Do you wish you could go back to a time when, 4) no one ever told you about the marbles?
My parents were not religious. My mom’s parents were Jewish, my dad’s parents were Christian, and non of my grandparents were happy about their offspring marrying to the other team.
Marbles were not a big deal growing up. I never found them all that interesting. I’d go to shul or church with a friend but it all seemed a silly contrivance.
In this thought experiment, you seem to be saying that there is a 50-50 chance that there is a god?
An easier way to demonstrate your example here is with a flipped coin.
Flip a coin, do you believe it to be heads?
If I say, “My car is red.” You can believe me, or you can not believe me. If you believe me, then you have taken the position that I have a car and that it is red. If you do not believe me, then does not mean that you believe my car is orange, it that may be that you believe my car is blue or green or yellow et al., or even that I do not have a car at all. Maybe you even believe that I actually have a rainbow colored zeppelin, who knows? But your rejection of belief in my statement only says that you are rejecting that particular statement, not making any others.
My “agnosticism” in this regard is that you have no more information about the number of marbles than I do. And then you not only claim to have the answer, but you* also tell me that the evenness of the number of marbles means that gay people can’t get married.
I really don’t understand this need to force beliefs onto people whose sole mutual identity is a lack of belief. I have not seen any evidence that has compelled me to believe that there is any sort of supernatural component to the universe. That is the entirety of my “beliefs” as an atheist. If given compelling evidence, I would reevaluate my position. I do not believe such evidence will be forthcoming, that does not mean that I believe that such evidence is impossible.
*not you.
Certainly not. In fact the probability is unknown, perhaps even unknowable. I merely use it as an example to demonstrate that the lack of a belief in something does not equate to a positive belief that something does not exist.
It could be, but the point is not to suggest any kind of a probability, only an absence of evidence as discussed above.
If I wanted to make explicit my objection to the idea that there is a default probability that we can assess, I would use the example of rolling a 7 on a fair die. Without knowing the nature of the die, you don’t even know if it’s possible to role a 7. It may be a 6-sided die, 1 thru 6, or it maybe a 99-sided die. Even if we assume the die is fair, the probability is unknown to you without further investigation.
One or more gods either exists, or doesn’t. There isn’t half a god or one sixth or one ninety-ninth a god. Whether a positive belief in the existence or non-existence of that god is justified depends on the adequacy of evidence toward that claim. First define what you mean by god(s), and then I’ll tell you whether I believe that god exists or not, and I’ll tell you whether I hold a positive belief that your god does not exist or not “not exist.” In the meantime, I see insufficient basis to believe your version of a god or gods exists.
ETA:
I might even leave open the option that your car is indeed red, it’s just that you’ve lied to me many times about the color of your own car and I no longer find anything you say re: your car color to be trustworthy.
Sorry I don’t get the context different from what?
As for being […]the same thing. I don’t “believe in no god”, I just know there isn’t one.
For the most part theism comes with a shit load of supplementary baggage, depending on the particular deity. Deep breath:
Creation myths
End-of-days/judgement day bru-ha-ha
Story/instruction books (of various age and provenance)
Instructions NOT TO WORSHIP ANY OTHER GODS! (hello Christians, not sure about other faiths)
No, really, all other gods are right out.
Heaven and Hell (and other un-Earthly places in between)
Recognition of prophets - who god either talks through, or sometimes inhabits (or something)
Virgin birth
Resurrection of god/prophet hybrids
Miracles - by said prophets, or in some cases “saints”
Oh yes “saints”, also angels and stuff
Eternal life/or torment (for reasons)
Curiously specific instructions about sexual stuff (which may or may be in the instruction books(s) or just made up by a bunch of holy men down the ages.
More instructions about food items and work patterns, see also “fasting” and pilgrimages etc.
Factions (f@cking splitters!) sometimes literally at war with each other (probably until doomsday)
Why, if atheism is “just another belief system” does it have none of the above? We don’t even agree on what is worse, Blake’s 7 or Space 1999. My vote, toss for it, they’re both bloody awful.
I could go on but it’s nearly Shiraz Time, (and further posts may lack coherence).
How did I miss out the rituals, endless rituals.
And - Praying (funnily IIRC Frank Zappa (atheist) said he could see some value in prayer, but I don’t think thought that the pray-er should expect anyone to be listening)
The Ceremony of the opening of the wine is done, the drinking of the wine (not transubstantiated) has begun. If you think I’m starting these too early in the day (un-believers!) I am on GMT+1, so the sun is just setting here. Time to log off.
