Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Belief = Bayesian probability
Bayesian probability is not all or nothing
Its possible to be pretty sure but not certain
Either you know or you believe
If you know then there are 2 possibilities
You know God exists
You know God doesnt exist
If you believe then there are 3 possibilities
You believe God exists
You believe God doesnt exist
You have no opinion one way or the other (50/50) (agnostic)
Excellent summation. This is how it's always been. Quite simple.
Hopefully the lines are not purposely being blurred, but if they are I can certainly understand the why.
Not the case. You must have missed the conversation I had with Eusie about this.
I quoted about 10 dictionaries stating that atheism is "a lack of faith/belief in a God."
So essentially, your whole argument is based of a falsely assumed premise.
I don't know any atheists who claim to know that there is no God. Most atheists wouldn't say that because they'd be violating the same train of thought that lead them to atheism in the first place.
Let's clear this up:
Let's pretend that you're correct for one moment and atheism means to not believe in God. Most of us here who call ourselves atheists are not atheists in that case and you are arguing against a strawman (logical fallacy btw.)
I took the definition out of the dictionary...probably the most well respected...the one founded by Noah Webster.
I wasn't "arguing against a strawman"...I was contesting the false contentions you put forth in the OP.
If you don't know for sure there is no God...Agnosticism is the only logical "No God" position...not Atheism.
Atheism is a DOCTRINE...by definition.
It could be mere "No Belief"...if one never considers the matter. Once you consider it and take a position...and even go so far as to post on interweb forums about it (some for years and many thousands of posts), you have gone waaaaaaay beyond mere Nonbelief.
Belief is, as Belief says and does.
It isn't some bad thing...just cop to it. Say..."I believe that God(s) don't exist. I don't claim full knowledge to back this up, but I believe it anyway. You don't like that? Oh, well...better get a grip Cupcake."
Cut it out with the wishy-washy denial stuff...take a stand!
This is why the Religions have so much more "mojo", respect, and acceptance than Atheism...Religions take a stand!
If that is what you said then you are not being consistent, because you said this:
Quote:
If you believe then there are 3 possibilities
You believe God exists
You believe God doesnt exist
You have no opinion one way or the other (50/50) (agnostic)
I simply responded that belief is a continuum of probabilities, not three fixed points on the continuum.
Belief is about how likely I think god's existence is -- or, about how likely any god's existence is. And that is not simply yes/no/maybe. In fact technically, an unambiguous yes or no is a knowledge position, rather than a belief position.
That is the fallacy that produces the notion that agnostics can't make up their mind. The waffling agnostic is a very particular KIND of agnostic but it is not inherent to agnosticism to be "torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool".
If you are not claiming the the three positions you outline correspond to theism, agnosticism and atheism, then we probably are somewhat arguing over semantics. But if you ARE making that claim then at least don't suggest that I, or most atheists, are making the same claim.
Claiming it is not a Belief does not make that so.
It IS a Belief.
Unless you have "objective facts", and can then declare knowledge....any determination or conclusion that is drawn without objective facts to back it up is, necessairly, a Belief.
The old Bigfoot/Nessie argument -everyone's a winner.
I took the definition out of the dictionary...probably the most well respected...the one founded by Noah Webster.
I wasn't "arguing against a strawman"...I was contesting the false contentions you put forth in the OP.
If you don't know for sure there is no God...Agnosticism is the only logical "No God" position...not Atheism.
Atheism is a DOCTRINE...by definition.
It could be mere "No Belief"...if one never considers the matter. Once you consider it and take a position...and even go so far as to post on interweb forums about it (some for years and many thousands of posts), you have gone waaaaaaay beyond mere Nonbelief.
Belief is, as Belief says and does.
It isn't some bad thing...just cop to it. Say..."I believe that God(s) don't exist. I don't claim full knowledge to back this up, but I believe it anyway. You don't like that? Oh, well...better get a grip Cupcake."
Cut it out with the wishy-washy denial stuff...take a stand!
This is why the Religions have so much more "mojo", respect, and acceptance than Atheism...Religions take a stand!
I am taking a stand against this strawman you're putting forward.
What are you even saying? "belief is as belief does"? Thanks Gump.
No, just no. As mordant has put forth, rather eloquently, this is not what atheism means and this is not what we're arguing for.
I guess you didn't take the time to look up agnosticism, did you? I quoted it before, but I'll quote it again for convenience:
Oxford:
Quote:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheism and Agnosticism differ in that agnosticism makes a truth claim and atheism does not. Agnosticism says "No one could know if there's a God", atheism says "I have no reason to believe there's a God(s), but I don't know there's not a God(s)."
I don't believe that gods don't exist, I simply don't believe that gods do exist. Yes, there's a significant difference that is going right over your head.
Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[3] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
It exists whenever two or more people have to cooperate and/or coexist. It's emergent from social interaction. Fundamentalists are generally hung up on it needing some sort of bestowed, external authority to validate and enforce it. Well, that authority comes from those who agree to it and use it, from social and legal pressures and conventions associated with the related social consensus.
I know this makes conservatively wired brains explode, but it is true nonetheless.
And observing evidence of such characteristics in animals (such as empathy and altruism) and the level of cooperation among insect communities, I don't see an objective reason to believe humans are any different; we just have the intellect and vocabulary to mull over these ideas. Whether it's innate, or learned behavior passed down through the generations to ensure survival, doesn't really matter all that much. But we can observe that these behaviors only exist in social groups; solitary creatures have no need for morality.
Of course, someone who is so inclined would subjectively attribute it to god-designed (their god, specifically) instincts animals are furnished with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
