Debating Belief And Its Relation To Atheism
I apologise for my inactivity on the blog after my somewhat less spectacular return from exams, but when one is confined to a bed for 2 days with a fever, headaches, and completely delirious (suffice to say I did *not* start believing in God) then one’s mind isn’t prone to considering writing a blog post, let alone trying to use a computer…
However, as I recovered I spent some more time on facebook, and got into a rather interesting debate about atheism as a belief. I used to be of the thinking that atheism was not a belief, but rather a “disbelief”, however it took a few well informed atheist commentators of this blog to change my mind.
Realising that belief in no gods and dis-belief (or non-belief) in gods are exactly the same things is quite a confusing thing to get your head around at first, but it is important when considering philosophical questions. The idea that the statements “I do not believe there are Gods” and “I believe there are no Gods” are exactly the same makes so much more sense than trying to convince yourself otherwise.
However as the debate continues, the two sides are still at disagreement, although my opponent is a fabulous person to debate against. I thought instead of taxing my still recovering brain to write a post concerning the entire topic, I’d see what everyone thought at first. A simple yes or no poll:
Loading ...
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
just as theists have no proof god exists, we as atheists, also have no proof that god doesn’t exist. it all in our minds………
sassy fontaine
23 May 08 at 11:20 pm (GMT)
I think you will find that a philosopher will actually be the first person to tell you that the statements “I do not believe there are Gods” and “I believe there are no Gods” are completely different from each other.
On a more scientific level - if a researcher poses a hypothesis that fails, the hypothesis is discarded and a new one is raised. There isn’t a belief in the failure of the hypothesis. He is merely left with a lack of its veracity.
In order for one to have a belief in no god, one would have to pose that hypothesis and test it’s veracity to a point that satisfied that belief.
But in our world, god is the hypothesis. In order to explain the world around us god as a concept was offered. Few people are atheists because they started with ‘there is no god’ as a hypothesis. The path involves the loss of a belief.
Kraeg
23 May 08 at 11:20 pm (GMT)
sassy - we don’t need proof. Theists have suggested god as their hypothesis for the genesis of the universe, it falls to them to prove that hypothesis. It doesn’t fall to us to prove the opposite.
By allowing them the courtesy of admitting our lack of proof lends credibility to their miserably unsupported hypothesis. Not only is this is intellectually dishonest, but it caters to their delusion.
Kraeg
23 May 08 at 11:24 pm (GMT)
Kraeg,
Going back to your scientific example, I never said that we would have “belief in the failure of the hypothesis”, rather we would believe that the hypothesis was wrong.
Also, there is a large difference between “not needing proof” and “not being able to get any proof”. Just because atheists cannot possibly prove God does not exist doesn’t mean we have to right to go around saying we “don’t need proof”. In any hypothesis, there are people on both sides trying to prove or disprove it. Look at Evolution, which has the scientists trying to prove it with evidence, and the Creationists trying to disprove it with nonsense. Atheists have just as much reason to “disprove” God as theists do trying to prove it.
However, as the entire concept of God is based on the supernatural world, it can never be proved or disproved, so the matter is completely down to faith and belief.
Adrian Hayter
24 May 08 at 1:59 am (GMT)
Consider the difference between
“I do not believe in gods”
and
“I have no reason to believe in gods.”
The second argument becomes more than just the antithesis of belief in gods.
SpaceGhoti
24 May 08 at 6:43 am (GMT)
Beyond Atheism
No God, God, and Gods. I do not acknowledge the word God because it is a word used by people to exploit other people. If someone believes in no God, a God, or Gods, please pick up a stack of blank paper and a sharp pencil and go into “Exact Detail” what God is or is not—or Gods. Details such as temperature, color, size, shape, location, or no temperature, no color, no size, no shape, no location would be a tremendous help at understanding such a absurd human concept.
When you go beyond Atheism, you see people just as they are—human beings. Treating everyone with respect and acknowledgement. When you go beyond atheism, you have no belief systems. You see everyone the same. Society reflects otherwise, look at religion. Where was religion, in the United States, when women were denied the right to vote, when human beings (BLACKS) were denied civil rights, and now, two human beings, regardless or sex, are denied the right to marry.
Beyond Atheism is about living a life of respect for everyone. As a member of PA-Nonbelievers, I acknowledge the incredible people I have come to know and continue to know. I also acknowledge the incredible people I continue to meet in this world. As far as, No God, God, or Gods, I will let other people continue to fill pages of blank paper with nonsense.
Matt Juba
“Member” PA-Nonbelievers
Matt Juba
24 May 08 at 10:59 am (GMT)
It’s semantics really - how do you define belief? If it’s defined as sometihng like “faith”, then no, Atheism is not belief - this has been discussed time and time again. “Faith” requires believing in something without the sufficient evidence, which is the complete opposite of Atheism.
If you define belief as something more dynamic, such as your current worldview, or what you think is most likely at the time, then perhaps.
I voted “no” because I see it as being more of a static worldview, which really is contrary to Atheism - my view of the world and what is likely would change with new scientific discoveries
Chris
24 May 08 at 12:03 pm (GMT)
Chris,
That’s my whole point though. I think belief is much more than just something based on “faith”. I believe the Earth is spherical, others believe it is flat. The evidence surely points towards my belief being the right one, but how can I know for sure? How do I know that the science saying the Earth is spherical is accurate? I don’t, but I believe it is. Even if I went out into space, saw the Earth was spherical, how do I know even then that my eyes are not deceiving me?
Everything should be treated as a belief as far as the nature of reality goes, and atheism is no different. I believe there are no gods just as “flat earthers” believe the Earth is flat.
Adrian Hayter
24 May 08 at 4:19 pm (GMT)
Adrian, whoa… disbelief is not another belief. It’s “no TV” versus “favorite channel”.
i really need to hammer this in. This sentence of yours is completely wrong-headed: The idea that the statements “I do not believe there are Gods” and “I believe there are no Gods” are exactly the same makes so much more sense than trying to convince yourself otherwise.
Those are two completely different statements. Last night I washed all the dishes. Maybe my friend put a couple more in the sink since then… I can’t see it from here. From this room there is no evidence of dishes in the sink.
I don’t have a belief that the sink is full. I also don’t have a belief that it’s empty. I truly don’t know. Therefore, I do not believe that the sink is now full, simply because it might be. I have no belief as to its fullness. I find the sink not guilty of being full. The prosecution (my senses) has provided insufficient evidence for a conviction. Does that make sense?
Dishes in a sink is an example of an ordinary claim. All that would satisfy me is for my friend to tell me that she left something in there. I’d take her on her word.
