie. no ties_), believing Liverpool will not win is **equivalent** to _not_ believing they _will_ win: **AGREED?**

That is true. Believing God does not exist implies not believing god exists, which is why strong atheists fall into the atheist category (which is actually an issue with **cosmosdan** ’s definition.  
However, not believing they will win does not imply believing they will not win, since you may not believe any team will win, but be neutral.

> [@](#):
>
> But there is _no_ X in this situation. And in the atheist case, atheists are 0ists but neither 1ists or Xists, yes?

No, there is an X in the situation. X is not a logic value - it represents the absence of information. To personify the simulator a bit, X means it does not believe the value of a signal is a 0, and it does not believe the value of a signal is a 1. If not believing a signal is a 0 means believing it is not 0, then this means we’d believe the signal is a 1, which is incorrect. Even though real signals take on one value or the other, when we reason about the signals we must include a third case of no information. And god either exists or does not exist - but we must include the case of not believing in one or the other case due to lack of knowledge.

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, what’s the problem? For 10 teams, P(ti)=0.1, _ie._ \<50% so I don’t believe (=believe not). However, P(t1 **or** t2 **or** t3 **or** t4 **or** t5 **or** t6) = 0.6, so I believe that that group will contain the winner. Where’s the contradiction? Again, I think you missed this obvious truth: _Of course_ \<50% probabilities can add up to 1.

I’m not adding up probabilities - I am making a statement of logic. You are associating disbelief with p \< .5. I’m saying that this is not logically coherent.

Say we have five teams, and for some reason you know p for the first 4 is .15, thus p for the fifth is .4. It would certainly make sense to believe that team 5 will win, won’t it, though the probability of it winning is \< .5.  
quote]  
**Careful** : better phrase it as “I think that group will not contain the winner”. We’re now considering _groups_, not individual teams.

[/quote]

Sorry, I can prove that “group will not contain a winner” is equivalent to “no team t in the group is a winner.” Do you accept that?

> [@](#):
>
> No, both groups are then equally likely to contain the winner. Again, be careful with the precise question you’re asking if you don’t wish to misrepresent me.  
> What’s the problem? I would then simply believe that that group _would_ contain the winner (_ie._ that the other group wouldn’t, _ie._ I wouldn’t believe that the other group contains the winner, _etc. etc._)

Only if you say that a group you believe does not contain a winner suddenly becomes a group you do believe contains a winner with no additional information. I can build up groups like I build up teams. Say there are three groups, each with p = .25, so you believe that none of these groups contains a winner. You combine them, and suddenly you have a group that you believe does contain a winner. It is of course the same fallacy as believing that no individual team will win while believing one team will win. The converse - believing each team will win is equally fallacious, of course. The only logcially consistent alternative is to withhold belief about a teams chances, but believe that one of the set will win - this does not lead to a contradiction.

> [@](#):
>
> I understand the difference between not-belief and belief-not **where there is a third option**. But gods _either exist or not_. “I don’t know” is a _non sequitur_, not a third option – think about that carefully. It’s not even a third option in “I do or don’t think there’s a god” – the third option there is “I have no preference one way or the other”, which is **not** said by **a** theists.

You’re confusing existence with statements about existence. A signal is either a 0 or a 1, but sometimes when reasoning about it you must assign it an X. There are many applications of this principle in logic and state machine theory.

> [@](#):
>
> That one can believe-not without not-believing for a given team? Of course: you can ascribe precisely 50% (for whatever reason). But that _wasn’t my question_, if you remember. It was, **given** that you believe a given team will not win (for whatever reason), **ie. ascribing a LESS THN 50% chance** , that is equivalent to not believing they _will_ win. It is a far simpler question than your example (whose relevance I don’t fully grasp, but I hope I’ve walked you through it to your satisfaction.)

Your misconception is widespread. There have been studies in behavioral economics (I think some are covered in Freakonomics) that show people tend to assign equal probabilities to options laid before them, even without information. What justification do you have for assigning a probability of 1/n to each team in the Mongolian league? Maybe one is the equivalent of the 1961 Yankees. The only reasonable response to the question of what is the probability of team T winning is “I don’t know.”