I’m confused here. From what I gather, you’re saying
- An even amount of marbles means God exists, but an odd amount means God doesn’t exist.
- Being unsure about the amount of marbles means you’re agnostic.
- Being positively sure there are an odd amount of marbles means you’re atheist.
- You’re atheist if you don’t believe there are an odd or even amount of marbles.
It seems flawed. First of all, you’re saying there’s a 50% God exists. Then, you’re supplying two definitions of atheism. You can believe God doesn’t exist, or you can believe nothing exists, which by extension includes God.
I don’t think this is a Schroedinger’s Cat scenario. That would mean God exists only if he’s observed. If not, he can’t exist. So until he’s properly observed, he’s both half existent and half non-existent.
Sure. But it’s not necessary.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, atheists don’t make a social group, don’t share a culture, and don’t share values or beliefs. This is all nonsensical garbage that you’re making up in your fantasy land.
And speaking of that fantasy land, your assertion that the way that the disparate and disconnected atheists are communicating this supposedly-shared culture is through patterns of mythical thinking pertaining to the entire human race.
Take a moment and bask in this - you’re saying that this magical undercurrent of mythical thinking can clandestinely insert a set of shared values, beliefs, and culture unique to atheism via its universal control over literally anyone - including non-atheists, presumably.
How do the non-atheists resist this magical power? Because, remember, this is the power you’re leaning on to explain how people who have never communicated and have nothing in common are a social group that shares a culture. So “theists learn their own varying religions from it” doesn’t work - either the magic is spreading the specifically atheist culture, or it isn’t.
No it ain’t.
“We are the Men In BlacK”? “Wild Wild West”? Sorry, I only know his movie themes.
As he later emphasized, the percentage chance of the result isn’t an important part of the analogy. What’s important is that there are two options, and a rational person doesn’t leap to having positive belief in either outcome upon being presented with the question.
For example, I own a car. Do you believe it’s red? Do you believe it’s blue? What color do you believe my car to be? Even if you happened to know what percentage of cars were each color, would that lead you to believe my car was the most common color?
Most people would say no. They have no belief one way or the other what color my car is, absent other information.
Some people would call this agnosticism. It’s also a form of atheism.
No, these are not the two definitions of atheism. There are virtually no atheists who believe nothing exists, and he didn’t imply there were.
What on earth are you talking about?
Uh Oh. I share your belief that UY Scuti is just saying nonsensical garbage. Does this mean we share beliefs?
<meta>
<Keanu Reeves; Woahhhh>
My gosh! Do you also believe in gravity too? And evolution? And that the earth circles the sun rather than the other way around?
Get out of my head, man!
That seems wrong. Knowing that you and I don’t believe in chindi doesn’t mean that we have anything in common, it doesn’t mean that we have ever met, or interacted in any way. It doesn’t mean that there is a common belief system shared among non-chindi believers (some will be atheists, some Catholics, some Navajos, some Hindus, and some animists) - other than the simple lack of belief in chindi.
By analogy - trees form a coherent group, with various subgroups (oaks, pines, elms) and edge cases (yews). But “non-trees” have nothing in common. A duck, a star, a lake, a person and a suitcase are all “non-trees” - but there’s nothing about “non-trees” that makes them a coherent set, and looking for any aspect other than non-treeness that these “non-trees” have in common is doomed to failure.
Yes, he said the marbles were not meant to represent the actual percentage, but the supposition that there is an actual chance in hell that God exists. In this, I disagree that the jar of two types of marbles makes an appropriate model. If you intend to model that remote a percentage, a better way to model it would be to have a jar containing a million marbles of one color and only one marble of another color.
Uh, does my belief in the car color have to be established *before *or *after *I see it?
So most people would say no to “Do you believe my car is red?” Again, *before *or *after *they see it?
Why would they consider this agnostic? The car is either red or not red. Just because it parallels with “God either exists or he doesn’t” doesn’t mean agnostics are being indecisive. They could be saying they’re “agnostic” because it doesn’t sound as awful as “atheist.” They could be looking for better evidence of God’s existence than the say-so of others. They could be questioning why a just and loving God allows so much misery and tragedy.
I was being purposely absurd because that was exactly what he said.
