# Is there a word for an atheist that doesn't believe but hopes God exists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789 "2018-04-20T15:54:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/121 "2018-04-25T06:07:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So the information that _you_ provided is wrong? > FAIL Like I said disproving one myth about a being is not the same as proving that being does not exist, unless you are now claiming Geo Washing does/did not exist? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/122 "2018-04-25T08:02:35Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Again, constraining everything to be about evidence unnecessarily weakens your position by making too strong assumptions—namely, that all knowledge comes to us empirically. I haven’t made that claim > [@](#): > > I’ve already given an example where that seems not to be the case—mathematics. In particular, if you’re a mathematical Platonist—which many working mathematicians these days are—you believe in a sort of abstract mathematical realm that the human mind participates in, discovering eternal, unchanging mathematical truths. But that all has to be internally consistent, it has to _work_, it has to make predictions. > [@](#): > > It is not such a great step for the theist to suggest that the human mind similarly participates in the knowledge of god, which completely defeats the argument from lack of evidence. again, that is circular. It isn’t a step that you need to take unless you were already convinced that there has to be a god, it doesn’t follow necessarily from the world as we experience it. It is the theists being certain of the existence of god and then trying to find ways in which that existence is compatible with no evidence at all. > [@](#): > > Mathematics (and logic), by the way, isn’t the only domain in which knowledge doesn’t come to us by evidence. Think about the way subjective experiences are simply present to you: you don’t need evidence to conclude you have a headache, you simply have a headache. Knowledge of that fact is immediately and undeniably present to you; you can’t just refuse to believe you have a headache (or lots of pharmaceutical companies would be out of business). pain is something for which we have evidence, the complexity of the human brain and subsequent misfiring is something for which we have evidence > [@](#): > > There are no a priori grounds (that I know of) that knowledge of god should not be immediately present to you in the same way. Indeed, many religious traditions contain such a kind of ‘revealed’ knowledge. Which are not evidence of anything other than a functioning (and imperfect) human brain. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to propose that those claiming to possess this knowledge are simply mistaken (or maybe lying), but the argument is surprisingly hard to make—after all, how would you be mistaken about having a headache? And of course, never having had a headache doesn’t yield grounds for claiming that headaches don’t exist. We know that humans fool themselves all the time, that our perception is imperfect, we hear things and feel things and see things that aren’t there. We make unwarranted assumptions and conclusions and…yes…we feel pain, when there is no physical reason for it. All because of our high-functioning brain. We have evidence for all the above which perfectly explains any religious experience or revelation or phantom headache. And we have no evidence at all for a god or gods of any kind. > [@](#): > > Also, god isn’t necessarily posited as explanatory, but rather, as part of the experience of living in the world are we back to a god that does nothing, intervenes in nothing and causes nothing? if so, that is a deist god of no consequence to the world > [@](#): > > —that is, the usual argument is not, lightning hit that tree, somebody must have thrown that lightning, hence god (though it is often misunderstood and / or misconstrued as such), but rather, just as I see the lightning hitting the tree, I find faith, knowledge of god, within me. So saying that god isn’t explanatory, appealing to parsimony etc. also misses the point somewhat. If you mean that having a concept of god or gods makes me feel nice and helps me make sense of the world then that is trivially true and good for you but it in no way has anything to say about whether it actually exists. It is a concept exactly on the level of Santa and the easter bunny. > [@](#): > > Well, suit yourself, of course. But the things I mentioned aren’t obscure; occasionalism, for instance, is a major Islamic doctrine (at least in Sunni Islam). So? something can be not obscure but still utterly absurd. Islam makes the absolute concrete claim that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, it is not a reliable source of fact. Not everything that can be said makes sense. > [@](#): > > The problem is just that you open yourself up for any sophisticated theist making an argument along the lines of: “Ah, you’ve nicely attacked the _folk_ concept of god. You know, the bearded old man on a cloud? Yeah, I agree that’s nonsense. There may be people who believe in that, but there’s people who believe the Earth is flat. No, the concept of God I have in mind is nothing like that sky-wizard: he is beyond the created, gives existence to everything that exists, and what happens, does so by his will. You can’t find evidence of him anymore than you can find evidence of predicate logic.” Fine, it is a shell-game as old as time. The god of gaps. That is the reason why theology goes out of its way to avoid defining god in concrete or detectable ways. He is unknowable and ineffable whilst cunningly still allowing people to know what he