When a certain atheist says she believes There Are No Gods, she is denying the existence of gods as those gods have been explained or defined TO the atheist. Most vocal atheists will concede that since their universal knowledge is severely limited, sure, maybe there’s some god somewhere that hasn’t yet been presented or defined by any of the earth’s religions yet. Any god who can’t coax the whole world to worship enough and correctly is a pretty flimsy and unmotivated all-powerful being indeed.
Forgive me if my points have been raised before on your blog. This is my first visit.
-apple
apple
24 May 08 at 5:10 pm (GMT)
With respect to the roundness of the earth, once we’ve got satellite technology up and running, and we can all agree that it’s probably not a trick of the mind, we can conclude that the earth fits our definition of “spherical”. Does that make sense?
Definitions are very important. The word “god” must be defined, as does “exist”. Then we can discuss if one meets the requirements of the other or not. God (or any supernatural claim) has never been demonstrated to exist (or act or occur) outside the imagination. For this reason an atheist can say “i believe there are no gods”.
apple
24 May 08 at 5:20 pm (GMT)
apple,
I’m a bit confused as to where you stand. Your first comment seems to try and debate my position, and then you admit in the second:
“For this reason an atheist can say ‘i believe there are no gods’.”
So which are you going for? Belief or not belief? It seems to me that whilst we might argue that the belief in the material world can be easily reduced to evidence (in your washing example), when we get to things outside the material world (God for example) there can be no distinguishing between belief and disbelief. How do theists know there is a God? Because they believe it to be so. How do atheists know there is no God? Because they believe it to be so. There is no evidence to suggest either position is correct since God has already been deemed an unknowable being.
I’m afraid that when you’ve done enough advanced mathematics like I have you realise that both statements “I do not believe there are gods” and “I believe there are no gods” are the same. They both imply the number of gods to be 0 if we take the statement of belief to be factual.
In mathematical terms:
“I do not believe there are gods” => 0 gods
“I believe there are no gods” => 0 gods
It’s a simple use of inversion. Not believing in something is the same as believing in it’s inverse.
Adrian Hayter
24 May 08 at 5:30 pm (GMT)
perhaps we disagree on the definitions of knowledge claims and beliefs.
i might reword your math:
“i do not believe there are gods” > 0 gods
it leaves the possibility of the existence of gods, at least currently undefined gods.
apple
24 May 08 at 7:43 pm (GMT)
Sorry, but where I come from => means “IMPLIES” and >= means “Greater than or equal to”.
Even with your way of doing it, both statements still leave the possibility of the existence of gods if you take into consideration your “undefined gods”.
Adrian Hayter
24 May 08 at 7:49 pm (GMT)
i see what you mean in the mathematical sense.
still, i cannot explain it better than “not guilty” does not equal “innocent”.
apple
24 May 08 at 8:56 pm (GMT)
For clarification, ALL atheists find all gods not guilty of existing, because they’ve been presented insufficient evidence. Do we agree that that is a statement of disbelief?
SOME atheists find god innocent of the crime of existing. Do we agree that that’s a statement of belief?
Finally, theists and alien abductees and orange unicorn wranglers and victims of violent leprechauns are the claimants. The burden is upon them to provide evidence for their claims. The default position for any claim is always disbelief until sufficient evidence has been presented. Are we in agreement here?
Also, thanks for the explanation of IMPLIES. I never knew there was a difference btw => and >/=. :) Repectfully yours, apple
apple
24 May 08 at 9:31 pm (GMT)
apple,
But “not guilty” and “innocent” are not terms of belief, they are something you can “believe in”. “I believe this man is not guilty” is the same as saying “I believe this man is innocent” because the two are opposites. One logically implies to other, and vice-versa.
In terms of the court case you have presented, a god can be found not guilty of existing but also guilty of not existing by the same insufficient evidence. People can be found “guilty” of not doing things (paying taxes etc). However I don’t really like your metaphor of the court case because it is not how a belief actually works.
I agree with you that the burden is on the claimant to provide the evidence, but nothing stops us from trying to find evidence that contradicts theirs.
Adrian Hayter
24 May 08 at 9:43 pm (GMT)
adrian said at 9:43pm
But “not guilty” and “innocent” are not terms of belief, they are something you can “believe in”. “I believe this man is not guilty” is the same as saying “I believe this man is innocent” because the two are opposites.
I hold firm, Adrian, that you are mistaken here.
Disbelief of a claim does not necessarily mean firm belief in the opposite, inverse, or negative of the claim. Disbelief is a rejection of the claim, because the claim is merely an assertion until the claimant meets the burden of proof. At that point the claim becomes observed fact.
We as the jury don’t have to believe she’s not guilty. We FIND the defendant not guilty. Not guilty is a statement of disbelief, that the jury remains unconvinced. Maybe Barbara stole the fax machine - we’re unconvinced, because the claimant has simply asked us “just trust me” and “I know from personal experience,” and “this rich expert guy says she’s guilty”, and “what if she really is guilty, huh?” and “okay then, you tell me who stole the fax machine, you stupid jury”. None of this hand-waving is actually proving her guilt, and therefore we cannot punish her in good conscience. Sorry, you said you don’t prefer the court comparison, but it really seems valid and hilarious to me.
also, that belief and disbelief are spelled and pronounced differently speaks to the fact that their meanings are different ;)
You also said, but nothing stops us from trying to find evidence that contradicts theirs
Agreed. And theists have no evidence. And perhaps you’ve heard of the problem of evil.
apple
25 May 08 at 10:50 am (GMT)
“Disbelief of a claim does not necessarily mean firm belief in the opposite, inverse, or negative of the claim.”
It does when the claim is either yes or no, as in the case of innocent or guilty, and in the case of the existence of gods. Either we believe gods exist or we don’t, there is no “gods partially exist” belief to which I am aware of, simply because nothing can “partially exist”.
“also, that belief and disbelief are spelled and pronounced differently speaks to the fact that their meanings are different ;)”
That has got to be the most stupid thing ever said about the English language. I have a Thesaurus with many many words that are spelt and pronounced differently but whose meanings are exactly the same. However in this case I never meant to suppose that the words “belief” and “disbelief” meant the same thing, but to suggest that belief in one thing meant disbelief in another, and vice versa.
Back tracking onto my previous point about innocence and “not guilty” being the same, I quote wikipedia (apologies but it really does have the best definition)
“an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty…an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused”
Yes I have heard of the problem of evil, and Epicurus’ quote is my favourite quote of all time :)
Adrian Hayter
25 May 08 at 11:28 am (GMT)
Adrian -
Here’s another comparison.