You don’t know about Schrodinger’s Cat? It’s practically a Straight Dope meme.
Here is his post, so you can reread it.
Where does he talk about probabilities? This is obvious about belief and lack of belief. Do you believe there are an even number of marbles? If so why? Do you believe that there are an odd number? If so, why? Why would you believe in one rather than the other?
Clearly, there is no reason to believe on either of these options without evidence - which is exactly what he said.
Not unless you think belief in God has to be established before you see him. Which is what most people who believe do, since confirmed god sightings are quite scarce.
Actually agnostic means that knowledge is impossible, so someone should only be agnostic about the marbles if they can’t count high enough to count the number of marbles in the jar. That some swipes the jar so you don’t have the opportunity to do the count doesn’t mean that the count is impossible. Neither does the refusal of the jar owner to let you count - like the refusal of the supposed god to show himself.
Since we’re talking about ‘folk’ categories like ‘atheist’ anyway, using a folk taxonomic term like ‘tree’ isn’t too much of a sin (I hope).
Yeah, but I’m saying that TruCoat. You don’t get it, you get oxidation problems. It’ll cost you a heck of a lot more than $500.
Why use the marbles at all then? After I state which condition I believe, the amount of marbles can easily be verified by observation. The existence of God is not a matter of one state or the other, because neither state can be verified without observation. If I’m skeptical about stating belief without evidence, it doesn’t necessarily mean I’m agnostic. It more likely means I don’t want to take a sucker’s bet.
If I’m not permitted to see the marbles in the first place, then it’s not a matter of even vs odd amount of marbles. It’s more a matter of if I believe there are marbles, regardless of their amount.
Knowed Out,
It’s an analogy. The marbles are not god, or even used to represent god. The purpose is to represent the logical absurdity of claiming that if there are possible two states for a thing, in the case of this jar of marbles, an even or non-even* amount of marbles, that one’s stated lack of belief in one proposition (i.e. the jar has an even number of marbles) does not mean that one must necessarily believe in the alternative proposition (the number of marbles is non-even) even though it MUST be one of those: even or non-even. It is possible—even rational—to conclude that there is insufficient information to believe in either proposition.
To claim, as some have, that I as an atheist must surely believe that god is non-existent because I express that I do not believe god is “existent” is logically equivalent to, and equally absurd as, claiming that I must sure believe that the number of marbles in the jar is non-even because I express that I do not believe the number of marbles is “even.”
It’s a nuanced, but crucially important distinction when it comes to whether or not a burden of proof is assumed.
*And here I’ve chosen to generally use even vs non-even rather than even vs odd for reasons which the pedant (an expression used here most lovingly) will understand.
According to the BigT post that the analogy was constructed in response to, we’re talking about before.
Some people are of the opinion that it’s impossible to lack an opinion on something. That’s what’s being disputed here, with an analogy where one of 2 options must be true - if you fail to believe one of the options, does that perforce mean that you must believe the other?
You know that either there are an even number of marbles, or an odd number of marbles. Does that mean that if you lack a belief that it’s even, that you must that it’s odd?
You know that I either have a red car or I don’t. Does that mean that if you lack a belief that I have a red car, that you believe I don’t?
You know that either at least one god exists, or that no gods exist. Does that mean that if you lack a belief in any god, that you believe that there are no gods?
Essentially, the question the analogy seeks to answer is whether “I don’t know, I haven’t developed any kind of solid opinion yet” is even a possible answer.
One of the common definitions of an agnostic is a person who refrains from asserting a firm opinion either way on the subject due to believing they lack sufficient information to form a firm opinion. So, the reason people who refrain from asserting one way or the other whether they think my car is red due to insufficient information would be considered agnostics because they exactly fit the definition.
Now, sometimes people who refrain from making such assertions actually have formed an opinon, a belief, but just don’t want to assert it. A person who has decided that they don’t believe in the christian god, or the norse gods, or any greek gods, or any other comparable god they can think of might call themselves an agnostic because they can’t prove that the things they don’t believe in don’t exist. And they’re correct - they are agnostics. But they’re also atheists, whether they like it or not, because they lack belief in any god. The only way to not qualify as an atheist is to actually believe in a god. Merely having not formed an opinion (a la the marble and car analogies) is not enough to disqualify you.
No, it wasn’t exactly what he said.
I know about it. What the hell it has to do with marbles, on the other hand, is known only to you.