ATHEIST WORLD VIEW

229 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sapporo's picture
@Someone,

@Someone:
@Sapporo

You wrote:
---
@Someone, you need to make your contrived options be about belief OR knowledge, not a hodge-podge of both.
---

No I don't. They are fine as they are for my purposes. But I will oblige so as not to give you an excuse for not confirming again.

You also wrote:
---
You should also state what you mean by 'reality'.
---

For the purposes of this question you can consider me to mean whatever has existed and/or whatever exists.

So for the readers convenience, I will ask you again. Given the statements:

A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.

And the modified options

1a) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
1b) claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2a) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
2b) claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is

You did not confirm that you are taking position (2b), but you were weren't you, because you claimed you knew (A) was false which implies you were claiming knew (B) to be true. Could you just confirm?

@Someone,
You have edited your options, which were first a hodge-podge about belief and knowledge, and now is focusing on belief.

It is not meaningful to say that the supernatural and the natural both exist in the same spheres as each other. The options are not valid.

I know that when things exist, they have an observable effect. It is not true to say I believe that things that are not observable don't exist - I know that is the case. I lack a belief in the existence of things which cannot exist.

Someone's picture
You wrote:

You wrote:
---
You have edited your options, which were first a hodge-podge about belief and knowledge, and now is focusing on belief.
---

The options for claiming you know are there.

1a) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
1b) claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2a) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
2b) claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is

You were claiming 2b. Now you are simply refusing to confirm it. No matter it was clear that you indicated that your position was 2b.

Anyway the following is an extract from the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_knowledge
---
Descriptive knowledge, also declarative knowledge or propositional knowledge, is the type of knowledge that is, by its very nature, expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions. This distinguishes descriptive knowledge from what is commonly known as "know-how", or procedural knowledge (the knowledge of how, and especially how best, to perform some task), and "knowing of", or knowledge by acquaintance (the non-propositional knowledge of something through direct awareness of it).

The difference between knowledge and beliefs is as follows: A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists in one's mind. Most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, true and justified. The Gettier problem in philosophy is the question of whether there are any other requirements before a belief can be accepted as knowledge.
---

As can be seen from there, most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be at least true and justified. And from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
---
According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn't even believe can't be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief.
---

Therefore given the statements:
A) At least on deity exists
B) No deities exist

The options can be simplified again to:

1) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is

It doesn't matter whether you would classify your position as (2) the important thing is that you have made your position clear, and other people would classify it as position (2) because they consider knowledge to require belief.

The issue then, is why you favour a definition of atheism that indicates that you don't hold position (1) over one which indicates that you do hold position (2). Is it that you are trying to hide your position, and make out that there is less of a burden of proof on your position than there is on a theist one (a person that takes position (1))?

Presumably you don't believe that the burden of proof of a person that takes position (1) diminishes if they describe themselves as not holding position (2).

Do you agree that for your position, there is more of a burden of proof than on those that simply claim to believe B but who don't claim to know it? And more than on those that simply claim to believe A but who don't claim to know it.

Sapporo's picture
@Someone, if knowledge

@Someone, if knowledge required belief, it wouldn't be knowledge.

There are things that are true by definition, and thus can be known to be true.

Saying that I claim to know implies that my knowledge is in dispute. I think you can only seriously dispute me if you disagree with my definition of the relevant concepts - but that would be a disagreement over the meaning of words rather than about the world of facts.

Sheldon's picture
Therefore given the

Again you are spuriously limiting the number of choices by mendaciously omitting the primary definition of atheism most commonly used and understood. You are implying knowledge and belief claims are mutually exclusive, one can not know whether something exists and still disbelieve the claim it does.
-------------------------------------------------------
Someone...

A) At least on deity exists
B) No deities exist

1) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
-------------------------------------------------------------------Here's atheism position you keep duplicitously leaving out.
4) Do not believe A is true, hold no belief about B.

I disbelieve the claim A as I am an atheist, but hold no belief about B, as this is an absolute claim to knowledge that seems prima facie to be unfalsifiable, and so I am (must be) agnostic about it.