When Fleischmann and Pons claimed to have discovered cold fusion we waited for confirmation from peers. Their claim was refuted as the experiment could not be repeated.
We did not believe they had achieved cold fusion. This does NOT translate to believing cold fusion is impossible. Only they had shown insufficient evidence. If one were to set up a hypothesis that cold fusion is impossible, and demonstrate that hypothesis through experimental data, then there is a belief in it’s impossibility.
A lack of belief in a positive does not translate to a belief in the negative.
And you are again incorrect in your wikipedia found definition. In the eyes of the law, not guilty and innocence are the same. But that is a set of rules that we set up to protect the genuinely innocent. In reality we are fully aware that while there is overlap, the one does not necessarily imply the other.
To continue to argue against that point is an intellectually poor method of supporting your own stance on belief in no god.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 4:48 pm (GMT)
Kraeg,
I thought I’d made my point very clear that this way of thinking applies only to things that have no material presence. There is no test that can be carried out to prove gods exist since gods are supposedly on a different plane of existence to us.
You actually messed up your own argument a bit there. You claim that your example shows that lack of belief in a positive doesn’t translate to a belief in a negative, but your example is actually an example of this (and you twisted it a bit):
“We did not believe they had achieved cold fusion” and “We believe they had not achieved cold fusion” are the same, and the example of inverse I gave. I never said “lack of belief of gods” means “belief that gods are impossible” (like you made out I did).
You are actually incorrect about your definition. In the eyes of the law, not guilty and innocence are different since “not guilty” is a verdict and “innocence” is a state. However if you take these terms away from the context of law, innocence and not guilty are both states. If I didn’t commit a crime I can say I am both “not guilty” and “innocent” of it.
“To continue to argue against that point is an intellectually poor method of supporting your own stance on belief in no god.”
Now, now, there is no need to be like that. I could very well say the same things about your arguments (which I’ve just easily refuted above) since you don’t seem to understand the basic concepts of what I am saying.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 5:19 pm (GMT)
Adrian -
I understand the basic concepts of what you are saying, but you are incorrect.
By stating that in mathematical terms the sum of both statements is 0 which therefore implies that both statements are equal.
But you are now guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty of trying to analogize a mathematical concept to a real world example, as you accuse me of doing when I analogize a material example to what you refer to as an immaterial concept.
I’m sorry, but you are incorrect.
A real world example of your mathematical proof falling short is the death of someone falling in front of a train by my hand.
If I intentionally push them - they die.
If I unintentionally back into them - they die.
This does not equate the two methods of my involvement, or my intent to be more precise even though the result is identical.
And that is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. You are using a ‘paper proof’ that doesn’t translate to material world discussion. (Using zero is also a poor example, as you know, since it only has any value in mathematics. Zero in the material world is an absence, but it is not a value)
Regarding my analogy:
In my universe there is no such thing as an immaterial god. The god of the bible and the god of Islam are both material gods as they interfere with and appear in the material plane. So yes, material analogies apply, as should material proof.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 6:51 pm (GMT)
“Using zero is also a poor example, as you know, since it only has any value in mathematics. Zero in the material world is an absence, but it is not a value”
“In my universe there is no such thing as an immaterial god”
So now you have made the entire thing an issue of who’s universe it is? I’m sorry but just because you claim there is no immaterial god in your universe doesn’t mean there isn’t in the real universe. The god of the Bible and the god of Islam never appear as beings, but rather communicate through material means (burning bushes, blinding lights, etc). It is made abundantly clear that God dwells in Heaven and that Heaven is not a material place. It is by definition a place on another realm of existence, quite separate from our own.
Thus you cannot expect material proof to suddenly emerge and prove God. God (again by definition) is unprovable.
I fear this debate might just go on and on, and like previous debates I would advise if you wish to continue to use the forums which are much more suited to the process.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 8:16 pm (GMT)
Adrian - you need to re read your bible.
God appears as a man many times in the OT.
By MY universe, I refer to the one in which I exist. In which writings exist speaking about gods which are quite material. It is only the modern version of religion that trys to describe him as an immaterial being.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 8:30 pm (GMT)
Oh, and yes - I can claim there is no god in the universe, because the postulated claim that there is a god has no proof, and fails as a hypothesis.
There is no credibility to that hypothesis merely because it was stated and by it being unsustainable, it fails. It does not fall to me, you or anyone else to disprove it. As it has already failed do to lack of evidence there is no need to prove the non existence of god.
Hold on tight to your belief, though, and keep arguing it by offering up god as an immaterial being whose non-existence is as unprovable as his existence. You’ll make an excellent theist.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 8:42 pm (GMT)
excuse the typo above - “due to lack of evidence”
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 8:43 pm (GMT)
You have the entire thing backwards Kraeg. A hypothesis is failed when evidence is found to the contrary, and when no evidence is found at all, the hypothesis is kept “on standby” in case evidence does arise. A lot of theists (and I will never be one by the way) will claim that the Bible is evidence for God, and indeed it does support the hypothesis, however since we cannot know who the original author of the Bible is we cannot verify it. The evidence is there though, and although it doesn’t prove the hypothesis, it does not dismiss it either.
It is strange that you would argue so rationally and yet fail so miserably when you attempt insult me. Perhaps I would make an excellent theist (I was one for many years), but I suppose that you would make an excellent one as well. Insulting people who oppose your view with rational reasoning??? You’re already halfway there!
By the way (in case you are interested). Black holes were first hypothesised in the 18th century. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity contributed to the hypothesis, but the first real “evidence” of black holes arose in the 1970’s when Hawking proved them, and in the 1990’s when the Hubble Space Telescope photographed what is thought is a black hole. By your methods, Black Hole theory would have been set back years if we had just ignored the hypothesis based on lack of evidence, but there we go…
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 9:00 pm (GMT)
Guilty as charged. My apology for the insult. It was uncalled for, and borne out of frustration. I could have been bigger than that. I’m sorry.
However, again you are incorrect Adrian.
Black Holes were not hypothesized out of thin air. Observations and mathematics implied the existence of black holes. So the hypothesis was posed. The concept of black holes came from the circumstancial evidence of their effect on other bodies.
This is similar to the hypothesis of god. Not from the existence of the bible, which was written by men after god was hypothesized, but also from circumstancial evidence. The lightning in the skies, the mountains of the earth and the stars of the heavens.
As we began to understand more about the world around us the hypothesis failed. Not because we set to prove it untrue, but because other hypotheses about the world rendered the god one untrue.