wants and how he wants it doing. Remarkable. Or he is defined in such a way as to need no evidence at all with his nature and powers retrofitted to the prevailing scientific knowledge and societal norms. > [@](#): > > For a recent showing of this kind of argumentation, see **GreenWyvern** ’s contributions in [this thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=852339). which advances the subject not one jot. Tired old arguments, appeals to authority with zero evidence and zero necessity. Assuming that god must exist and finding a place for it. > [@](#): > > It’s easy knocking down weak readings of an opponent’s arguments. But to see whether one’s own stance holds up, one should try it against the strongest possible version. I’m still waiting for a strong argument. Don’t assume that you are telling me stuff I don’t know or have not heard many times before. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/123 "2018-04-25T11:15:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Like I said disproving one myth about a being is not the same as proving that being does not exist, unless you are now claiming Geo Washing does/did not exist? Geo Washing? I asked for two simple things: A description of the deity you want disproved, and the place this deity resides. You failed on both counts, giving someone else’s description that you yourself think is wrong, and a location that is both a _former_ residence, and a magical land that we have no access to. edited to add: And thank you for bringing up the other obstacle. What would you accept as evidence that a deity doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/124 "2018-04-25T11:16:19Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I haven’t made that claim Then I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by endorsing the quote that ‘What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’, and your repeatedly asking for ‘evidence’ while I’m trying to explain how ‘evidence’ isn’t the right notion, necessarily. Could you elaborate? > [@](#): > > But that all has to be internally consistent, it has to _work_, it has to make predictions. Mathematics doesn’t make any predictions—not empirically verifiable ones, at least. > [@](#): > > It isn’t a step that you need to take unless you were already convinced that there has to be a god, it doesn’t follow necessarily from the world as we experience it. It is the theists being certain of the existence of god and then trying to find ways in which that existence is compatible with no evidence at all. You could raise those same objections against mathematics. Pretend you haven’t heard about math before (you have not participated in knowledge of the Platonic mathematical realm, so to speak); then I come to you trying to convince you of a mathematical fact (a truth straight from that realm accessible to me by my mind participating in the ideas, forms, whatever of mathematics). Are you going to ask for evidence? If so, that just means you haven’t understood what I’m talking about. There are, of course, other ways to criticize my mathematical knowledge. You could be skeptical of the Platonist account, taking a formalist stance; or you could simply uncover a mistake in my reasoning. What you can’t do, however, is rejecting that 2 + 2 = 4 because there’s no evidence for it—that merely shows that you haven’t understood what kind of claim I’m making. > [@](#): > > pain is something for which we have evidence, the complexity of the human brain and subsequent misfiring is something for which we have evidence Sure (although, again, the case that pain is identical to its neural correlates—that pain is C-fibers firing, to quote a popular slogan—is a very hard one to make, and many philosophers have abandoned this sort of naive type-identity physicalism), but you don’t know your pain through examination of evidence. You know it by experience. You don’t start out examining the symptoms of pain—ah, I’m screaming, cursing and jumping up and down on one leg, I must have stubbed my toe, therefore, I feel pain in my toe!—nor the neural correlates of pain—oh, C-fibers seem to be firing, I must be in pain!—; no, you are simply in pain, and no further mediation is needed to make you aware of that fact. Similarly, a person whose mind partakes in knowledge of god might have that knowledge immediately present before them, just as unquestionably as your knowledge of the pain in your toe is, and just as non-reliant on evidence. What should they do, when they try to explain that knowledge to you? Does your pain get relieved when I tell you that there is no evidence of the pain? No, because that’s just not the right channel to connect to such phenomena. > [@](#): > > We know that humans fool themselves all the time, that our perception is imperfect, we hear things and feel things and see things that aren’t there. That’s indeed true with knowledge reliant on evidential mediation, but you can’t be wrong, you can’t fool yourself about having a headache: because feeling as if one had a headache is the same as having a headache. You can’t have a headache that isn’t there, because the headache is just the having of a headache, the subjective impression of a headache. > [@](#): > > And we have no evidence at all for a god or gods of any kind. Right, just as we have no evidence that 2 + 2 = 4. > [@](#): > > are we back to a god that does nothing, intervenes in nothing and causes nothing? if so, that is a deist god of no consequence to the world No, not at all. I was proposing a god that is phenomenally present, i.e. part of the lived experience of at least a certain subset of people, as opposed to a god whose existence is merely inferred, typically in a flawed way—i.e. by way of ontological, or