Comments on: A Lesson on Definitions

By: OldManGrumpus

OldManGrumpus — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:14:16 +0000

There is a much simpler way to explain the distinction in the definitions.

Incorrect definition of atheism: "I believe in no Gods".
Correct definition: "I do not believe in any Gods".

Most theists operate by 'belief' and seem to think that we do, too.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:40:55 +0000

I'm guessing you're a troll, since your comment has nothing to do with the OP, but I'll answer your points anyway in case someone reading this genuinely wants a response.

About how long abiogenesis would take/how unlikely it would be. First you have to find out how unlikely it would be on one planet (that's what you refer to in your comment). But then you have to divide that probability by the number of planets where it could have happened. It should not be seen as a coincidence that, as living beings, we live on a planet where abiogenesis has occurred. This is called the weak anthropic principle. So let's use the common creationist analogy that the chances of abiogenesis happening are like dropping a load of scrabble pieces on the floor and having them spell out a line from Shakespeare. Well, it is a bit like that, except that you'd have to be constantly dropping scrabble pieces over and over again for billions of years, on possibly billions of planets.

Until we know a) how unlikely this is to happen on one planet, and b) how many suitable planets there are in the universe, we have no idea how unlikely our existence is. It could in fact be a statistical certainty. You may also be interested to know that they've recently found amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) on a comet in space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZzrZcgH2Q&fe...

Your second part is discrediting evolution, which is only partly related to abiogenesis. Charles Darwin never denied his theory, but even if he did it wouldn't matter. The evidence stands on its own. Do you think noone's done any work on evolution since Darwin? Repeated surveys have shown that scientists are more likely to believe in evolution than the general population, and that the better scientists (ie members of the Royal Society, National Academy etc) are more likely still to believe in evolution.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just to clarify, a theory in science does not mean the same thing as it does in general language, it is the highest regard a hypothesis can be held. So basically facts pertain to what happens, whereas theory pertains to how it happens. That species change over time and evolve into new species is a fact, that's been observed. A lot. But exactly how it happens (as in natural selection) is still a theory. It's by far the best theory, in fact the only one proposed that could even hypothetically explain our observations. It's also backed up by a huge amount of evidence, which you can find in the following two links (first one is all the evidence you could ever want, the second is a very basic summary of some of the best evidence that I wrote for someone else)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php...

I hope you also know that gravity is also a theory, and expect you to be jumping out of a fifth storey window to prove that it's not true.

By: Phaariz

Phaariz — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:19:56 +0000

So you guys believe everything just happened to come by? Living things and Humans just happened to be existed? Do you know the probability and the time span that would take for such a happenstance; say only for only one protein molecule? Living things got loads of these molecules, so how can you say it just happened? You guys know that Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY? Still not 100% proven, how can you take that theory as fact. Even Charles Darwin didn't believe in this theory full of missing links, as was said in a letter sent one of his friends, but he said it did help in his study. Today, many modern scientists are against the theory.

By: The Raisin Girl

The Raisin Girl — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:20:36 +0000

I really loved this explanation, but I do have to say I can sympathize with the theist who made the original incorrect statement. I have known what you might call "militant atheists" who not only said no god existed, but claimed to know for a fact that no god existed, and berated others who claimed that there was a god, or that it was impossible to know whether or not god existed. He's incorrect in his definitions, but if he's met atheists like some I've met, his definition of an atheist probably came from those experiences.

By: Neil Hurle

Neil Hurle — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:49:52 +0000

I think this debate shows how our species is very good at tying itself up in philosophical knots and wasting it's time getting dizzy going around in circles. To me it's SO simple: If something seems likely based on physical evidence, then you can proceed 'as if' you have proof. If something seems unlikely based on physical evidence, then you proceed 'as if'' it is false. Religion can only exist if you judge wishful thinking to be as valid as physical evidence, because there is no evidence for anything supernatural outside the human imagination. Anyone who says there is desperately needs to believe… much more than they need to accept reality. Stop getting dizzy and enjoy every second you have, it'll be over before you know it.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:49:57 +0000

It's a fallacy to say that because beliefs are subjective, then we should treat all views equally. We may not know that anything is true for sure but we know that some things are more likely to be true than others.

On why not allowing people to believe whatever they want, well generally atheists do. I personally don't care if someone believes in God or not, it's just that your beliefs inform your actions. People who don't think critically about their beliefs are much more likely to make poor choices which affect other people.

By: Kezia

Kezia — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:44:01 +0000

I really like this post, and have written about similar things in my own writing. I think it is an extremely common error in the atheism/theism debate. But I would like you to push this distinction further. If you can fully accept that your belief that god does not exist, your atheism, is ultimately a subjective opinion and has no bearing on whether or not he actually exists, then why is it so important for others to share your beliefs? Or rather, why don't those who recognize that whatever their belief system is, it is a subjective, rather than objective one, just promote the idea of relativism and acceptance of all belief systems, as long as they don't interfere with others?

By: dan

dan — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:52:52 +0000

I think I see the point your friend is trying to make, but I think it comes from a misunderstanding of how most atheists decide what is true and what to believe in. We don't hold that everything must be proven with absolute certainty and evidence to be accepted. That is often not possible outside of mathematics. Rather, we decide our belief on the basis that it needs to be the proposition most supported by reason and evidence and also the one that stands up to rational criticism the best. If we decide that something is extremely likely, we won't ignore it, just because we can't prove beyond all possible doubt. The alternative is to say we can never know anything. I think just because you can't know things to the n-th degree of certainty doesn't mean you know nothing at all. Knowing something is highly probably is still a form of knowledge.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:51:37 +0000

Gnosticism isn't a tenable position, but some people do claim it. We still have a word for people who think the moon landing was faked, even though the claim is so preposterous there is no doubt amongst rational people that it happened.

I've certainly met people online and in real life who claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, and they usually do it through the use of logical proofs (arguing from a point that logic is a basis of absolute knowledge itself).

Just because a certain position is useless, doesn't make it any less of a position to hold. It's wrong (very wrong), and most agnostics can easily poke holes in gnostic arguments. Truthfully, I think we are all agnostics; some of us just don't like admitting it, and prefer to cling onto the hope of absolute knowledge.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:24:35 +0000

So what's the point in the term gnosticism, if we can't know anything? I find your definition narrow to the point of uselessness.

My point is that using this useful definition of the word 'know', plenty of people can call themselves gnostic theists, because all they need is to meet god, that's enough evidence to say they know. But noone could say they know god doesn't exist from the lack of evidence, because they'd need to know everything (he could be hiding in some corner somewhere), and noone claims to know everything.

By your definition, you're only a gnostic if you claim to have absolute knowledge. That's noone.