You're just repeating your spurious claim that in order to disbelieve A, an atheist position, I must hold a belief about an absolute but contrary claim.

Once again this is epistemologically and rationally untrue. Your example *Gettier is about the distinctions between belief and knowledge. Atheism isn't a claim, or a belief. It's the lack or absence of belief in a single claim. An atheist may go beyond this primary definition of course and be an atheist, but this doesn't change the primary definition if atheism which is satisfied by the absence or lack of belief. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy in informal logic where an argument is asserted as true or valid because no counter examples can be given or properly evidenced. That;s what you are doing here, using that fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof, by insisting one cannot be an atheists unless one holds a belief about the universe that is contrary to theistic belief, you're wrong, and this is nothing new, almost every apologist through here these days tries this one. Though most have a lower threshold for embarrassment and intransigence when presenting something so obviously spurious as to contradict the dictionary.

Hitchens's razor applies here, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This epistemologically sound razor is derived from the much older Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"). **NB one need not make or believe a contrary claim.

Sheldon's picture
So Somone's not going to

So Somone's not going to answer my question, just make excuses, quelle surprise.

arakish's picture
Yeah, I think I'm going to

Yeah, I think I'm going to join you. What was it you said in that Note to Self?

Do not respond to under-bridge residents?

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
He's almost done, I am

I feel your pain, and his name is Someone, but we can at least be gratified that theists at some level fear atheism, else they wouldn't feel minded to be so dishonest about atheists and atheism in their attempt to discredit them. I sense he's almost done, I am sensing his bs has reached it's apotheosis. He'll likely claim to have been winding us up all along as he leaves. We've seen it all before, sadly.

Sheldon's picture
http://www.atheistrepublic

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/what-atheism-brief-expla...

Oddly enough there is a link on the homepage explaining exactly what atheism is...here's a synopsis.

"Simply put, atheism is a lack of belief in any gods."

"The Issue of Belief
Disbelieving in something does not mean that you believe it is false; it simply means that you don't believe it is true. For example, someone might make the claim that Ford is the best car company in the world. You may not believe that to be true, but you may also have no compelling reason to believe it isn't true."

Ho hum...

arakish's picture
@Someone

@Someone

Here are the final answers:

Consider the following statements:

A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
Same chances as 0 ÷ 0.

B) Reality is one without any deities.
Same chances as 0^0.

rmfr

Sapporo's picture
@Someone's question is like

@Someone's question is like asking "do you believe that a stone has been murdered, or do you believe that a stone has not been murdered, or do you not know whether you believe the stone has or has not been murdered?"

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ OP All this fucking

@ OP All this fucking verbiage...
I marvel at your patience, Sheldon, Cog, Nyar and Sapporo. This horseshit has been doing the rounds of a couple of forums. It is complete bollocks as usual, and as Sheldon accurately diagnosed used mainly to report back to congregations of theists claiming "'peace in our time' I got those atheists to admit they only have a belief...and we know our belief is right, and theirs is wrong cos we have a BOOK!" Also evolution is just a theory" *rousing cheers and offer of altar boys and virgins*

I had an almost equally long exchange with a similar one trick donkey who could not get his head around the phrase "lack of belief" is a single proposition and implies nothing else.

That forced "argument" (drivel) seems to be flavor of the month for all the pseudo intellectuals of the theist camp. It just shows the lack of critical thought after watching several hours of YouTube apologists and "how to prove god in 30 seconds" style videos. Drives me fucking crackers.
Someone has demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, nobody cares and anybody should tell him to just bury his head in a bucket of cow manure for 10 minutes to refresh his thought processes.

Having got that off my chest I feel better. Honest guys I don't know how you do it after umpteen iterations of the same shit you reply courteously and without exploding at the totally dishonest and fucked up garbage being typed by an arrogant asshole.

Sheldon's picture
To claim that no deities

To claim that no deities exist is an absolute claim, it is demonstrably unfalsifiable as well, as this would necessarily include deities we could know nothing about. So I must remain agnostic about Someone's claim B) The universe in one without any deities. I don't believe claims I can know nothing about.