prime mover, or whatever other arguments. > [@](#): > > If you mean that having a concept of god or gods makes me feel nice and helps me make sense of the world then that is trivially true and good for you but it in no way has anything to say about whether it actually exists. It is a concept exactly on the level of Santa and the easter bunny. No, I mean a god such that a certain subset of people participate in knowledge of that god, just as a certain subset of people participate in knowledge of a headache, or that there are more real numbers than natural numbers. A god accessible to these people via revelation, just as pain is accessible to us via smacking our toes. The thing is that your argument from evidence does exactly nothing to persuade a believer in such a god—and indeed, should not do anything, because it misses its intended target from the outset. > [@](#): > > So? something can be not obscure but still utterly absurd. Of course, but in neglecting such views, your arguments fail to touch them—that is, you’re not arguing against occasionalism, you’re merely asserting it’s absurd. Which is fine and all, you can certainly believe that, but it won’t convince anybody who believes in that doctrine, and hence, your arguments fall short—because after all, without any viable counterargument showing its absurdity, occasionalism just might be true. > [@](#): > > Fine, it is a shell-game as old as time. The god of gaps. It’s not, though. The case I’m making includes a god that is present to believers in the same way a headache is to you, not a god that steps in to cover some gap in our understanding. It comes from (revealed, non-empirical) knowledge (which you, me, and other atheists merely happen not to share), rather than ignorance. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for a strong argument. Don’t assume that you are telling me stuff I don’t know or have not heard many times before. I have no idea what you might have heard or not, however, at least from your responses it seems that at least you haven’t really paid these ideas much mind, or understood them properly, hence my attempts at clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/125 "2018-04-25T11:25:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, that’s good then. All you folks who thought you were atheists, welcome to the agnostic side! We don’t, sadly, have cookies… It’s no good - once you get here, they make you go back to the atheist side. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Of course a nuanced view can exist and I’ve never suggested otherwise. That is why I suggested that being atheist (or theist for that matter) is mundane and uninteresting in and of itself. It is merely a starting point. However, unless you can state “I believe in a god or gods” you are an atheist, you can resent the existence of the two boxes as much as you like but it doesn’t prevent you being located in one. How about if I phrase it as “I don’t disbelieve in a god or gods”? > [@](#): > > That you leave open the possibility that there _might_ be something is where an interesting discussion might start. It’s kind of my entire point. Even if I happen to stray as far as #5 or #6 on Dawkin’s Belief Scale, the central tenet of my belief system (for lack of more applicable terminology) is the agnosticism. You seem determined to divide the world into “theist” and “atheist” and then consider the agnosticism as a subcategory - even a side effect. I consider the agnosticism to be the main point, and any theist or atheist leanings to be side effects of that. This shit matters to me and it makes me quite angry to be told that I’m “doing it wrong” simply because I’m not using someone else’s priorities and criteria. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And all bets are off if you claim that the god you describe is hiding in Never Never Land, Heaven, The Big Rock Candy Mountain, outside the universe, or Tahiti. Tahiti _is_ a magical place. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/126 "2018-04-25T12:16:41Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Then I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by endorsing the quote that ‘What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’, and your repeatedly asking for ‘evidence’ while I’m trying to explain how ‘evidence’ isn’t the right notion, necessarily. Could you elaborate? It is simple, If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand. If you think that “evidence” is the wrong notion then I just can’t help you. We are talking past each other. Your musings on the evidential nature of maths and pain become impossible to discuss. If you don’t think that mathematics makes predictions that are borne out by real world evidence..I can’t move past that. Pain is a detectable and measurable physical phenomena…you think not…I can do nothing with that. You stretch the concept of a god to something so tenuous that indeed, it can hide in the tiniest of gaps and bears no relationship to what the major religions claim. A thing of pure thought or concept, shape-shifting in nature and scope to avoid the burden of proving existence. Plus ca change. That’s fine, but you and others who put it forward are merely dealing in word and logic games. Metaphorically prefixing your rebuttals with a condescending “aaaaaaah! but…” Theology of that type is of the sixth-form common room level and has been for the last few millennia. and you show you own bias here when you write… > [@](#): > > Of course, but in neglecting such views, your arguments fail to touch them—that is, you’re not arguing against occasionalism, you’re merely asserting it’s absurd. Which is fine and all, you can certainly believe that, but it won’t convince anybody who