> [@](#):
>
> Agreed. Can we agree that perfect indecision is a different matter to **a** theism?  
> Here’s the crucial falw in this distinction. You can ignore the rest of this post except this if you like:
> 
> _What’s the difference between weak atheist and undecided? Neither_ has a belief in god.

I can see two definitions of undecided. The first is - I have no information about gods. Thus, I have no belief about gods. Thus I do not believe in any god, thus I am an atheist - but I don’t believe any particular god does not exist, so I am not a strong atheist.

The second definition involves someone flipping between believing in a god and not believing. Unless you wish to make atheism a function of time, this person is not an atheist - call him undecided. He may not be an agnostic, since he may think that knowledge is possible given information he does not have yet.

Here’s a practical example of 0, 1, X. When an IC powers up, it powers up into a random state. Each flip flop can be either a 0 or a 1. I n a working circuit, the flip flop gets a known value by applying a known value at the circuit input and clocking the flip flop - having the clock line undergo a 0 to 1 transition.

Say the output if the flop feeds an OR gate with the second input 0. Now, say the clock line is broken, so the 0 -\>1 transition never happens. What is the output of the OR gate?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/412 "2006-04-05T05:25:29Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> But that can be true of _anyone_, theist or not. Why apply it only to atheism?

Only because it was the subject of my sentance. There was no implication of it being exclusively applied to atheists

[QUOTE]  
And since theism can be described as lacking a belief in an \*absence[/]i of god, this person qualifies similarly.[Only a semantic gymnast.

> [@](#):
>
> And that is the point I am strenuously disagreeing with.

I understand that. We just disagree.

> [@](#):
>
> Then a “lack of belief in god’s _absence_” can be accurately described as theism.

One does not automatically mean the other. Honestly this seems like a semantic game to me. I don’t believe you intend it that way but I can’t think of anybody who would describe theism this way.

> [@](#):
>
> Good, I assume this means you agree there _isn’t_. So, if we ask some people who describe themselves as “weak atheists” whether they think god’s absence is more likely than presence and they say “yes”, we have to tell them “sorry, you are **strong** atheists”. And we can tell people who genuinely don’t think absence is an more or less likely than presence “sorry, you’re now atheists”. I don’t think either group will be particularly enamoured of your taxonomy, frankly.

Your assumption is incorrect.

> [@](#):
>
> For crying out loud, **AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE**. How many times must I write this?

No need to shout. I didn’t say they were.

> [@](#):
>
> So long as being an atheist requires a _negative_ belief, I agree.

Then we don’t agree.

> [@](#):
>
> Why not allow anything other than _negative_ belief to qualify as _theist_? It seems just as sensible to allow theists to claim the undecided position as atheists, which is why I’m suggesting _neither_ ought to.

A viable suggestion if everyone agrees to let _you_ set the definition. I’m only trying to explain the current definitions as I understand them.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m saying it _is_: a belief in an absence of gods, rather than in a presence.

And yet it is the atheists on this board that will argue that it is not a belief but rather a lack of belief. Any ideas why that is?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/413 "2006-04-05T06:34:13Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Because the evidence for one is all around you.  
> Why is your belief-not contingent on the number of believers, in a kind of reverse _argument ad populum_?

I don’t see evidence for a Hoaxmaster, or for anything that science can’t explain (someday.) Since there are many varieties of Hoaxmaster, not to mention other gods, I could ignore the possibility. Now, if there were lots of people bugging me about them, I might decide to study them, and get enough knowledge to actively believe they don’t exist. I don’t have a lot of beliefs of any kind about obscure Roman household gods.

> [@](#):
>
> So like me, you believe there’s no such thing, yes? I don’t understand how that requires “effort”.

Anyone can believe in anything for any reason. Strong atheism (or theism) is a statement of belief, not of how well the belief is justified. I may choose to not not believe until I get some reason to.

> [@](#):
>
> Good, so we agree that the evidence _against_ this God’s existence is still contingent on natural-first OR (which many theists reject)?

??? It’s not contingent on anything, and there are many, mutually supporting, strands of evidence against.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/414 "2006-04-05T08:18:05Z")

</div>

> [@Voyager](#):
>
> However, not believing they will win does not imply believing they will not win, since you may not believe any team will win, but be neutral.

