Atheist vs. Agnostic

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence?

If the thing in question is expected to provide evidence then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Many theists claim that absence of evidence is not a valid argument for the absence of God because they allow such a broad definition for the word God as to include entities that do not provide evidence. However this contradicts their own claims about their particular beliefs in God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the thing in question is expected to provide evidence then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Good points, it's just that I believe that claim is not coherent with weak atheism but rather with strong agnosticism ("we cannot know god" ).

Originally posted by Palynka
Good points, it's just that I believe that claim is not coherent with weak atheism but rather with strong agnosticism ("we cannot know god" ).

And what would you include in your definition of 'god' in that case? Would a neutrino in another galaxy fit the bill? And what would you mean by 'know'? Do you mean 'cannot perceive' or do you mean 'cannot correctly interpret those perceptions.' I think the majority of people claiming 'I cannot know god' would still believe that they can at least perceive god in some way, and possibly at least verify his existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what would you include in your definition of 'god' in that case? Would a neutrino in another galaxy fit the bill? And what would you mean by 'know'? Do you mean 'cannot perceive' or do you mean 'cannot correctly interpret those perceptions.' I think the majority of people claiming 'I cannot know god' would still believe that they can at least perceive god in some way, and possibly at least verify his existence.

I mean "cannot know god" in the same way Starrman used it in his definition of Strong Agnosticism (I deliberately used his wording there). All other definitions, will be redirected to his posts. You can take it up with him if you want.

I find this definition game pretty uninteresting when the concepts are clear.

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence?

Sorry to ask you this first, but my point rests heavily on this assumption/premise.

Sometimes. It depends if that for which the evidence holds is a physical or metaphysical thing. If the first, no, if the second yes, but in so far as parsimony is applied. I don't have the time or inclination to pursue everything for which there is no evidence, in an atempt to be sure of its absence.

Originally posted by Starrman
Sometimes. It depends if that for which the evidence holds is a physical or metaphysical thing. If the first, no, if the second yes, but in so far as parsimony is applied. I don't have the time or inclination to pursue everything for which there is no evidence, in an atempt to be sure of its absence.

I don't get it... You don't consider "absence of evidence" for the existence of physical entities as "evidence of absence" but you do for metaphysical ones? Or did you switch first and second in your post?

Also, you agree that "to be sure" is different from "to believe" or are you using them interchangeably?

I won't be able to get to my main point until later today, sorry for that...

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't get it... You don't consider "absence of evidence" for the existence of physical entities as "evidence of absence" but you do for metaphysical ones? Or did you switch first and second in your post?

Also, you agree that "to be sure" is different from "to believe" or are you using them interchangeably?

I won't be able to get to my main point until later today, sorry for that...

Well, why do YOU refuse to believe in most Gods? It's the same reason. A lack of supporting evidence, not even evidence for its requirement.

Originally posted by Palynka
I mean "cannot know god" in the same way Starrman used it in his definition of Strong Agnosticism (I deliberately used his wording there). All other definitions, will be redirected to his posts. You can take it up with him if you want.

I find this definition game pretty uninteresting when the concepts are clear.

From starrmans definition:
"cannot know god." ...rests on the notion of not having the sensory apparatus or the cognitive functions to come to know anything about god.
Essentially evidence is not only absent but can never exist.

Anyone who is using the absence of evidence argument clearly does not believe that and cannot fit that definition for "strong agnostic".
It is a stupid position anyway because to claim we can no nothing about god contradicts the use of the word god which has at the very least some implications (including the attribute "we can no nothing about it" )

Originally posted by twhitehead

It is a stupid position anyway because to claim we can no nothing about god contradicts the use of the word god which has at the very least some implications (including the attribute "we can no nothing about it" )

That's not right, the word 'god' is an arbitrary term which refers not to an entity that we have some experience (no matter how small) of, but to a concept which our experience has yet to confirm as an existing entity. There is no contradiction at all. For example, I can use the word Vulcan to refer to the planet which lays between Mercury and the sun, and we could have a meaningful conversation about it. But at the end of the day we cannot come to know anything about Vulcan, because it is a non-existential concept. There is no entity that is Vulcan.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't get it... You don't consider "absence of evidence" for the existence of physical entities as "evidence of absence" but you do for metaphysical ones? Or did you switch first and second in your post?

Also, you agree that "to be sure" is different from "to believe" or are you using them interchangeably?

I won't be able to get to my main point until later today, sorry for that...

Actually, I'm going to have to think about the first question a bit more.

As to your second question, being sure is an assessment of probability, but not interchangeable with belief. It's relative to how strongly I believe in something, the nearer to 100% the strength of belief gets, the more likely I am to be sure of the truth of that belief. I guess surety is a measure of the truth of a belief.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, why do YOU refuse to believe in most Gods? It's the same reason. A lack of supporting evidence, not even evidence for its requirement.

Personally, I consider absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

For all metaphysical entities that are not observable, I use the ignostic argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From starrmans definition:
"cannot know god." ...rests on the notion of not having the sensory apparatus or the cognitive functions to come to know anything about god.
Essentially evidence is not only absent but can never exist.

Anyone who is using the absence of evidence argument clearly does not believe that and cannot fit that definition for "stro t the very least some implications (including the attribute "we can no nothing about it" )

Anyone who is using the absence of evidence argument clearly does not believe that and cannot fit that definition for "strong agnostic".

What I said is coherent with such a view, but also goes further. I said that to deny the absence of evidence argument, one must take a strong agnostic stance.

You said "If the thing in question is expected to provide evidence...". I said that one can only coherently argue that point from a strong agnostic stance (or theist).

Originally posted by Starrman
Actually, I'm going to have to think about the first question a bit more.

As to your second question, being sure is an assessment of probability, but not interchangeable with belief. It's relative to how strongly I believe in something, the nearer to 100% the strength of belief gets, the more likely I am to be sure of the truth of that belief. I guess surety is a measure of the truth of a belief.

I fully agree... Take your time on the first one.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Um, as I just said, it doesn't necessarily have one, as in weak atheism, as in 'I don't believe in God'.
Strong atheism makes the claim that God doesn't exist, as in 'I believe God doesn't exist'.

I agree with you.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Being agnostic means that you think that you cannot know either way, a weak atheist on the other hand may think it is possible and is awaiting appropriate evidence.

I would have flipped that, since being an atheist means no there is
none, while an agnositc doesn't believe there is enough to sway them
one way or another.
Kelly