Evidence for black holes continues to gather, and other hypotheses don’t negate the veracity of that one.
Note: black holes were initially a term coined for something that we thought might be there, but didn’t know what it was. Eventually we learned how apt a term that actually was. It wasn’t until Einstein and others properly described the phenomenon as a collapsed star that black holes fully adopted their modern identity.
Also to note: The bible itself isn’t evidence of god since it is a series of books written by men, at many points throughout history, and itself is inconsistent with most other histories from the same periods. The historical errors and inaccuracies within the bible place it well in the realm of fiction, and far from the reach of fact.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 9:47 pm (GMT)
“black holes were initially a term coined for something that we thought might be there, but didn’t know what it was”
Exactly how is that any different from God?
I never said black holes were hypothesized out of thin air, but like how observation and mathematics implied black holes, natural phenomenon implied an unknown explanation. That unknown explanation was given as “God”, just as the term “Invisible Star” was first used to describe black holes.
Note that the explanation of “God” covers many things, of which a large majority have been disproven (lightning, evolution etc) but there are still a few which have yet to be disproved (origin of life, how everything got here, etc) which as far as I am concerned, have not been *fully* explained by science.
I am an agnostic atheist because I think one day science may be able to answer at least some of these questions, but at the end of the day, the “god hypothesis” hasn’t been completely disproved, and until that time, atheism will still always be a belief to me.
I’m sorry I have to keep disagreeing with you, but I’ve met many atheists and theists, debating with a few of them, and I’ve found the best way to approach anything concerning belief / God is to have an open mind and appreciate both sides of the argument.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 9:56 pm (GMT)
“Exactly how is that any different from God?”
Re read my post, Adrian. i pointed out that it wasn’t any different from god.
Black holes were hypothesized due to circumstantial evidence. The only reason the hypothesis stood is because there wasn’t a better explanation for that observed effect.
God was hypthesized due to circumstantial evidence. The reason that hypothesis failed was we came up with better explanations for the observed effects. It wasn’t proven wrong, other explanations were proven correct.
Eventually the ideology of ‘just gotta have faith’ was invoked in order compensate for the growing lack of evidence available.
You are correct that biogenesis and the beginning of the universe have not yet been explained adequately by science - but the opposite of ‘I don’t know yet’ is not ‘god’. Again - take lightning as an example.
You seem to be falling into that theistic trap. Sorry - I do not intend to be insulting, but there it is. Most theists argue that if we don’t have the answer to a question, then the ONLY other possible explanation is ‘god did it’
If you want to discuss labels, you aren’t an atheist at all - you truly are an agnostic. And again, that is not intended to be insulting, it is a label correction. I consider myself a weak atheist as I don’t have all the answers, but am confident that god is not one of them.
Appreciating the other side of an argument does not require giving an irrational idea credibility. Some very rational minds have gone down some very wrong roads with some brilliant thinking merely because they accepted an improbable premise to begin with. Homeopathy is an excellent example. But don’t ask me to approach that discussion with an open mind.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 10:17 pm (GMT)
If you want to discuss labels, first know that “agnostic” isn’t a term for belief in God, it’s a term for the knowability of God (http://atheistblogger.com/2008/04/23/what-is-agnosticism).
Hence why I am an agnostic atheist, which is a weak atheist, so I am the same as yourself.
You are correct on your point that just because we can’t explain something it doesn’t mean “God did it”, but if we cannot explain it then “God” is a valid alternative. It’s not the only alternative, but it is one of them. Like I said before, I am certain we will discover a godless reason for why everything is here, but until that day “God” remains a valid argument, even if I don’t subscribe to it.
It’s not a very rational alternative I’ll give you that, but still there is a possibility. Since “God” is unknown we can never say for sure.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 10:21 pm (GMT)
“Like I said before, I am certain we will discover a godless reason for why everything is here, but until that day “God” remains a valid argument, even if I don’t subscribe to it.”
Sorry Adrian, I don’t see how you can be an atheist (no - god) of any degree and write the above line. The point of atheism is that god is NOT a valid argument, and by definition an atheist doesn’t subscribe to it.
An agnostic accepts that god is an unknowable proposition.
You sir, are an agnostic no matter how you try to redefine atheism. Again, there isn’t anything wrong with agnosticism.
From Merriam-Webster:
Ag·nos·tic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a godprobably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 11:04 pm (GMT)
No, you need to look up the definition of atheist, which is “person who does not believe in gods”. I do not believe in gods. I also believe that gods are unknowable, so I can never be 100% sure either way.
Being agnostic has nothing to do with belief in gods. There is nothing wrong with being an agnostic atheist, which is what I am proud to be.
If you subscribe to the belief that “God” isn’t a valid argument that I’m afraid it is you who is the gnostic atheist, (i.e. Strong atheist) and not a weak atheist as you claim. A weak atheist like myself will always assert the possibility of gods, however remote that may be.
Do not insult me again by claiming I am not which I claim. I do not have any problems with agnosticism, but I absolutely will not stand for people labelling me as a “agnostic” when they don’t even understand the meaning of the word.
Just so I make myself clear: I AM AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST.
There is no such thing as a person who is just “agnostic”. You can’t be agnostic on it’s own. Agnosticism is an attribute of whether a belief is knowable or not. Just as I am an agnostic atheist, I am a gnostic evolutionist. Your definition says it:
“a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable”
Merriam-Webster put “(as God)” in in error, as Agnosticism can apply to any claim. I agree, it is mostly associated with God, but it applies to every belief.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 11:15 pm (GMT)
No, you need to look up the definition of atheist, which is “person who does not believe in gods”.
Thankyou Adrian, and with that admission, we have the answer to your original question.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 11:18 pm (GMT)
actually - the more broadly non god associated definition was included as definition 2 by Merriam Webster. I left it out as it didn’t pertain to our discussion. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
I think we are finished discussing if now assert that Merriam Webster is incorrect rather than admit your own error.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 11:23 pm (GMT)
“Thankyou Adrian, and with that admission, we have the answer to your original question.”
No, we get back to my point about a person who does not believe in gods being the same as a person who believes there are no gods.
Fuck it though, I have tried to respond to all your points and you have responded by being rude on more than one occasion. You are correct, we are finished discussing, because I do not wish to be insulted any more by hypocritical people like yourself who claim to be “weak atheist” but seem to display all the arguments of “strong atheists”.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 11:27 pm (GMT)
And I can’t help myself here:
you disagree with Merriam Websters definition and claim it is in error while pointing to your own writing as the true definition.
You’re correct. I was entirely in error when i likened you to a Theist. Don’t know how i made that mistake.