We’re not talking about _any_ team in this specific case: we’re talking about **one, single** team which can **either** win **or not** , with **no** other options. In this specific case, _how_ can belief in loss **not** equal disbelief in victory?

> [@](#):
>
> but we must include the case of not believing in one or the other case due to lack of knowledge.

Such a person not being an **a** theist, then, yes?

> [@](#):
>
> You are associating disbelief with p \< .5. I’m saying that this is not logically coherent.

Then what did you mean when you said “You can talk, loosely, about things being more or less likely to happen”? What is belief _other_ than a general expression of which propositions you think are true and false (without _knowing_ so)?

> [@](#):
>
> Say we have five teams, and for some reason you know p for the first 4 is .15

Hang on, hang on. I told you to be very **careful** with statements like this if you don’t want to misrepresent me. I can’t _know_ these probabilities, I merely _personally ascribe_ them, and I might do so utterly incompetently (_eg._ ascribing a tiny chance to the overwhelming favourite).

> [@](#):
>
> It would certainly make sense to believe that team 5 will win, won’t it, though the probability of it winning is \< .5.

No, again, be very careful with the question. If the question is “Which **single** team is most likely to win?”, I choose 5. But that is still not the same as beleiving in 5 versus **not 5** (_ie. any other_ team).

> [@](#):
>
> Sorry, I can prove that “group will not contain a winner” is equivalent to “no team t in the group is a winner.” Do you accept that?

**GREAT! YES!** And that’s exactly the same as a single team not winning being equivalent to _someone other than that team winning_, like the single case of Liverpool!

> [@](#):
>
> Only if you say that a group you believe does not contain a winner suddenly becomes a group you do believe contains a winner with no additional information.

But there _is_ additional information: the group has just _grown in size_.

> [@](#):
>
> Say there are three groups, each with p = .26, so you believe that none of these groups contains a winner. You combine them, and suddenly you have a group that you believe does contain a winner.

Because it is a **bigger group** formed **from** smaller groups. Yet again, _of course_ \<50% probabilities can add up to more than 50%.

> [@](#):
>
> It is of course the same fallacy as believing that no individual team will win while believing one team will win.

I’ve shown that that isn’t a fallacy if belief is defined as a \>50% ascription. Yet again, _of course_ \<50% probabilities can add up to **100%** (one team _must_ win).

> [@](#):
>
> The only logcially consistent alternative is to withhold belief about a teams chances, but believe that one of the set will win - this does not lead to a contradiction.

What is the contradiction in adding up low probabilities until their **union** becomes likely?

> [@](#):
>
> You’re confusing existence with statements about existence.

What? No, _you’re_ confusing these two if **you** say that “I don’t know” (statement _about_ existence) is a third option for “gods do or don’t exist” (existence itself). There is _no third option_ for “gods do or don’t exist” , agreed? If so, please tell me what it is (preferably without yet another non sequitur analogy).

> [@](#):
>
> that show people tend to assign equal probabilities to options laid before them, even without information. What justification do you have for assigning a probability of 1/n to each team in the Mongolian league?

I agree entirely. Like I said, I might ascribe probabilities utterly incompetently due to a lack of further information. And, to wrest this back to the point, some people IMO ascribe strangely high probabilities to gods’ existence. But that is not the point. The point is that where there **are** only two exclusive options (like in the case of Liverpool winning **or not** or god existing **or not** ), then belief in one option is equivalent to not belief in the other, and vice versa. There _is_ a thrid option in the **belief** (_ie._ considering both options equally likely, for whatever reason), yes, but that person **cannot be classed with the no-believers**.

> [@](#):
>
> The only reasonable response to the question of what is the probability of team T winning is “I don’t know.”

And we’ve agreed that nobody _knows anything, really_ – they just have very[sup]N[/sup] strong beliefs.

> [@](#):
>
> The first is - I have no information about gods. Thus, I have no belief about gods. Thus I do not believe in any god, thus I am an atheist

How about – I have no belief in an _absence_ of god. Thus I do not believe in an absence of god, thus I am a theist? Hence the undecided position can be claimed by weak _theists_.

