On a Scale of 1 to 7

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's take it even slower still, since super-slo-mo looks so damn cool.

The various categories and sub-categories do more to obfuscate the matter than clarify. When it comes to the issue of the claims of the divine--- or anything, really--- one either believes or not; one accepts or rejects a thing as true.

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to ...[text shortened]... spect to plausibility of occurrence.

Checkmate, weak/strong atheists-agnostics-nincompoops.

Belief is not binary.

With respect to truth proposition P you can...

1 Believe P

2 Not have a belief that P or ~P

3 Have a belief that ~P


Moreover, 1 and 3 don't represent absolute belief but the entire spectrum from
weakly believing P or ~P through strongly believing P or ~P right up to believing
P or ~P absolutely.

As knowledge requires belief [as well as other factors] then at the extreme ends we
also get the claim of Knowledge that P and the claim Knowledge that ~P.

This alone renders most of your post as worthless drivel.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Are you kidding me?

Almost every post over there has some sort of dig at religion, specifically Christianity.

And I'm just not finding it very funny.

No I am not kidding you.

Although I would point out that basically the entire premise of atheism is that
you are wrong to believe in a god.
EVERYTHING we post is a dig at religion, so I really don't get why your suddenly
upset about this particular thread.
If you don't want to talk to people who disagree with your position why are you
here?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you expecting people to take you seriously when you claim the Wikipedia definition is "almost an exact word for word match?"

The concept conveyed in the definition is anything but what you first stated.
To wit:
"An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic."
Compare that banality with the first sentence of the Wiki definition:
[i] ...[text shortened]... es that sound like someone who has no opinion on a topic?

And you wish to be taken seriously?

First of all, and this goes to your lack of reading comprehension, I defined "agnostic" and you are quoting a definition of "agnosticism" not "agnostic." You have to scroll down a little on the page to see the definition of agnostic, which I will quote again for you "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against." This matches my definition extremely well.

Second, the original post is using Dawkins' scale, and Dawkins defines a 6 as "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" He defines a 7 as "Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.'" Since the OP used Dawkins scale, we should discuss it in terms of Dawkins scale.

Third, and most importantly, if you are going to claim that a 6.9 is an agnostic, I'd like an explanation from you how a 6.9 has "no opinion" on the existence of god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nonsense.

Science is the investigation of the reality we live in. Whatever that reality may be.

The idea that science would be incapable of detecting the supernatural if it did exist
is total bunk.

Whatever aspects of the supernatural that science detects would be evidenced as, by virtue of that fact, natural phenomena. Any supernatural aspects would not be seen.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Two points.

Science seeks naturalistic explanations because nothing OTHER than the
natural has ever been shown to exist.
The moment there is evidence for something other than the natural then
science and scientists will consider it as part of their proposed explanations.
This is part of a common trope that you cannot either prove or disprove a ...[text shortened]... it doesn't exist. And we can be so without actually going and checking
to see if it is there.

Science seeks naturalistic explanations as the result of a historical process by which (Western) science and Christianity came into conflict and settled it by carving out naturalism as the domain of science and supernaturalism as the domain of religion. The symbolic and in some ways most significant turning point was the Galileo affair. For many, the matter is not settled.

Everything science sees, it sees as having a natural explanation, due to its commitment to naturalistic methodologies. Some people make a commitment to metaphysical naturalism (all that exists is natural), whereas science only makes a commitment to methodological naturalism (all that we look at, is natural.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Belief is not binary.

With respect to truth proposition P you can...

1 Believe P

2 Not have a belief that P or ~P

3 Have a belief that ~P


Moreover, 1 and 3 don't represent absolute belief but the entire spectrum from
weakly believing P or ~P through strongly believing P or ~P right up to believing
P or ~P absolutely.

As knowledge ...[text shortened]... P and the claim Knowledge that ~P.

This alone renders most of your post as worthless drivel.