Though i’m sure you’ll read this as an insult, I’m really just making an observation.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 11:34 pm (GMT)
I disagreed with “(as god)” not the entire definition. Every other definition I have seen makes sure to use “God” as an example of agnosticism, not as the only factor. You will find that a lot of people agree with me on this point. (Read the article I wrote)
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 11:49 pm (GMT)
Hey you just brought up a great point. The difference between strong and weak atheism is whether one doesn’t believe in god (weak) or one who actively believes there is no god (strong).
I have to assume that since you subscribe to the concept of strong and weak atheism that you must agree your original statement is incorrect.
I know we had finished discussing, but you keep bringing up thought provoking points. have a great day.
Kraeg
26 May 08 at 11:49 pm (GMT)
Wrong yet again. The difference between strong and weak atheism is whether you think that your belief is the ultimate truth.
A strong atheist says “I believe there are no gods and I am 100% certain of that”.
A weak atheist says “I believe there are no gods but I am not 100% certain”.
Adrian Hayter
26 May 08 at 11:52 pm (GMT)
The word atheist comes from Greek roots that mean, literally, “non-believer.” Not “believer-of-something-else.” So anyone who claims that an atheist is someone who holds an opposed belief simply does not understand the definition of the word in the first place.
Then there is the question of whether a person can not hold a belief in God without holding the positive belief that there is no God. This is not really a question at all, as numerous examples on here have shown. Of course people can be in an ambivalent state of mind in which they simply accept that they do not know something. If I tell you that there are ten people are in Yankee stadium right now and ask if you agree with me, do you have to believe that there are NOT ten people there in order to say “No”? Or could you simply be observing the fact that we have no way of knowing how many people are there at this moment?
And, BTW, Kraeg is right about the definition of strong and weak atheist. I am a strong atheist but I do not think there is any such thing as ultimate truth. For all I know, everyone could be wrong about everything. But according to our commonly accepted standards of knowledge, I can say that I know there is no God.
Pat Flannery
27 May 08 at 2:44 am (GMT)
“I can say that I know there is no God.”
How can you say you don’t believe in ultimate truth and say that??? By simply uttering the words “I know” rather than “I believe” you are crossing the boundary that separates that which we don’t know from that which we are certain of.
Nobody can ever “know” that anything doesn’t exist. I can’t say I know that a purple three headed monkey doesn’t exist just because there is no evidence for one. On another planet maybe there is something that has evolved and looks exactly like a three headed monkey…maybe not. Unless we know everything in the universe we will never be sure.
I’ve done a lot of reading on the terms, and my definitions go with those of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc who to be honest make their living doing this sort of thing. I wouldn’t call them “expert atheists”, but so far people agree with them. Dawkins’ 7 point scale covers strong and weak atheism in quite a bit of detail. He rates himself 6.99999 because although he strongly believes there is no god, he admits the slight possibility that he is wrong. Pat, you (by your own admission) are a 7.
Adrian Hayter
27 May 08 at 6:21 am (GMT)
adrian, with all due respect, you have written many incorrect things on this page and on the facebook link. I am exasperated from drafting and re-editing a response to just your comment to me at 11:28am without filling an entire page with gentle explanations and forgiving hints that you’ve even been building strawmen.
From the top, your position is that “belief and dis-belief (or non-belief) are exactly the same things”. This is false. You are incorrect. Disbelief, rather, is exactly like saying, “I hear your claim and I await a colorful, fascinating presentation of stunning evidence - so much damn evidence that I will become convinced your claim is true”. Disbelief is a state of being open to evidence.
example: If Stan claims that Barbara is guilty of stealing the fax machine, and Barbara claims she is innocent, you, Adrian, are not permitted by the laws of logic to take a position just yet on Barbara’s guilt or innocence.
Stan, having the more extraordinary claim, should present first. And maybe all Stan’s got is “anyone who doesn’t find Barbara guilty will be tortured for a fadrillion years”, and “well where did the fax machine go then?”, and “I wouldn’t want to live in a district where fax machine theft goes unpunished”.
If that’s all he’s got then Barbara doesn’t even need to present, because of presumed innocence (different from explicit innocence). Maybe someday Stan will find some video footage or fingerprints, some conclusive evidence, and bring it in.
Adrian I don’t know how you became convinced that disbelief qualifies as a belief, but the irony is too much for me. I doubt I have the skill to continue.
Atheism is first and foremost the absense of belief in gods, also known as a disbelief thereof. This includes the belief that no gods exist.
respectfully yours, honest.
-apple
apple
27 May 08 at 7:17 am (GMT)
Let me just clarify that after Stan’s hand-wavy presentation and we remain unconvinced of his claim that Barbara is guilty, our disbelief still stands. We are still not permitted to say or believe that Barbara is innocent, because that evidence has also not been presented. We may, however, go on acting as though she were innocent.
apple
27 May 08 at 7:32 am (GMT)
“Atheism is first and foremost the absense of belief in gods, also known as a disbelief thereof. This includes the belief that no gods exist.”
You seem to have completely agreed with me here, and thus nulled your argument completely. You admit that disbelief in gods constitutes as belief in no gods.
I made it abundantly clear that I never meant “belief” and “disbelief” were the same thing, rather that belief in one thing logically implied disbelief in it’s inverse (in the case of yes/no arguments). This does not mean that if one believes in Evolution they disbelieve in Creationism, but that if one believes in Evolution, they don’t believe that Evolution is false. It is rather mindbogglingly simple and I really can’t believe it has taken so long for you and Kraeg to get your heads around…
At the end of the day, the dictionaries agree with me, the textbooks agree with me, and quite a few people I have spoken to on the subject have agreed with me.
Adrian Hayter
27 May 08 at 9:10 am (GMT)
Whenever I hear this debate, someone always comes up with an interesting analogy. Some would claim that a disbelief in a God is as much as a belief as bald is a hair colour, and not collecting stamps is a hobby. Sure, you can classify it as a belief, but it’s clearly an absurd label in such context.
Benjamin
27 May 08 at 4:01 pm (GMT)
Adrian- You yourself claim to not subscribe to the belief in god, yet you are open to the idea that god remains a valid alternative.
Your quote: “I am certain we will discover a godless reason for why everything is here, but until that day ?God? remains a valid argument, even if I don?t subscribe to it.”
And also: “I made it abundantly clear that I never meant ?belief? and ?disbelief? were the same thing, rather that belief in one thing logically implied disbelief in it?s inverse”
So how can god remain a valid argument if you ‘believe in no god’? Doesn’t it imply (your words) that you automatically disbelieve in god?