> [@](#):
>
> Unless you wish to make atheism a function of time, this person is not an atheist - call him undecided.

OK, but it might make more sense to call him an ateist when he’s an atheist and a theist when he’s a theist, no?

> [@](#):
>
> What is the output of the OR gate?

What is the threshold of electrons per second which constitutes a 1, as a percentage of the maximum capacity?

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t see evidence for a Hoaxmaster, or for anything that science can’t explain (someday.)

Others do. Why does their _behaviour_ in “bothering you” or not have any bearing on your beliefs?

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t have a lot of beliefs of any kind about obscure Roman household gods.

You’re not prepared to say “I believe there’s no such thing as Zeus”??

> [@](#):
>
> Anyone can believe in anything for any reason. Strong atheism (or theism) is a statement of belief, not of how well the belief is justified. I may choose to not not believe until I get some reason to.

Agreed, but that wasn;t the question. In what way does considering somethings absence more likely than its presence require more effort or bother (or however you’re characterising what’s “worth doing”) than the converse?

> [@](#):
>
> It’s not contingent on anything, and there are many, mutually supporting, strands of evidence against.

Well, I don’t think this is the place for this hijack, but like I said, hoaxmaster believers would point to _exactly the same evidence as you_ in **support** of their god’s existence. They would have to accept natural-first OR **before** they saw things your way. That’s what I mean by contingency.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/415 "2006-04-05T08:42:41Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Only because it was the subject of my sentance. There was no implication of it being exclusively applied to atheists

So you agree that undecided people could be called weak _theists_ under your definitions, if only I made _them_ the sentence subject? If not, why not?

> [@](#):
>
> I understand that. We just disagree.

See above.

> [@](#):
>

> [@](#):
>
> One does not automatically mean the other. Honestly this seems like a semantic game to me. I don’t believe you intend it that way but I can’t think of anybody who would describe theism this way.

Why not? Is it not just as silly as classifying undecided people as atheists?

> [@](#):
>
> Your assumption is incorrect.

OK, so you think there _is_ a difference between undecided and weak atheist – that’s why I asked the question in the first place. So I’ll ask it again: What **is** the difference?

> [@](#):
>
> No need to shout. I didn’t say they were.

Then how can someone waffle **between** atheism and agnosticism, if they’re effectively agnostic _all the time_. Did you mean “waffle between atheism and _theism_”?

> [@](#):
>
> Then we don’t agree.

Even if I make “theism the subject of the sentence” as above?

> [@](#):
>
> A viable suggestion if everyone agrees to let you set the definition.

OK, I guess I’ll just keep _argumentum_-ing until the _ad populum_ falls on _my_ side.

> [@](#):
>
> And yet it is the atheists on this board that will argue that it is not a belief but rather a lack of belief. Any ideas why that is?

If I may speak plainly as an atheist, I think it’s a bit of _laziness and/or cowardice_. _They’d_ like to be the ones sitting, Simon Cowell-like, in judgement of what theists trot out before them as explanations for their existence, not the other way around. Admitting that considering gods’ absence more likely than presence is a form of _belief_ requires them to get down and dirty with cosmology, biochemistry and cognitive science in order to **demonstrate** how there could logically be an absence of gods. And many of them would prefer to just point to this science rather than make an effort to _understand and explain_ it. Luckily, given the Dope’s mission statement, there’s fewer of those kinds of atheists around here, but that does not prevent the “weak atheist = lack of belief, not belief in absence ” meme spreading elsewhere like a virus.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/416 "2006-04-05T13:28:44Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> So you agree that undecided people could be called weak _theists_ under your definitions, if only I made _them_ the sentence subject? If not, why not?

No I don’t agree with that. I agree that both theists and atheists may go through a belief change. A theist weak or otherwise requires positive belief. An undecided person doesn’t have this. This is not true for atheists since lack of belief is all that’s necessary. I have no emotional attachment to these terms and I understand the points you are making. In reading in Wikipedia I find this

> [@](#):
>
> Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labelling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

So, if you prefer the term non-theist to differentiate between the undecided and the theist or atheist I’m perfectly okay with that. In fact I wish someone had referenced this pages ago. All I’ve attempted to do is explain the differences as I understand them. The goal is clear communication to promote understanding, not victory through persistence.