Belief is not binary.
Maybe in your world such things are possible.
Not in the real world, however, is such posturing viewed as anything less than a mental defect.

Even the language you use to define such absurdity is so tortured, it no longer has any meaning.
"Not have a belief?!"
Really?
Reminds me of an old Steve Martin line:
"Some people have a way with the English language and some people...
not have way, I guess."

As knowledge requires belief...
Now you're just making crap up, right?
Belief requires knowledge, not the other way around.
I know about the Easter Bunny; I believe it doesn't exist.
My knowledge about the EB doesn't rely on my belief.

This alone renders most of your post as worthless drivel.
And no one knows more about worthless drivel than you, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good question.
I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist (and the wiggle room therein), the person described is pretty much agnostic... just an obstinate one.

I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist (and the wiggle room therein), the person described is pretty much agnostic... just an obstinate one.

Sorry, but I did not provide any definition of 'atheist' here. And, furthermore, I explicitly already stated that I think someone who answers 6.9 should be considered not only an atheist, but more specifically a strong atheist. So, clearly, whatever definition of 'atheist' I operate under would admit of this much.

The point of all this: you obviously have serious reading comprehension issues.

Originally posted by PatNovak
First of all, and this goes to your lack of reading comprehension, I defined "agnostic" and you are quoting a definition of "agnosticism" not "agnostic." You have to scroll down a little on the page to see the definition of agnostic, which I will quote again for you "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on t ...[text shortened]... n agnostic, I'd like an explanation from you how a 6.9 has "no opinion" on the existence of god.

I defined "agnostic" and you are quoting a definition of "agnosticism" not "agnostic."
Now we're getting somewhere.

Take a look at this link, will you please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnostic&redirect=no

Do you see what it says when you go to the page provided?
Can you read the words there? How they tell you the link for agnostic is redirected from the page from agnosticism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

If you think that a person--- who has allegedly viewed the pros and cons of the existence of God and concluded there isn't enough evidence one way or another--- such as described is a person without an opinion, then yes: that matches your definition almost exactly.
However, if you pull your head out of the donkey, I think you will see that the person actually has an opinion on the topic.
They have declared to remain undeclared... because (in their opinion) there is not enough conclusive evidence one way or another.
That is a decision.
Based on an opinion.

I understand Dawkins' scale.
I just don't have an opinion on it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As knowledge requires belief...
Now you're just making crap up, right?
Belief requires knowledge, not the other way around.
I know about the Easter Bunny; I believe it doesn't exist.
My knowledge about the EB doesn't rely on my belief.

You are confusing knowledge of and knowledge that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Read it and weep....

Oh no, I forgot you lack the ability to comprehend... well pretty much everything.

Well everyone else can read it and see you're wrong.

I certainly did not make up the fact a component of knowledge is belief.

And that fact you don't know that demonstrates your complete and utter
cluelessness on this issue.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I'd say from LJ's definition of atheist (and the wiggle room therein), the person described is pretty much agnostic... just an obstinate one.

Sorry, but I did not provide any definition of 'atheist' here. And, furthermore, I explicitly already stated that I think someone who answers 6.9 should be considered not only an atheist, but more ...[text shortened]... of this much.

The point of all this: you obviously have serious reading comprehension issues.

You are correct: you didn't provide a text book definition of the term atheist.
What you did provide however, on the last post of page seven of this thread was an explanation of what you consider to be the various denominations of atheism.
It was based upon your explanation that I said what I did.

Let's take the focus off of whether I can tell if Dick was running with Jane or if it was Spot he was with.

An atheist says God doesn't exist, that he rejects such a notion.
He doesn't say God might exist, he says He doesn't exist.

This is how the world views atheism.
You might not like how the world views you.
You might disagree with how the world views you, and wish to correct every last living soul on the topic.
But the harsh reality remains: the world views you as rejecting God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's take it even slower still, since super-slo-mo looks so damn cool.