Kraeg
27 May 08 at 4:28 pm (GMT)
Adrian, first I thank you for responding to all my previous comments.
I have not completely agreed with you. Here’s where we do agree:
“…rather that belief in one thing logically implied disbelief in it’s inverse (in the case of yes/no arguments).”
And I agree. However you have also expressed that the vice-versa of this statement is true: spelled out, that disbelief in a claim logically implies belief in it’s inverse (negative, impossibility, falsehood, etc.). Do you define disbelief as the belief that a statement is untrue?
apple
27 May 08 at 7:16 pm (GMT)
Benjamin,
Those arguments are true because you can’t label nothing as something, however with a belief you can either agree or disagree. If you disagree then you believe that the original belief is wrong. The “bald is a hair colour” argument is best suited to describing atheism as a religion (which it’s not by any definition).
Kraeg,
I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. The idea of “God” as I see it is an omnipotent omniscient being who has total control over the universe. I don’t believe that such a being exists, *however* if one did, surely by it’s own definition would be able to account for everything in the entire universe? It’s like the standard “are we here?” argument which states that we have sufficient evidence to suggest the universe is billions of years old, and we have the evidence to suggest that the human race goes back millions of years. However, consider the possibility that the universe and everything in it was in fact “created” last Tuesday, and that all the evidence and memories are simply planted in our minds to make us think otherwise. Can we say this possibility is completely untrue? No, because by it’s own definition we have no idea what evidence we see is true or not. All we have to go on is what appears to be the case. In that way alone, “God” is a valid argument. A weak one naturally, but still perfectly valid.
As I’ve explained above, God as a valid argument has nothing to do with my personal belief, simply with it’s definition. So I believe there is no god, disbelieve in god, etc. That doesn’t change the fact that the “God argument” is valid by definition. As I’ve also stated, the God argument is very very weak as it has no basis in actual real or observed instances (omnipotent beings etc), and since no god has ever come forward and made themselves clear, it puts even more disbelief in them.
apple,
Yes, I do think disbelief can be defined as believing a statement is untrue. As Kraeg has also pointed out, it has also been defined as refusal to believe.
I’ve spoken to a close friend of mine, and whilst he agrees with my argument, he saw the validity of everyone who has spoken here. In his own words, this debate isn’t going to be solved by trying to “out think” anyone, because it is all based on semantics and definitions which all of us either agree or disagree on. Put simply, until every person agrees on how to define God, belief, disbelief, etc then all or our arguments deserve merit.
Lastly I’d like to apologise if this debate got out of hand in anyway. I’ve truly enjoyed debating with you, even if we had some tense and aggressive moments :). You have all certainly opened my eyes to the arguments of the other side, and I hope I have done the same to you.
Adrian Hayter
27 May 08 at 9:28 pm (GMT)
Adrian said: Yes, I do think disbelief can be defined as believing a statement is untrue.
I hear you. I’ll jigger your definition a bit: in terms of gods or ghosts or great deals on financing, disbelief can better be defined as believing a statement requires more supporting evidence.
And thank you.
apple
28 May 08 at 12:30 am (GMT)
Ok Adrian - do you grant the same validity to a theory that the universe is filled with untold billions of microscopic invisible untestable unicorns that are actually responsible for the micro workings of our world and the universe in which it is contained?
Or any other ridiculous theory I can come up with. Do you grant them all validity?
Kraeg
28 May 08 at 12:41 am (GMT)
Kraeg,
As ridiculous as it sounds, every open-minded person has to accept your theory as valid. However the same open mind allows us to reject it / disbelieve in it through the lack of evidence. Since by definition they are all possible and undetectable, how can they not be valid?
Adrian Hayter
28 May 08 at 9:52 am (GMT)
That’s where you’re definitely mistaken Adrian, no hypothesis is valid merely because it can be stated. It requires supporting evidence. For the hypothesis that is god, there is no supporting evidence. None. Not one shred.
Merely stating a concept does NOT grant it credibility nor contribute to it’s validity. I can’t believe we’re debating this point.
Kraeg
28 May 08 at 7:30 pm (GMT)
Only scientific hypotheses need observation before they become valid. Gods are not scientifically viable, I know that. However, the word “hypothesis” comes from the greek “hypotithenai” which means “to suppose”. To suppose anything you do not need any underlying evidence, you simply suppose it.
Likewise, a theory is completely different from a scientific theory.
I am free to suppose about gods, and you are free to suppose about them as well. I would never argue that my supposing is scientifically credible, and I thought I’d made that clear.
Perhaps in most debates stating a random concept doesn’t grant it credibility, but when you come to what is unknown (i.e. how everything started) then anyone can come along and say “It was God!” or “It was always there” or “Flying Spaghetti Monsters did it” and since none of them can be rejected outright (note that lack of evidence of something that is unknown doesn’t justify this) then how can you reject them and call them wrong?
Adrian Hayter
28 May 08 at 7:40 pm (GMT)
I think you are mistaking the concept of open-mindedness with credulous.
An open-minded person is accepting of other peoples interpretations of a shared world view. Although each of us has a relatively unique world view based on our own experiences and understanding of the world around us, open-mindedness allows us to understand that others may interpret the things around us in a particular way due to their own specific experiences.
But when a new idea actively violates the world as we understand it new data is required to substantiate that idea.
When new data is presented, an open-minded individual will alter their world view accordingly. Being open minded does not require one to accept any unsubstantiated postulate as probable. Instead it allows one to realize that as our data changes, so shall our interpretation of that world-view.
Kraeg
28 May 08 at 7:48 pm (GMT)
I think you are mistaking arguments concerning the unknown with arguments concerning the known.
I would not say that 1 + 1 = 3 because I know by basic maths that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 =/= 3. This is a postulate that contradicts known mathematics.
The concept of the beginning of everything is at the present time, a completely unknown concept. We have an idea of what happened (Big Bang) but only various theories as to why. We have no idea what happened before, or even if there was a “before” in terms of our understanding of time. Ergo, someone could tell me that a bunch of flying monkeys did it, and for I know, they could be right.
If you force the use of known concepts onto something unknown you are making the assumption that this unknown is affected and complies with the known concepts. I’m not saying this is wrong in any way (science is based entirely on this assumption), but I’m saying that if you allow known concepts to be used to explain unknowns, you must also allow for unknown concepts (i.e God) to be allowed to explain it. They might be right, they might be wrong. Only when a known concept fully explains something can the unknown concepts be thrown out the window.
