Faith selector

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger


Okay, maybe you can clear something up for me. I don't see how somebody can say that they don't believe in god(s) but aren't an atheist. I mean, "theist" means "somebody who believes in god(s)," so "atheist" must mean "somebody who does not believe in god(s)," so the two terms ought to cover everybody. A lot of agnostics say "Well I'm not an atheist, because I 'doubt' the existence of god(s), unlike the atheists who 'don't believe' in the existence of god(s)," or something along those lines. But isn't doubt the opposite of belief? Are they saying that they don't believe in the existence of god(s) but that it makes them uncomfortable to say so, or what? Or that they believe in god(s) every other day, and the rest of the time they don't? Could you explain the difference between "not believing" in god(s) and "doubting" god(s)? Because they certainly seem like the exact same thing to me...

Well, I can't speak for all agnostics, but for me it goes like this: I see nothing that has proven God exists. I have also seen nothing that disproves God's existence. In fact, I believe it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, because the nature of any omnipotent, omnipresent being who made all and is all is something beyond the realm of human comprehension. We could see something that convinces it is God (kinda like Q on Star Trek, I suppose), but we would have no way of being certain it was the real God and not just some super powerful being toying with us.

Likewise, no matter how hard someone tries, they can't disprove the existence of God. Any omnipotent being should have the power to cover his tracks so well that humans could reasonably convince themselves God does not exist, but he could just be beyonf the reach of our comprehension. You could rationally explain every single law of the universe down to the interaction of the tiniest sub sub sub atomic whatever, and it still wouldn't change whatsoever the odds of there being an omnipotent being behind it (50/50).

So no matter what, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. As an agnostic, I can't exclude either possibility, and choose not to put any definite faith either way. I see no reason to do so, either. What does it matter if someone chooses to believe in God or not, when it's impossible to know anyway? So then it just comes down to a person choice about what makes the individual more comfortable in happy. Some people have faith in God to help them get by and be happy. Some people have faith there is no God to do the same. Me, I have neither faith nor doubt in God--I don't know, and I see no point in making a meaningless choice based on the either/or proposition you're positing.

[Ramo]

[...]
wouldn't change whatsoever the odds of there being an omnipotent being behind it (50/50).

So no matter what, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.

So you believe that the probability of there being a "God" is 50%? Doesn't that take faith? At least as much faith as believing the probability of there being a "God" is insignificant (as us atheists generally believe) or practically certain (as theists generally believe), perhaps?

Do you think that those who don't believe in the tooth fairy have as much "faith" as those who do?

Likewise, no matter how hard someone tries, they can't disprove the existence of God.

I don't think many atheists believe anyone can "disprove" God. As loinburger pointed out, the only condition for being an atheist is to not be a theist; in other words, to not believe in God. In no way does lack of belief in the existence of a God imply absolute certainty in the non-existence of a God.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So no matter what, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.

Only if you artificially add meaning to the term "atheist." Theists believes in god(s), and atheists are the set of people who are not theists. Therefore, an "atheist" is somebody who asserts (has faith) that there is no god or is somebody who makes no assertion whatsoever, somebody who neither believes in god nor believes in no-god. Neither person qualifies to be a theist, thus they're both atheists.

Me, I have neither faith nor doubt in God--I don't know, and I see no point in making a meaningless choice based on the either/or proposition you're positing.

But it is an either/or proposition, and it's hardly meaningless. Either somebody believes in god(s) (in which case they're a theist), or they do not (in which case they're an atheist). If ~A == B, and A+B == U, then an element is either in A or B.

The question is: do you believe in god(s)? If the answer is "yes," then you're a theist. If the answer is "no," "indeterminate," or "undefined," then you're an atheist. By definition, you're either in the set or you're in its complement.

[Ned]

I expected this:

1. Nontheist (100%)
2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (93%)
3. Jehovah's Witness (93%)
4. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (88%)
5. Unitarian Universalism (85%)
6. Secular Humanism (83%)
7. Bahá'à Faith (80%)
8. Eastern Orthodox (79%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (79%)
10. Roman Catholic (79%)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo
So you believe that the probability of there being a "God" is 50%? Doesn't that take faith? At least as much faith as believing the probability of there being a "God" is insignificant (as us atheists generally believe) or practically certain (as theists generally believe), perhaps?