The various categories and sub-categories do more to obfuscate the matter than clarify. When it comes to the issue of the claims of the divine--- or anything, really--- one either believes or not; one accepts or rejects a thing as true.

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to ...[text shortened]... spect to plausibility of occurrence.

Checkmate, weak/strong atheists-agnostics-nincompoops.

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to claim it has no belief regarding God.
Doesn't want to say God doesn't exist; won't say He does.
Just doesn't have a belief.
That's like an ostrich planting its head in the sand and thinking he's found a strategy which avoids confrontation by presenting his ass to his enemy.

Right, a weak atheist lacks belief that God exists but would stop short of claiming that God does not exist, presumably because he or she feels that there is insufficient evidence to warrant such a claim. This of course would be exactly the right stance if it happens to be the case that both (1) there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief that God exists and (2) there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief that God does not exist. So, if you want to show that weak atheism is not the proper stance, you need to show that (1) or (2) does not hold. You know, present an actual argument for once. The only thing that is a lame cop-out here is the way you deride the weak atheist's position without presenting any actual evidence against the position to be taken seriously.

Strong atheism is weak atheism with balls.
It says (emphatically) their disbelief is based on their belief that God doesn't exist.
It's the indefensible position you speak about when you invoke epistemic probability: apparently you labor under the misconception that nothing can be known with certainty.
That being said, there is one aspect which is true in some of what you wrote.
Namely, the weakness of the strong atheistic position is its inability to pass the burden of proof test.

Like the weak atheist, the strong atheist lacks belief in God. But, unlike the weak atheist, the strong atheist will make the positive claim that God does not exist and presumably claim to know that God does not exist on the basis of whatever evidence at his disposal. The claim to know P does not need to be grounded on a claim to certainty, either psychological certainty or epistemic certainty; and certainty is not required for knowledge. This is fallibilism, and it is the only sane stance on this matter. And, again, you just cannot read or else lack the respect to take the time to try to read carefully what others put forth: I never stated here that nothing can be known with certainty. I stated that virtually nothing ever is, and it's no different for the strong atheist: he knows God does not exist on the basis of overwhelming, but not perfect, evidence. The "weakness of the strong atheistic position" as you have described it is fantasy: to justify his or her position, the strong atheist just needs to be able to justify his belief that God does not exist, according to the justification condition of any sane (fallibilist) analysis of knowledge. Again, that you would dismiss out of hand the strong atheist position without any regard to discussion related to the actual evidence for or against it, just shows that you are lacking in the objectivity that would allow you to consider such matters responsibly.

According to the idea that you represent, we know nothing can be known with certainty.
In fact, you know with certainty that nothing can really be known with certainty.
Well, crap. That's kind of a problem, isn't it?

Again, your reading comprehension blows. I did not claim that we know nothing can be known with certainty -- let alone that we know with certainty that nothing can be known with certainty. Try getting with the program.

For the last time, I said that it is virtually never the case that the evidence is such that we will have epistemic certainty. Are you hard of reading? Or do you not understand what 'virtually' means? My claim leaves it open-ended that there may be some issues for which we can have epistemic certainty (this would be a contentious issue though). But those cases that are highly contentious in that regard are not the sort like whether or not some 'God' or 'Easter Bunny' concept is instantiated.

Seriously, try actually reading and sticking to what others are saying. I am not the only one here who finds your poor reading and inaccurate redescriptions annoying. So, again, try getting with the program. I try to be careful not to misrepresent what others are saying in debates, and I find it disrespectful when one is so cavalier about this sort of thing as to be as shameless as you are now being.

But it gets worse.
You're also committed to the idea that anything thought up might have a chance at being true.
Talk about your open-mindedness!

Wow, here we go again. No, I am not committed to that, and nothing I have said here would commit me to anything like that.

However, the objective/reasonable person actually possesses a standard against which they can measure their beliefs.