believes in that doctrine, and hence, your arguments fall short—because after all, without any viable counterargument showing its absurdity, occasionalism just might be true. because, as you should know, I’m not the one making a claim at all. I find it absurd but I’m not making an argument against it because I don’t have to, the burden of proof is always with the person making the positive claim. You think “occasionalism” could be true? fine. Make the case. If you bring no evidence then I will dismiss it out of hand, just like I could do with the infinite amount of superficially absurd claims that a person could make. > [@](#): > > I have no idea what you might have heard or not, however, at least from your responses it seems that at least you haven’t really paid these ideas much mind, or understood them properly, hence my attempts at clarification. You’d be wrong. I’ve read them all before and there is simply nothing new in the explanations you’ve given. I understand them all perfectly well, you seem to think that they are due some degree of respect just because they come out of the mouths of intelligent people. I don’t see that they have any special explanatory power or insight and offer absolutely no evidence of any supernatural being. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/127 "2018-04-25T12:21:10Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Tahiti _is_ a magical place. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/128 "2018-04-25T13:11:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If you think that “evidence” is the wrong notion then I just can’t help you. We are talking past each other. I think you’re right about that, at least. Can I just ask you to clarify your own position? I think you’re asserting at least one, and probably both, of the following: Claim A: “The only things worth believing are those for which there is evidence.” Claim B: “One should only attempt to persuade others to believe something by offering evidence.” Do you believe Claim A, Claim B, both, or neither? And, do you have evidence for either of these claims? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/129 "2018-04-25T13:59:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’ve already pointed out I’m a god. I exist. I _defy_ anyone to prove otherwise.… > Gods that have no significant interaction with or effect on the world generally cannot be disproven, unless the believer goes nuts and makes silly claims like omnimaxness or somesuch. Gods like that, ones that don’t matter, can simply be disbelieved, because there is no reason _to_ believe in them. Just like you don’t have any reason to believe in that giant orange elephant that is invisibly and intangibly breathing heavily into your left ear right now. I do not believe in you. > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, not in any way. That merely shows some editor at wiki got it wrong. The fact that Zeus can throw thunderbolts and the fact that currently observable thunderbolts dont match that doesn’t prove Zeus doesn’t exist, just that he didn’t throw that thunderbolt. Zeus is not worshiped much today, perhaps he has no need to throw lightning around. Lightning always travels the way that it does. It has not changed in some way. Either Zeus (or Thor) has always been defying physics or they are simply made up deities. More importantly, in order for us to prove (or provide strong evidence) that a given deity does not exist, we need justification: you must first provide a good reason for anyone to believe that a given deity does exist. The first disproof of any deity is “_why should I believe that?_” which puts the ball in the believer’s court. That is a high bar to get over. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/130 "2018-04-25T14:27:09Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is simple, If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand. And yet, earlier, when I attributed that stance to you, you said that’s not a claim you made. Furthermore, it’s manifestly false: for one, there’s no evidence at all for 2 + 2 = 4, yet it can’t be dismissed out of hand. Also, the claim ‘If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand’ is itself one for which you have no evidence, and hence, if it were true, could be dismissed out of hand. > [@](#): > > If you don’t think that mathematics makes predictions that are borne out by real world evidence…I can’t move past that. Fine, then show me the evidence that an infinite set contains an infinite subset. That’s not to say you can’t apply math to make predictions; but this requires more than pure math, namely, what’s often called the ‘minimal interpretation’ that connects abstract mathematical entities with concrete physical ones. > [@](#): > > Pain is a detectable and measurable physical phenomena…you think not…I can do nothing with that. What can be measured are neuron firings and the like; these may correlate to pain, but they are not pain, themselves. One argument is from multiple realizability: if pain truly was C-fibers firing, then, say, a robot lacking C-fibers, or an alien being with different physiology, could never experience pain. But if they do—and there seems no reason to believe they couldn’t—then pain and C-fibers firing can’t be identical. But really, the question is not whether pain is physically measurable. For the purposes of this discussion, I will readily grant you that it is. The point is that this is not the way pain is present to you—i.e. you don’t collect the evidence and then conclude that you must be in pain. You’re simply in pain, end of story. So, this is another example of knowledge readily present to you that doesn’t come via evidence. > [@](#): > > You stretch the concept of a