No. Now, to clarify, we're acting under the assumption of an all-powerful, omnipotent God. The way I see it, if God is such, then the chance of his existence is always going to be 50/50. That's because, as I said, no amount of scientific knowledge or observation will prove or disprove God. It's an impossibility. And no amount of evidence-gathering on either side changes the probability one jot.

Do you think that those who don't believe in the tooth fairy have as much "faith" as those who do?

Now now, let's not throw in irrelevant things like this. First, the tooth fairy is a specific myth that is disproven by simple observation. Now, while that may be like disproving, say, Jehovah by proving aspects of the Bible untrue, it is not the same as disproving God, as such an entity would have no specific attributes we know of and be impossible to comprehend.

I don't think many atheists believe anyone can "disprove" God.

I can't argue one way or the other there, but I know some who do.

As loinburger pointed out, the only condition for being an atheist is to not be a theist; in other words, to not believe in God. In no way does lack of belief in the existence of a God imply absolute certainty in the non-existence of a God.

Well (and this can answer loinburger's following post too), I am not into mathematical definitions and such (isn't it a little silly to use a mathematical formula in reference to something as intangible as personal religious philosophy?), but I go by what are the generally accepted definitions used in modern language, and in modern English, there is a distinction between agnostics and atheists. Atheists, at least in the dictionary I have, are defined as people who don't believe in god. Agnostics are people who believe the truth is unknowable. I fall into the second set.

I do not consider myself an atheist because I believe there is an exactly even chance of there being a god or not being a god. Perhaps I'm being simplistic in my terms, but to ascribe to either being a theist or an atheist would, IMO, be a betrayal of what I believe.
It's not a mathematical equation of either/or, it's a question of linguistic definition of a cultural group. To say I was an atheist would immediately mean, to most people, I didn't believe in God. That would be misleading. Since Agnostic is the most accurate description of my beliefs, it is therefore what I use.

Oh, and I think one can be a theist and have doubt about the existence of God. I think there are plenty of theists who believe God exists, but also accept there is a possibility God does not exist. To then label such people automatically atheist would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh, and I think one can be a theist and have doubt about the existence of God. I think there are plenty of theists who believe God exists, but also accept there is a possibility God does not exist. To then label such people automatically atheist would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

It's a question of worldview more than anything else, which is exactly why things like Pascal's Wager are so useless (since worldview cannot simply be changed on a whim). It's largely irrelevant what people say they believe, or what doubts they profess to have--what primarily matters with regards to people's beliefs is how they shape their worldview to which they act in accord. A professed theist can say "I acknowledge that there is a possibility that God does not exist" all day long, but if they still go through life acting in accord to the assumption/belief that God does in fact exist then their professions of doubt are irrelevant. Similarly, somebody can claim to be an agnostic and have a completely open mind, but (as is generally the case with agnostics) if they go through life acting in accord to the assumption/belief that there is no God then their professions of non-atheism are irrelevant.

A worldview cannot incorporate "doubt" as such, except with regards to introspection (soul searching) and/or mental masturbation. I acknowledge the possibility that I might not even exist, but I must choose to either live my life in accordance to the assumption that I exist (as I have) or I must (attempt to) live my life in accordance to the assumption that I don't exist. A theist may acknowledge the possibility that God might not exist (or an atheist may acknowledge the possibility that God might exist) in the same manner that I acknowledge the possiblity that I might not exist--acknowledging the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong does not generally change one's worldview, especially with regards to metaphysical quandaries that are impossible to prove or disprove (and which are often, in this day and age, of negligible importance).

So, long story short, either somebody lives their life in accordance to the belief that god(s) exist or they do not. I can see how there can be varying levels of importance that god(s) hold in somebody's worldview, but this is in correspondence to the varying levels of faith/devotion/fanaticism/whatever in theists. I just don't see where "agnostics" significantly differ from "atheists" in their practical worldview.

[Ramo]

No. Now, to clarify, we're acting under the assumption of an all-powerful, omnipotent God. The way I see it, if God is such, then the chance of his existence is always going to be 50/50. That's because, as I said, no amount of scientific knowledge or observation will prove or disprove God. It's an impossibility. And no amount of evidence-gathering on either side changes the probability one jot.

No amount of scientific knowledge or observation can ever prove or disprove Santa Claus (there's always a possibility that any observation is flawed, since there's always a possibility that the observer is flawed). Does that imply there's a 50% chance Santa exists?

First, the tooth fairy is a specific myth that is disproven by simple observation.

What sort of observation can disprove it absolutely?

