I asked you if flipping a coin 1,000,000,000 times in a row and having it come up heads every single time is evidence that the coin does not have a tails. You insisted, over and over and over that lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist.
When you flip a coin and and get 1,000,000,000 heads in a row there is a lack of evidence that tails exists on that coin. Do you still contend that you can conclude nothing about the existence or non-existence of tails on that coin?
Further, you replied later in that thread that you’d guess the next flip will come up heads, but this directly contradicts your position on lack of evidence. I’d like to know how you can explain the apparent contradiction.
The problem as awlays is at the end of the day there isnt any agreement on terms.
To summarise:
Some people find atheism most useful to simply describe ‘anyone who doesnt consider themselves a theist’. Ie that atheism is a passive position rather than an active philosophy, which means anyone who is not theist in nature is an atheist by default.
Some people find it more useful to have categories to describe themselves as ‘neither atheist or theist’. These people seem to generally consider atheism a somewhat more active position than simply ‘lack of theism’.
Some of this comes down to a distrust of atheism as an actual practise being simply ‘lack of theism’. There is some validity to this in my view in that in most cultures you have to pretty actively resist being a theist given how strongly most societies advocate theistic positions in one or more ways. To be one it generally means some level of active rejection of theism generally has to have taken place. Basically theism is built into us a cognitive process, and to really be an atheist takes active work rather than simply ‘not being theist’. As a concept they can certainly exist, just like agnosticism can, but as a practical postion Ive never met one yet.
So in my view the issue breaks down to a practical vs theoretical argument and which definition holds the most utility. I suspect this will break across ideological lines as well.
That’s not what he originally said - he said that after the incorrect comment you made that’s under discussion, in response to it.
That said, I wouldn’t (and didn’t) bother to nitpick with you about your original error, but for the love of sweet, sweet cheeze, can’t you ever face the truth about any of your errors without resorting to fraudulent defenses of them?
Oh brother. You skipped over one of my posts. I asked you to reply to it. You replied to half of it which was useless as the point was the second part of the post. I asked you to respond to all of it. You again ignored my request.
Then just answer them in order and don’t skip over any. It’s too hard for you to scroll up? They’re numbered in order ya know.
Here:
That’s incredibly childish. Your definitions are correct. One who believes that there is no deity is an atheist. But it’s not correct in a vacuum. One who is without belief is also an atheist. Every atheist organization and philosophy encyclopedia I’ve ever seen agrees. Cherry picking definitions from a few dictionaries and claiming it’s the one and only definition isn’t workingwell for you.
Isn’t it? That’s your only comment? See how dictionaries are just plain wrong sometimes?
Swimming against the tide and putting aside Frank’s issues for the moment, I’d like to argue that agnosticism is a meaningful position. Consider, for example, Deism, the notion that a creator God brought the universe into being, but doesn’t interfere in its affairs. Science can’t meaningfully address this question, as our evidence and theory break down at the Big Bang. Parsimony and Occam’s Razor say don’t worry about it. If we can’t test BB -1, it’s irrelevant. This, in fact, is my view. But, not everyone is required to adopt my view.
If one says, I accept the BB theory, but believe it’s an open question whether quantum mechanics or God started the whole thing rolling, to me, that’s an agnostic. Moreover, it’s a view worthy of respect. Notably, the agnostic isn’t saying “there’s this conception of God in which I believe.” Rather, s/he is saying “there’s a conception of God that I can’t exclude.”
In other words, I am not going to accept that I must be considered an atheist, because the atheists in this forum demand that I accept their definition of what an atheist is!
How dare I mention that I am not an atheist…just because I am not an atheist!
You people faulting me for “self-serving definitions” is like having Rush Limbaugh faulting me for obesity! (My weight for height is right on the button.)
On this…we are in complete agreement. There is a lot of “wheel spinning” going on in this forum.
Oh, I am agnostic about that! I think there are people here who will think over some of the nonsense that is going on…and conclude that theists are not more unyielding than atheists in defense of BELIEFS. Then it will become a question of whether the atheists are more into that kind of thing than theists.
You really shouldn’t expect instant results from this kind of thing, Diogenes. You gotta be more like me on that…lay the seeds and and hope that something will bloom in the future.
Well, of course, I disagree that I am a “fellow atheist”…although I am delighted you guys want me so badly. Unfortunately, I must decline no matter how much you beg. And I disagree with them about whether or not absence of evidence for “x” constitutes evidence that “x” does not exist. I say it does not constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. And please spare me the misapplied introduction of the null hypothesis.
The absence of evidence for “x” does not in any way constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. We disagree on that.
I don’t think it does. I think it works a a broad umbrella for anyone without belief, while “ignostic,” “strong” and “weak” atheist, etc. are all subsets.
I think I would identify as an ignostic, by the way, in that I do think the word “god” has to be defined before it can be meaningfully discussed as a possibility, but I also think that most theists can proffer enough of a working definition to at least humor the discussion.
It’s interesting, though, that I’ve sen in this thread what appear to be attempts to say that if you can’t define gods, then you can’t say they don’t exist, which is the most vacuous kind of sophist tripe.
Interesting take, Meatros. I cannot answer any of your questions, but I would like to comment on the implications of some of what you wrote.
First of all, agnostic suits me just fine.
I do not know what the true nature of the Reality of existence IS.
Honestly, I just have no idea of what “all this” IS.
My guess is it is much, much more complicated and involved than puny humans can even imagine.
To definitely rule in or out any possible component seems absurd TO ME…so I will not do it.
Many theists think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that a god (creator and personal god) is an absolute necessity. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute necessity…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely there is a god than that there are no gods.
Many atheists also think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that no gods of any kind exist. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute impossibility…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods. And some atheists (in my experience, just the limited few who argue and debate on the Internet) suggest that they do not even take a position of belief that no gods exist…but instead suggest that until proof of a god arises…the default is that there is no god.
Nobody cares if you’re an atheist, we’re just telling you where your own self-characterization places you, and no one’s begging you for anything. Try taking basic philosphy class some time. The definitions we are using are the academic ones.
There is no way to provide evidenc that anything doesn’t exist, so that point is a fatuous one. The default is simply to presume non-existence absent any evdience of existence. The presumption is provisional, though. It’s not a dogma. I presume there are no elves, but if someone shows me an elf, I’ll believe in elves. I have nothing invested in believing in the non-existence of elves. I don’t care. I’ll change my assumption given sufficient evidence. I feel the same way about sky gods.
I would like you to answer Voyager’s question from above. Are there any gods you are sure don’t exist? Are you sure the Flying Sphagetti Monster doesn’t exist, or do you think it’s a real possibility?