However I do not believe claim A) The universe is one with at least one deity, as no one has demonstrated proper evidenced to support the claim. I find the argument uncompelling as they appear to contain fallacious reasoning and are therefore irrational. This then is the definition of atheism, while the previous position on the contrary claim is agnosticism, which are not mutually exclusive as we also see.

I don't believe any deity or deities exist as proper evidence has not been demonstrated, so I am an atheist, but I can't know that that no definition of any deity exists, so I am also an agnostic.

blinknight's picture
Are we still trying to make

Are we still trying to make agnostic and atheist two mutually exclusive ideas? I'm new around here but I'm pretty sure somebody at some point has brought up the fact that they're not mutually exclusive ideas. Almost all atheists are 'agnostic atheists' in that they don't know if there are any gods (agnostic) but don't believe in any gods (atheist). I've seen agnostic thrown around over there years as some middle ground between 'theist' and 'atheist' but the fact is that agnostic is a different question.

Do you know if there are gods? If no, you're agnostic.
Do you believe in any gods? If no, you're an atheist.

These are not mutually exclusive and while uncommon there are people that proclaim to be gnostic atheists (know there's not a god) and there are people who are agnostic theists (don't know, but believe)

Then again I would argue that there's no such thing as a gnostic theist because if you can't show it then you don't know it.

Sheldon's picture
We'll Someone has spent 8

We'll Someone has spent 8 pages arguing that in order to disbelieve the claim that at least one deity exists, you must believe a contrary and absolute claim that no deities exist.

He doesn't seem to understand thatan atheist can disbelieve the first claim but have no belief or bean agnostic about the second.

blinknight's picture
It's related to what I call

It's related to what I call the "Josh Feuerstein" effect. You basically have a theist who can prove absolutely nothing of what they claim and just sits around screaming that what they mistakenly believe atheism to be must be "proven" to their impossible standard.

And when you correct them they just continue to insist that you "can't prove atheism is correct".

LogicFTW's picture
I used to be agnostic atheist

I used to be agnostic atheist until I looked up the commonly held definition of god. I know with great certainty there are no gods as commonly, widely defined.

One can dither on: "no one can know everything, we are not omnipotent" anything is possible. But then, to say you "know" something is meaningless, as we truly 100% know nothing at all. So we have to operate where the evidence etc makes something so unlikely or likely that you can round down to zero or 100%. We have to operate in this way to function in life. If we are worried about the 1 in a trillion chances we freeze our self into inaction.

Sheldon's picture
Agnosticism is a statement

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, as distinct from atheism which is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is not dithering, this is a misconception people have that it is a stepping stone or midway position between theism and atheism, rather than an acknowledgement that certain claims are unfalsifiable, and therefore nothing is known or can be known about such claims. I don't see the rationale in believing claims that I can know nothing about. I'm not worried about remote possibilities until someone can demonstrate that there is any possibility for a deity. The problem is that people confuse two positions which are logical negations of each other.

1. A deity exists
2. A deity does not exist.

Now you can only know if both positions are true, or not know if either position is true. So agnosticism seems reasonable to me here as I can't claim to know that no deity exists, however I have no reason to believe claim 1 as no has demonstrated proper evidence for the claim, so I am also an atheist.

Apologists either go nuts here, and sulk insisting you're an idiot who doesn't understand the choices, which is ironic (see Someone) or they leap to possibilities. Again if you don't know whether either claim is true then you can't rationally assert that they are possible, or impossible, thus attaching odds to the possibility of either is spurious (see Dan).

I don't believe any deities exist, ipso facto I am an atheist. (NB my disbelief applies to all deities)

I can't know no deities exist, ipso facto I must be an agnostic.

LogicFTW's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

I do not know for sure if your reply was to my posting, but I fully agree.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. And it is not a halfway point between theist and atheist.

I suppose I could say I am not agnostic about "god" anymore. God does not exist, for reasons stated in my last post.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.