god to something so tenuous that indeed, it can hide in the tiniest of gaps and bears no relationship to what the major religions claim. Occasionalism, to remind you, is something a major religion holds among its tenets. > [@](#): > > because, as you should know, I’m not the one making a claim at all. Yes, you have made a claim, repeatedly now: “If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand”. You have offered neither argument nor evidence for it. All I’m doing is showing you—by example—how it’s wrong: it’s wrong in the case of mathematics, it’s wrong in the case of subjective experience, and it’s wrong if something like occasionalism were true. This doesn’t require any commitment to the truth of occasionalism. > [@](#): > > I find it absurd but I’m not making an argument against it because I don’t have to, the burden of proof is always with the person making the positive claim. You’ve proposed an argument that you seem to think dismantles all religious claims: “If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand”. This argument doesn’t hold up for certain religious claims, like occasionalism. Hence, further argumentation is needed in order to defend your argument against that possibility. > [@](#): > > You think “occasionalism” could be true? fine. Make the case. If you bring no evidence then I will dismiss it out of hand, just like I could do with the infinite amount of superficially absurd claims that a person could make. “You think ‘2 + 2 = 4’ could be true? Fine. Make the case. If you bring no evidence, then I will dismiss it out of hand.” > [@](#): > > You’d be wrong. I’ve read them all before and there is simply nothing new in the explanations you’ve given. I understand them all perfectly well, you seem to think that they are due some degree of respect just because they come out of the mouths of intelligent people. No. I think you should pay them some respect because they show, by example, a way the world could be such that ‘having no evidence’ for religious claims is no grounds for dismissing them, thus showing that to be an insufficient criterion. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/131 "2018-04-25T14:32:30Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I think you’re right about that, at least. > > Can I just ask you to clarify your own position? I think you’re asserting at least one, and probably both, of the following: > > Claim A: “The only things worth believing are those for which there is evidence.” > > Claim B: “One should only attempt to persuade others to believe something by offering evidence.” > > Do you believe Claim A, Claim B, both, or neither? > > And, do you have evidence for either of these claims? neither ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/132 "2018-04-25T14:35:39Z")
If there being no evidence at all is not a criterion for disbelieving something, then nothing is. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/133 "2018-04-25T15:02:54Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > neither Okay, then what is your position with respect to evidence and belief? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > If there being no evidence at all is not a criterion for disbelieving something, then nothing is. What some of us are asserting is that “evidence” is not (or at least, not necessarily) synonymous with “good reasons to believe.” That’s partly an issue of whether there are (or can be) good reasons to believe something _besides_ evidence (i.e. whether “evidence” is a _proper_ subset of “good reasons to believe.”) And it’s partly an issue of how you’re defining “evidence.” Different people (scientists, historians, statisticians, criminal investigators) use the term in different ways. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/134 "2018-04-25T15:16:10Z")
For some reason the fact that there is no evidence isn’t a hindrance to those who believe without evidence that there is a god…until they come across those that believe that the lack of evidence to believe in gods is a good reason to dismiss beliefs in gods, which sometimes leads to the silly question, “Can you prove there isn’t any god?”. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/135 "2018-04-25T16:54:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Even the Greeks knew that. The Celestial Mt Olympus, the home of the Greek Pantheon is reached thru the actual mountain. > > Zeus lives in the Celestial Mt Olympus, where mortals cannot go and it cannot be seen by mortal eyes, unless the gods there want you to do so. > > In no way does “There is no on Mt. Olympus that corresponds to the supposed home of the gods described in mythology” disprove that Zeus exists. It merely shows that they dont live on the physical mountain or can’t be detected. > > Fail. I take it that you are a Zeus worshipper then? If you cannot disprove the existence of Zeus, then he MUST exist. And if he does exist, you best be worshipping him, else you may get a thunderbolt crammed into a very uncomfortable place. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/136 "2018-04-25T17:03:39Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > the claim ‘If a claim you make has no evidence behind it then it can be dismissed out of hand’ is itself one for which you have no evidence, and hence, if it were true, could be dismissed out of hand. I’m not making a factual claim here, I’m telling you what my response is to a claim backed up by inadequate evidence. You tell me what you think is going on, you present inadequate evidence, I don’t find that claim credible. At no point am I telling you it is wrong or making a counter claim. However, even if you were to say it were a claim, it clearly does have evidence behind it as I have read the claim of “occasionality”, seen that it is lacking in evidence and have now dismissed it. I cannot say that it is definitely wrong as it is carefully constructed so as to be immune to rational enquiry…theology in microcosm. When I say “dismiss out of hand” I mean, to be accurate to the original quote, that it can be dismissed without me having to say why it is wrong, or create a counter-claim or present evidence to the contrary. The burden remains with the person making the claim. And that is where I’ll leave it. Linguistic and logical tricks don’t make for interesting discussions though the business of religion has made itself a tidy business out it. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/137 "2018-04-25T17:17:16Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Okay, then what is your position with respect to evidence and belief? That’s the opening to an essay and a thread in and of itself rather than a quick post and seeing as I’m bowing out anyway I’ll not expand but I’ll give you a quick answer. You can certainly say that I think an assertion or a claim, in and of itself, is not evidence and I hope that any belief I hold is only as strong as the evidence that backs it up. If that evidence changes, my belief changes. And with that, I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/138 "2018-04-25T17:22:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you cannot disprove the existence of Zeus, then he MUST exist. Well, of course he does. _And_ he has a PhD. Great guy, created the grinch and the lorax and a bunch of other magical creatures. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/139 "2018-04-25T17:39:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, not in any way. That merely shows some editor at wiki got it wrong. The fact that Zeus can throw thunderbolts and the fact that currently observable thunderbolts dont match that doesn’t prove Zeus doesn’t exist, just that he didn’t throw that thunderbolt. Zeus is not worshiped much today, perhaps he has no need to throw lightning around. I get that you’re trying to “win” an argument on the internet, but you missed the point of my post. Atheists, by definition, don’t believe in any god. This they have in common with rocks and tables. They also, by definition, don’t believe in Thor. This they have in common with _you_. There’s nothing particularly complicated with the idea of not believing in a god. It’s not hard to understand. So far, this is a description of what is commonly called “weak” atheism. “Strong” atheism is the idea that, given a specific god or gods, the atheist claims to “know” the god in question doesn’t exist. When challenged about this claim they are expected to be able to back up their knowledge with evidence or arguments. Many atheists find these demands to be a little silly and hypocritical, because theists commonly claim to “know” their god is real based on shoddy or nonexistent evidence, and because nobody demands ironclad evidence about the nonexistence of unicorns or Frodo. But the more argumentative among us will sometimes rise to the challenge, in the hopes of achieving the ultimate accomplishment in human history: winning an argument on the internet. And so we sally forth on this hopeless quest: to prove a negative. Step one of proving a negative: determine what you’re supposed to be disproving. So we ask. You answer. With a wiki article. I refer to the factual, cited statement in the wiki article, and construct an effective disproof. You move the goalposts. Oh no! I have “lost” an argument on the internet! Flings hand to forehead, faints. Except I didn’t actually lose the argument - I successfully disproved _that_ version of Zeus, exactly as you asked me to. You want to present some _other_ version of Zeus, then we can look at how it’s described and determine if there’s anything about _that_ version of Zeus to determine whether it’s provably fictional or merely normally fictional. But we can’t discuss that until we know which version of Zeus you’re talking about. ( **k9bfriender** ’s client’s dog?) And of course this is entirely beside the point - whether any specific fantasized deity can be objectively disproved or not is just a game, or under worse conditions a desperate attempt to push back against evils done in the name of that fantasy. But either way the game is beside the point; the basic lack of belief, provable or not, is the real defining property of an atheist. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Thinking you can prove a being doesnt exist by disproving a myth about that being is ludicrous. > > George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree. His Dentures were not made out of wood. He did not throw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Look,there- I have disproved three myths about Geo Washington, so clearly he never existed.:rolleyes::rolleyes: > [Ten Misconceptions About Washington · George Washington's Mount Vernon](http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-man-the-myth/ten-misconceptions-about-washington/) The version of “Geo Washington” that can chuck coins across an eleven mile wide river is fictional, and provably so. Of course there was another version of George Washington that wasn’t fictional, and, shockingly, that Washington didn’t do any impossible things and everything he did do actually happened. _That_ version of Washington was real. When talking about a god, there tends not to be an objective referent that can be easily pointed out to “anchor” the definition of that entity. This means that rather then pointing at Washington’s grave and saying “that’s the Washington we were talking about”, you have to pick which stories and descriptions you want to believe apply to the entity, and that’s the _entire_ definition of the deity. So if the stories and descriptions don’t hold up, then that’s that - until you grab your goalposts and toss together some other set of definitions, and the game starts all over fresh with your new, different deity (of the same name). ---