Take for instance biogenesis, the origin of life. There is a theory (not a scientific one) that aliens came to Earth and started life. The origin of life is unknown, and there are a few known concepts that are trying to explain it (energy + matter etc), but the alien theory is an unknown. It’s also perfectly possible, although I agree, like God it just increases the problem (what was the alien’s origin?). The only way we will know for sure is if we find evidence for the theory, or if the aliens come back and explain everything to us, showing us suitable evidence.
The fact that this theory has no scientific basis, is so far unprovable, and has no real evidence behind us doesn’t mean that it can’t be “supposed” just as God can’t be “supposed” as a creator of the universe.
I think we really should just end this debate right now, because it is evident that nothing I say will sway your opinion, and vice versa. I just think we should have the freedom to suppose about things that we know absolutely nothing about. I fully support scientific research and I do hope that one day we can stop supposing about things and have the answers, but until that day, supposing is a perfectly valid way of explaining unknowns.
Adrian Hayter
28 May 08 at 8:05 pm (GMT)
“but I’m saying that if you allow known concepts to be used to explain unknowns, you must also allow for unknown concepts (i.e God) to be allowed to explain it.”
“Science is based entirely on assumption”
Absolute drivel.
Looking at your example of your BigBang/Flying monkey comparison.
Flying monkeys are a conceptual idea that is not based on any observation (translation: pulled out of your ass), whereas The Big Bang is a concept based on the observation that all galaxies are flying away from one central point of origin. But we discussed this previously on the subject of black holes regarding circumstantial evidence being a good start. The monkeys, and god, are both completely lacking in even that.
You’re right. We have the freedom to suppose whatever we choose. It’s the wonderful thing about imagination. But those suppositions amount to squat without evidentiary support. Which, again, is where your monkey/Big Bang analogy falls short.
In truth - I don’t believe in the Big Bang. It has little to back it up. It’s interesting, but I can’t buy into it based on what we so far know. However - again - that doesn’t translate into a belief that the Big Bang did not happen.
Biogenesis on the other hand has an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence: i.e. following the branches of the development of life back to a supposed common ancestor/molecule. In addition, by laboratory demonstration, we haven’t yet produced life, but we have produced simple molecules using the ‘electricity in the primordial soup’ hypothesis. That is at the very least proof of concept. And you can choose not believe that it is the correct solution, but that does NOT translate into a belief that it is NOT the correct solution.
I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this - but there isn’t any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that god is anything more than one of those suppositions you mentioned. Not a shred. Thus it is a failed hypothesis. Intellectually you neither have to believe in god or disbelieve. And certainly - as one who considers all suppositions valid - not believing in god can’t translate to believing in his non-existence if all suppositions are equally valid.
Kraeg
28 May 08 at 9:15 pm (GMT)
You took “Science is based entirely on assumption” completely out of context. I said “Science is based entirely on this assumption” (*this* being known concepts being used to discover unknown concepts) and it is. Science is developed by assuming that our observations are correct, and using them to theorise new ideas. We assume that our knowledge of gravity is correct and are able to make aeroplanes, rockets, etc. You have to realise that assumptions can have as much evidence as you like. It’s just something taken for granted. We have all the evidence to support our current understanding of gravity, and so we take it for granted.
“In truth - I don’t believe in the Big Bang. It has little to back it up.”
I’m talking drivel??? The Big Bang has a heck of a lot to back it up. Blue shift / red shift means that everything in the universe is moving apart from a point in space. Using out current theories about velocity and vectors, we can theorise that billions of years ago, all these objects were closer together, and something made them move apart. The Big Bang is probably more accepted these days than Evolution, and that is saying something (even with all of the evidence for Evolution).
I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this:
General Hypotheses DO NOT need evidence, neither do General Theories.
You keep trying to make this entire “god” argument about science, and everyone has already made it clear that god has nothing to do with science. I agree with you, scientific hypotheses need evidence, but look at any definition of a hypothesis (or theory) and it will tell you (amongst other things):
“a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.”
The argument is where everything came from. The hypothesis is God. It’s a proposition that if accepted can answer the argument. Again, I’m not saying it is a good hypothesis, or a testable or observable one, but it is a hypothesis none the less, and it is perfectly valid as one. VALID does NOT mean true.
I also can’t believe I am saying this again:
“I think we really should just end this debate right now, because it is evident that nothing I say will sway your opinion, and vice versa.”
Don’t expect a reply from me again. I’m leaving it at that. This debate has gone from arguing over semantics to who uses the better dictionary, right back to semantics again. It’s completely ridiculous.
Adrian Hayter
28 May 08 at 10:06 pm (GMT)
I have to agree, we’ve exhausted this topic.
I feel that you have at several points refuted your own statement, but regardless of that, the poll you’ve put out for the opinion of your readers answers it best - 76% agree that atheism is not, in itself, a belief.
Thanks for the debate.
Kraeg
28 May 08 at 10:55 pm (GMT)
You know, Adrian, it’s funny, but I just can’t seem to leave your lunacy alone.
Again - yeah, you’re the one talking drivel.
“The Big Bang is probably more accepted these days than Evolution”
I’m not sure where to begin with statement. But I’ll try.
Evolutionary Theory is an accepted fact. There are scant biologists out there who don’t agree with it. The specific mechanics and pattern of evolution is what is actually disputed. And there is great discussion over it since there is still so much more to learn. But again, Evolutionary Theory is accepted as fact (I.D. crowd notwithstanding).
The theory that the galaxies are moving farther apart is accepted as fact. Whether they will continue to expand or will eventually stop and contract again is quite up in the air. And even more so is what started them in the first place. The Big Bang is one of many theories for which expanding galaxies provide circumstantial evidence. But to get it, you have to be one of a small group of people on this planet that actually get Quantum Physics. And, as they proudly claim, anyone that says they get Quantum Physics probably doesn’t.
Pat yourself on the back if you really feel you ‘get’ the concept of a Quantum Singularity beginning all of space and time. But rest assured, you are incorrect about Evolution being less accepted than the Big Bang.
Don’t you get tired of being mistaken?
Kraeg
29 May 08 at 6:11 am (GMT)
I think you got confused by whom I was talking about. You seem to be focussing on the scientific community in general, whereas I was talking about the entire global population. Let me put it this way. Most people who oppose Evolution do it because it goes against their religious beliefs that men were created as they are now. You are wrong when you say Evolution is a “fact” as it is both a fact and theory:
In science, a “fact” is an observation backed up by evidence. We see creatures evolve, so Evolution is a fact. A theory in science is an explanation of the observations, and “The Theory of Evolution” is our way of explaining how creatures can evolve into other species.