> [@](#):
>
> Why not? Is it not just as silly as classifying undecided people as atheists?  
> OK, so you think there _is_ a difference between undecided and weak atheist – that’s why I asked the question in the first place. So I’ll ask it again: What **is** the difference?  
> Then how can someone waffle **between** atheism and agnosticism, if they’re effectively agnostic _all the time_. Did you mean “waffle between atheism and _theism_”?  
> Even if I make “theism the subject of the sentence” as above?  
> OK, I guess I’ll just keep _argumentum_-ing until the _ad populum_ falls on _my_ side.

See above.

> [@](#):
>
> If I may speak plainly as an atheist, I think it’s a bit of _laziness and/or cowardice_. _They’d_ like to be the ones sitting, Simon Cowell-like, in judgement of what theists trot out before them as explanations for their existence, not the other way around. Admitting that considering gods’ absence more likely than presence is a form of _belief_ requires them to get down and dirty with cosmology, biochemistry and cognitive science in order to **demonstrate** how there could logically be an absence of gods. And many of them would prefer to just point to this science rather than make an effort to _understand and explain_ it. Luckily, given the Dope’s mission statement, there’s fewer of those kinds of atheists around here, but that does not prevent the “weak atheist = lack of belief, not belief in absence ” meme spreading elsewhere like a virus.

If I remember correctly I’ve seen those who are strong atheists use the “lack of belief” argument. I look forward to you setting them straight.

As far as I’m concerned theist for positive belief, non theists for those few that are undecided, and atheist for belief in no god or gods are good working definitions. How say you?

I certainly prefer definitions that make sense to me, but the goal is to understand the definitions of the person I’m communicating with and to have them understand me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/417 "2006-04-05T13:41:21Z")

</div>

> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> I am a true agnostic and I absolutely despise atheists and do not want to be associated with them in any way.

I can’t speak for all atheists; but I, at least, will manage to survive somehow without your approval.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/418 "2006-04-05T13:42:34Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> If I remember correctly I’ve seen those who are strong atheists use the “lack of belief” argument. I look forward to you setting them straight.

I am trying right now - **Voyager** is a moderately strong atheist.

> [@](#):
>
> As far as I’m concerned theist for positive belief, non theists for those few that are undecided, and atheist for belief in no god or gods are good working definitions. How say you?

OK for first and last (thus quite rightly giving weak atheists a belief in gods’ absence). But why not non _atheists_ for “undecided”? I still prefer just _undecided_, really, but so long as the “weak atheists don’t believe not” meme is eradicated, I’ll accept such a compromise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/419 "2006-04-05T15:41:21Z")

</div>

> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> I am trying right now - **Voyager** is a moderately strong atheist.

IMHO \*\*Voyager \*\* is merely trying to clarify the definitions rather than advocating one. It has surprised me when folks who are obviously strong atheists seem eager to pounce on someone who defines atheism as a belief and correct them with the “AHA!! no it isn’t, it’s the _lack_ of belief” as if that’s all it is. I don’t remember **Voyager** doing that sort of thing.

> [@](#):
>
> OK for first and last (thus quite rightly giving weak atheists a belief in gods’ absence). But why not non _atheists_ for “undecided”? I still prefer just _undecided_, really, but so long as the “weak atheists don’t believe not” meme is eradicated, I’ll accept such a compromise.

It’s hard to move communication forward when bickering about the terms and there definitions. I didn’t coin any of them. I just want to understand how they are commonly used and then specifically used by those I communicate with.  
You can be fairly sure I’ll never use “weak atheists don’t believe not” As I said. The goal for me is clear communication and understanding. I understand the weak atheism definition as explained to me and will use it when I’m communicating with someone who holds that same definition. Since you object I will avoid it with you.  
I think both are valid. Are far as eradicating it goes,…good luck.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/420 "2006-04-05T16:00:34Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> You can be fairly sure I’ll never use “weak atheists don’t believe not” … [As] far as eradicating it goes,…good luck.

Thanks, and thanks.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=20)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=22)