**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 25, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789/140 "2018-04-25T17:45:54Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > But mathematics also addresses existential questions—literally so, if you’re a (certain stripe of) mathematical Platonist. Existential in the sense of “does a prime exist with certain characteristics?” Not the class of existence that is very interesting here. > [@](#): > > That’s because the facts about the world are contingent—they could have been otherwise. (In fact, it’s only god’s will that makes them the way they are!) God, on the other hand, is not contingent, but necessary. And there are refutations to those “proofs.” Not to mention that they are not very useful in showing the existence of any particular god. But that’s my point. In natural philosophy there were equally cogent proofs of things we now know are not correct. Logic may be perfect but human use of logic is not. There are two tests of a proof. The first is examination by others - but that has rarely settled anything since the flaws are often based on assumptions not shared. The second is a test against reality, which for natural philosophy at least was much better. In fact tests against reality replace proofs. > [@](#): > > (And well, experiments routinely find the effects they were designed to find—so much so that if they don’t, it often presages a revolution—, so we have at least some ability to make inferences about existential questions.) And science of course recognizes this and thus demands the ability to replicate results, especially controversial or revolutionary ones. It often works - see cold fusion. > [@](#): > > Or take the example of subjective states I posited above: I can unequivocally tell you that my headache right now exists, yet I have no evidence of that except for having that headache (there are, of course, neuronal phenomena associated with having a headache—but one, I have no access to them without some complicated machinery, and two, the argument that these phenomena are the same thing as the headache—identity physicalism—is very hard to make). There’s no basic logical obstacle to things being that way with god: you participate in knowledge of god, just as you participate in knowledge of mathematics, or your own subjective states. Just as the latter need no evidence, so the former likewise wouldn’t. So the question of the existence of my headache is one I can definitely settle, sans any evidence. Your are conflating your internal sensation, a headache, with an external one, god. No one doubts that people do “experience” god. That internal state exists. But is there an external cause? Say your headache feels as if someone was pounding your head with a hammer. That doesn’t mean someone actually is. You can tell that by looking for evidence of a hammer. Likewise, the experience of god does not mean there is a god, and to show that there is requires a search of reality. We can study and understand why your headache happens, and we might study and understand what is behind the experience of god. But that doesn’t mean there are hammers or god. > [@](#): > > Indeed, it would make more sense to view empirical evidence as secondary to such immediate knowledge: after all, I get to know the outcome of an experiment only through knowledge of the state of my mind, i.e. through the subjective experience of observing something. That’s why the former is fallible, susceptible to Cartesian hyperbolic doubt and evil demons, but nobody could ever convince me of having a headache when I do not, in fact, have a headache. But I could convince you that your headache is not being caused by hammers. I wouldn’t dream of telling someone they didn’t have an experience of god. I wouldn’t even tell that asshole in Nashville that he didn’t have the experience of being stalked by whatshername. But you can test whether these experiences have mappings to the external world. In the god case, do the experiences of god over a range of people match? A person on an Asian island having the same experience of God as a person in Utah would be powerful evidence. But if their experiences matched the visions of god of their particular cultures, you might find the cause to be cultural not supernatural. It’s just like the descriptions of aliens and UFOs by saucer sighters matched the latest movie with aliens in it. Subjective observations in science are fallible also, see the Martian canals. That’s why we use instruments which don’t have hangovers or blurry vision and which can be calibrated. Their readings can be viewed by multiple people, and are a lot more reliable than subjective vision. Now if someone would just invent a God meter. But we have. It’s called archeology. Religions make testable statements about the past, much of which have been shown to be false. (Their past - that a resident of Jerusalem and accurately describe Jerusalem is not much evidence for the divine.) They make predictions about the future, often before the events are supposed to occur. Haven’t been too accurate about those either. There is one type of non-religious advocate who care about subjective things. Quacks like homeopaths. They talk about subjective feelings and unseen forces, and are allergic to testing. You want to be like them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-word-for-an-atheist-that-doesnt-believe-but-hopes-god-exists/812789.md?page=8)