Back to the Big Bang. You will find that you do not need to understand Big Bang theory to accept it. I don’t understand all the concepts of Gravity and yet to my knowledge it has been tested and observed so much that I can accept it as true.
The Big Bang is similar. Every religion often starts off with “creation” of the universe, and when scientists first theorised it, a lot of religious institutions herald it as an explanation of “God’s” creation. Even Pope Pius XII supported it.
The thing I was trying to get across with my point was that Evolution isn’t supported anywhere in the scriptures (thus the I.D movement) and 50% of America refusing to believe in it. However, the Big Bang theory, whilst not directly supported by scripture has been viewed by many many religious believers as an advanced modern day explanation of Genesis.
“Don’t you get tired of being mistaken?”
Great, now we’re back to the petty comments again? If you actually let your opponents explain themselves properly you might excel at debates and discussions such as these. However you are held back by your inability to refrain from insulting and unnecessary jibes, and in the debating world the minute someone does that they often seem to lose all respect they had previously gained.
Adrian Hayter
29 May 08 at 6:39 pm (GMT)
Adrian, I can honestly say, considering the absolute crap you write, I’m really not concerned with losing your respect.
Where you get your facts is beyond me. “a lot of religious institutions herald it as an explanation of “God’s” creation.” “However, the Big Bang theory, whilst not directly supported by scripture has been viewed by many many religious believers as an advanced modern day explanation of Genesis.” - absolutely made up. Please illuminate us by pointing us in the direction of the ‘many’.
“I don’t understand all the concepts of Gravity and yet to my knowledge it has been tested and observed so much that I can accept it as true.” You accept it because you experience it daily. You can test it yourself, at any point in time. That’s the beauty of gravity, or rather our local gravity on earth. It’s available for anyone to discover. Furthermore, lacking any contradictory theories it seems to be a fairly solid Theory, wouldn’t you say?
I honestly cannot believe the amount you allow yourself to bend the truth in order to be correct.
By the way, did you notice we are up to 76% today? Keep writing the drivel, Adrian. It’s quite entertaining, although it doesn’t seem to be earning you any more votes.
Kraeg Minett
30 May 08 at 1:50 am (GMT)
Where I get my facts? From peer reviewed research found at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
Check it out yourself if you really don’t believe me, or ask around your local church.
As for the poll, I thought as atheists we understand that the majority is not always correct? Certainly seems the case with religion wouldn’t you say? The poll is an opinion poll, used only to see how many people support each point. I believe I have already shown how every definition of the word “atheism” contains the words “disbelief” and “belief”.
As for writing drivel, it really is a matter of opinion as well. I’d say you’ve written some complete drivel so far in trying to argue your views. We have different minds. You tend to think like a scientist whilst I tend to think philosophically.
I wouldn’t ever call what you wrote drivel (until this point) since I understand how to debate properly and you only understand your own pompous opinions. As of now, this discussion is over for me. If you want to continue it with someone else, be my guest.
Adrian Hayter
30 May 08 at 2:00 am (GMT)
Hey Adrian,
You know, I don’t even want to get into how ridiculous you come across by citing your only source as a wikipedia entry. Almost as foolish as previously when you cited one of your own articles as validation for one of your own statements.
The truth is, i’ve enjoyed baiting you these last few posts. While you started this thread stating your point quite well, you quickly wandered off, ignoring points raised by others in an attempt to argue down the points you (in error) felt you could overturn.
You’ve let your anger get the better of you Adrian as you’ve actually continued to respond to me even after vowing never to again.
And I actually agree with you. The majority of definitions for atheism do contain the words Belief and Disbelief (as in “not holding belief in a god” or “one who has disbelief in a god”, but why you think that supports your theory is beyond me. There are few that actually refer to atheism as a belief. But of course, your assertion that the majority isn’t always correct comes in to play again. Unless of course you have found the majority agrees with you, then you are perfectly content to allow the majority opinion to be valid.
Adrian - you are wrong with your original premise. You posted an opinion, with an ‘informal’ poll attached. Your regular readers have voted against you, and the support you have in this forum comes from vague references to a friend who buys into your delusion. At least man up and admit you might be mistaken.
Ironically - you feel there’s no room for doubt here. I say ironically as you freely admit that god, flying monkeys and the invisible unicorns have validity as they contain a possibility, no matter how minute, of being correct.
I now leave this discussion, content that you aren’t the open minded observer you so proudly believe you are.
Craig Minet
30 May 08 at 3:26 am (GMT)
“You know, I don’t even want to get into how ridiculous you come across by citing your only source as a wikipedia entry. Almost as foolish as previously when you cited one of your own articles as validation for one of your own statements.”
If you actually read the wikipedia article you would see that attached are peer-reviewed documents and sources. Even if you might think that wikipedia is useless, the sources are accurate.
So now someone can’t back up their opinion by showing you where they have said it before? My own articles are all based on definitions and research, so anything I relate to them uses that definition.
I don’t think I wandered off at all. Looking back over the conversation the original point got dragged into arguments about simple semantics, where it has been ever since. As far as I can tell I haven’t missed a single point brought up.
My actual words were “Don’t expect” me to reply, but since you insulted my character, calling me a lunatic etc. I didn’t expect such behaviour from you, but there we go. Where I come from, you don’t just walk away from someone who is insulting you. Perhaps my anger did get the better of me, but I don’t see a bad reason for it doing so.
If you’d been following my actual points instead of just trying to get at me on semantics, you will see that I proved the belief / disbelief thing without definitions mathematically. Mathematics doesn’t need majority opinion to back it up, it needs a proof.
“you are wrong with your original premise”
Do you know what my original premise was? No, since you are not me. My original premise, as I have stated was to find out how many people agreed and how many people disagreed with me. The most I’ll admit to is that not many people agree with the statement “atheism is a belief”, however, as we have seen throughout history, majority support doesn’t mean a concept is correct.
The simple fact about validity is that as long as the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, the argument is valid, hence:
The universe as we know it, had a beginning.
We do not know what the cause of the beginning was, it is “unknown”.
“Gods” are unknown.
Therefore, “Gods” could have begun the universe.
A perfectly valid argument, and you can whine all you want, but it stands up to all definitions.
Ironic that I will now leave this discussion, content that you aren’t the open minded observer you so proudly believe you are.
Adrian Hayter
30 May 08 at 3:47 am (GMT)
[...] got a lot of negative responses to my argument that atheism was both a disbelief of gods and a belief in no gods. I still stand by it since I [...]
The Atheist Thirteen - I’ve been tagged! | The Atheist Blogger
18 Jun 08 at 8:44 pm (GMT)