Now, while that may be like disproving, say, Jehovah by proving aspects of the Bible untrue,

How does that work? If an idea is in a flawed book, it is automatically flawed? And how would you absolutely determine aspects of the Bible are untrue?

it is not the same as disproving God, as such an entity would have no specific attributes we know of and be impossible to comprehend.

We know God is omni-potent since that's generally the definition of God. I agree that it is impossible to disprove It. Then again, I think it's impossible to disprove anything without making "unprovable" assumptions beforehand.

I can't argue one way or the other there, but I know some who do.

But it certainly is not universal among atheists. And it is not inherent in the definition of an atheist.

Well (and this can answer loinburger's following post too), I am not into mathematical definitions and such (isn't it a little silly to use a mathematical formula in reference to something as intangible as personal religious philosophy?),

Well, philosophy is nothing but math.

Atheists, at least in the dictionary I have, are defined as people who don't believe in god. Agnostics are people who believe the truth is unknowable.

Those are bad definitions, seeing as how someone who doesn't "believe in a God" may also believe "the truth is unknowable." In other words, under your definition, an atheist may be an agnostic (in fact, under your definition, I would be both).

On a practical level, and given that agnostics generally want to be wishy-washy and non-confrontational, I think the best definitions are:

An atheist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is insignificant.
An agnostic is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is significant, but not close to certain.
A theist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is near certain.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
In other words, under your definition, an atheist may be an agnostic (in fact, under your definition, I would be both).

I'm an atheist (since I don't believe in God) and I'm also an agnostic (since I don't believe that it is possible to (dis)prove the existence of God). Atheism is a metaphysical term, and agnosticism is an epistemological term that's been hijacked into becoming a (extraneous) metaphysical term. It's not too uncommon for somebody to be both an atheist and an agnostic--most professed agnostics fall under both categories, for example.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo

No amount of scientific knowledge or observation can ever prove or disprove Santa Claus (there's always a possibility that any observation is flawed, since there's always a possibility that the observer is flawed). Does that imply there's a 50% chance Santa exists?

No, because no definition of Santa Claus, or the Toothfairy, makes either to be an omnipotent, all-powerful being. That makes a key difference...while we can use empiral evidence to show how likely or unlikely it is these two things exist or not (observing the Xmas tree all night and seeing the parents put the gifts, catching the dad putting the coin under the pillow, etc.), no amount of empirical evidence can be gathered to prove or disprove God. Evidence is, in fact, irrelevant when talking omnipotent beings.

What sort of observation can disprove it absolutely?

I never said absolute, but we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty to make it practical to say disproven. Certainly beyong the 50/50 threshold for an omnipoten, all-powerful being.

How does that work? If an idea is in a flawed book, it is automatically flawed? And how would you absolutely determine aspects of the Bible are untrue?

That's just it--Jehovah is the depiction of God given in the Bible. That particulary image of God can reasonably be said to be false, as we know certain things in the Bible are simply not true or contradictory or whatever. And since the Bible is supposedly the word of Jehovah, we can deduce that showing aspects of the Bible untrue dispel Jehovah as being a realistic image of God.

Can we absolutely prove or disprove anything? No, if you want to be technical. But as with all matters of proof, we go by reasonable deduction based on evidence. And we have a vast amount of reasoned evidence that the Great Flood didn't happen as the Bible says, nor did Creation happen (based on the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution), etc. So that does it for Jehovah.

We know God is omni-potent since that's generally the definition of God. I agree that it is impossible to disprove It. Then again, I think it's impossible to disprove anything without making "unprovable" assumptions beforehand.

Well, of course, if God is unknowable, then he would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If he had limits, he'd become knowable. That's in a sense part of being Agnostic: There is a 50/50 chance God exists, and if he does exist, he is unknowable. Ergo, speculation on or attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God are futile exercises in intellectual ****ing.

But it certainly is not universal among atheists. And it is not inherent in the definition of an atheist.

Like I said, I can't argue that.

Well, philosophy is nothing but math.

Ha.

Those are bad definitions, seeing as how someone who doesn't "believe in a God" may also believe "the truth is unknowable." In other words, under your definition, an atheist may be an agnostic (in fact, under your definition, I would be both).

But that, in essence, makes your lack of belief purely unsupported speculation, doesn't it? If the truth is unknowable, then why would you say you don't believe in God? Just to feel like you're being a bold decision maker?