Not sure what you mean. But, of course, if one says 6.9 on the question of God's existence, this is prima facie consistent with his being objective and reasonable in his reading of the evidence: after all, the evidence will not recommend 7 but could recommend something close to 7. So we would need to delve deeper to the actual details of the evidential basis if you want to pick at his position further. Alas, this is the point where your intellect seems to take a holiday.

In contrast, when you say 7 on the issue of the easter bunny, we do not need to delve deeply at all to see that you are being to some extent irresponsible in your reading of the evidence. For an inquiry of that sort, you clearly do not have epistemic certainty. Even given all the evidence you have on the subject, it is still quite logically consistent that you both have all that evidence and yet that the Easter Bunny does in fact exist. Your evidence does not logically entail that the Easter Bunny does not exist; there is no contradiction in the state of affairs where you have all that evidence and yet you are in fact mistaken in your belief that the Easter Bunny does not exist. In short, you do not have grounds for belief sufficient to guarantee with certainty that the Easter Bunny does not exist. So you should not be claiming 7. Take a cue from your atheist friends here who actually understand these points and claim 6.9999 etc.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are confusing knowledge of and knowledge that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Read it and weep....

Oh no, I forgot you lack the ability to comprehend... well pretty much everything.

Well everyone else can read it and see you're wrong.

I certainly did not make up the fact a component of knowledge is belief.

And that fact you don't know that demonstrates your complete and utter
cluelessness on this issue.

Hey-ho.
Right again; as usual...

"Epistemologists argue over whether belief is the proper truth-bearer. Some would rather describe knowledge as a system of justified true propositions, and others as a system of justified true sentences. Plato, in his Gorgias, argues that belief is the most commonly invoked truth-bearer."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are correct: you didn't provide a text book definition of the term atheist.
What you did provide however, on the last post of page seven of this thread was an explanation of what you consider to be the various denominations of atheism.
It was based upon your explanation that I said what I did.

Let's take the focus off of whether I can tell ...[text shortened]... living soul on the topic.
But the harsh reality remains: the world views you as rejecting God.

First. Bull.

Second, that doesn't make it true.

You say "An atheist says..."

And what an atheist says, most inclusively, is "I don't have a belief that god doesn't exist."

To hold a belief that P, is to think the P is true. [with varying degrees of certainty]

To hold a belief that ~P, is to think that P is not true. [with varying degrees of certainty]

If you don't have any confidence either way as to whether P is or is not true then you don't
hold a belief in either P or ~P.

You simply lack a belief in P.

Make P the proposition that "a god or gods exist" and bingo you have atheism.

As claimed by actual atheists.


Think of atheism as a kind of club, it doesn't matter what people who are not members think
the entrance requirements are, it only matters what the requirements actually are.

And that is determined BY atheists, and not anyone else.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hey-ho.
Right again; as usual...

"Epistemologists argue over whether belief is the proper truth-bearer. Some would rather describe knowledge as a system of justified true propositions, and others as a system of justified true sentences. Plato, in his Gorgias, argues that belief is the most commonly invoked truth-bearer."

No wrong again as always.

There is disagreement in philosophy about just about everything.

However the majority opinion dating back at least to Plato is that knowledge
requires belief.

Thus I evidently am not making this up as you claimed, and it is a mainstream
philosophical position. THE mainstream position in fact.


The very best you can say is that there are some philosophers who disagree,
and that you agree with them.
To which I respond that you have demonstrated no ability to understand the
arguments so I suspect you are simply latching onto anything that looks like
it might support your position. And it doesn't justify any claim you want to make
that I am wrong, because that is simply an appeal to authority fallacy.
And a very weak one as you are appealing to the 'authority' of the minority.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to claim it has no belief regarding God.
Doesn't want to say God doesn't exist; won't say He does.
Just doesn't have a belief.
That's like an ostrich planting its head in the sand and thinking he's found a strategy which avoids confrontation by presenting his ass to his enemy.

Right, a weak ath ...[text shortened]... a cue from your atheist friends here who actually understand these points and claim 6.9999 etc.

Wut.