On a practical level, and given that agnostics generally want to be wishy-washy and non-confrontational, I think the best definitions are:

Now who is making unfounded generalizations of people? Most agnostics I know aren't wishy-washy at all, and I certainly am not. And as for non-confrontational--well, if one believes arguing the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant since the truth cannot be known, isn't that rather inherent?

An atheist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is insignificant.
An agnostic is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is significant, but not close to certain.
A theist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is near certain.

Hmm, nope, I'd change agnostic to someone who believes the probability for the existence or non-existence of God is even. A 50% chance of existing is not more significant than the 50% chance God doesn't exist.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Hmm, nope, I'd change agnostic to someone who believes the probability for the existence or non-existence of God is even. A 50% chance of existing is not more significant than the 50% chance God doesn't exist.

So an agnostic goes to church every other Sunday.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger


So an agnostic goes to church every other Sunday.

No, only when I am paid to do singing gigs or have to attend a wedding/funeral. So it evens out.

[Ramo]

I'm an atheist (since I don't believe in God) and I'm also an agnostic (since I don't believe that it is possible to (dis)prove the existence of God). Atheism is a metaphysical term, and agnosticism is an epistemological term that's been hijacked into becoming a (extraneous) metaphysical term. It's not too uncommon for somebody to be both an atheist and an agnostic--most professed agnostics fall under both categories, for example.

I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs.

No, because no definition of Santa Claus, or the Toothfairy, makes either to be an omnipotent, all-powerful being. That makes a key difference...while we can use empiral evidence to show how likely or unlikely it is these two things exist or not (observing the Xmas tree all night and seeing the parents put the gifts, catching the dad putting the coin under the pillow, etc.)

Why do you trust this evidence?

, no amount of empirical evidence can be gathered to prove or disprove God. Evidence is, in fact, irrelevant when talking omnipotent beings.

Ok, what about an invisible unicorn on the dark side of moon that comes into existence for one second every 5.6 million years. Is there a 50% chance that it exists?

I never said absolute, but we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty to make it practical to say disproven. Certainly beyong the 50/50 threshold for an omnipoten, all-powerful being.

I don't see the logic behind this 50% assertion.

Do you believe that the probability distribution of anything not empirically determinable is uniform?

For instance, since the uncertainty of the position of a particle is on the order of 1/ the uncertainty of its wave vector, it's impossible to know certain paired quantities of a particle, the position and momentum or energy and time. So, if I know the position of a particle precisely, I can't possibly know its momentum. It's not a limit of technology or antyhign like that; it's physically impossible. But we know that its momentum probability distributuion is not necessarily uniform, and only in very very few special cases would be.

And since the Bible is supposedly the word of Jehovah, we can deduce that showing aspects of the Bible untrue dispel Jehovah as being a realistic image of God.

How do we know Jehovah didn't lie in the Bible? How do we know that what Jehovah wrote wasn't mistranslated, etc.?

But that, in essence, makes your lack of belief purely unsupported speculation, doesn't it?

Nope, it's based on a few assumptions (i.e. my vision is a valid accurate reflection of reality, etc.). Given my experiences of no apparant divine intervention, I think it's reasonable to assume no diety exists.

If the truth is unknowable, then why would you say you don't believe in God? Just to feel like you're being a bold decision maker?

Not believing something exists is not the same thing as believing something does not exist.

Well, of course, if God is unknowable, then he would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If he had limits, he'd become knowable.

By knowable, do you mean provable?

Now who is making unfounded generalizations of people?

Not me.

I was just making a cheap shot with that. What I really think is that agnostics just want to feel intellectually superior when they aren't.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ok, what about an invisible unicorn on the dark side of moon that comes into existence for one second every 5.6 million years. Is there a 50% chance that it exists?

Is the unicorn omnipotent? If not, then it has nothing to do with Boris's views. Pay attention.

[Ramo]

Huh? Why is that relevant? The point was that evidence is also irrelevant for this unicorn; my hypothesis is almost untestable as a God. Pay attention.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs.

They want to feel metaphysically separate (usually by ascribing beliefs to atheists that many atheists don't even have, like Boris has done by falsely equating "doesn't believe in God" to "believes in no-god"), and every time there's an OTF "what religion are you" poll that has an atheist option but no agnostic option there's always a slew of agnostics saying "I refuse to vote, because I'm not an atheist." I'm just trying to figure out how agnostics are metaphysically separate from atheists. I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever? Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)? If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics.