Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[Sava]

[loinburger]

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by loinburger

cute

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
It restricts the definition of "knowledge" so that it only effectively covers a minuscule subset of the subjects that the rest of the english-speaking world considers to be within its purview, and at the same time you haven't avoided an infinite regress (e.g., you have no way of verifying that you're not simply talking to a Chinese (or in your case Spanish) box when verifying your knowledge of Spanish). In other words, your definition is weak, and yet still carries with it the problems associated with stronger definitions. Its only conceivable benefit is that it draws a non-fuzzy distinction between belief and knowledge, but the price you pay isn't worth it.

I don't get your infinite regress example, for one.

And honestly, I do think it is worth it to create a clear distinction between knowledge and belief. If that means that what some people consider knowledge is shown to actually be belief, that is fine by me.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lorizael


To get into a little bit of semantics here, there is technically a difference between the statements, "I believe there is no god," and, "I do not believe there is a god."

The first case asserts that you have proven a negative, which is just stupid. This is why I don't believe a good atheist should make such a claim. The second expresses a lack of belief on the matter, which I do think is slightly different from agnosticism.

Specifically, this type of atheist acts as if there is no god, but cannot say for sure that there is, in fact, no god. Thus belief, in a more classical, less post-moderny and semantic way, is not required.

First, there's a glaring flaw here. Because no matter what is said, "I believe there is no god" or "I don't believe in a god" is still basing a conclusion on a case of uncertainity. Saying one does not exclude the other. I can very well not believe there is a god while believing that there is no god. In fact, as I will show, this must be the case in order to not believe there is a god. What you're not looking at is the true consequence of these wordings.

Actually, it is more stupid for an aetheist to say, "I do not believe in god." in your argument. Here you want to say that the aetheist is stating that he has no belief at all in regards to god. In order for this to be true, he would have to have absolute certainty that there is or is not a god. Of course, since as you said, you can not prove a negative, this is impossible (here is where this line actually belongs, it was confusing the hell out of me before where you put it). Thus, the only way to rationalize that line of thinking is by using faith. So if you are arguing that aetheists rely on faith that there is no god, I can understand your statement alone.

In order for an aetheist to make that statement without embracing faith, he must add "I believe there is no god." Here you don't have to worrry about proving a negative, because it's a belief. Beliefs have no real place in reality other than how they affect our behavior. Contrary to some Eastern philosophies, what I believe isn't true just because I believe.

But, as I said, for all practical purposes, this person does not believe in god. The only difference between this person and a hardcore atheist who screams about 9/11 and the god delusion is that in a debate, the person who does not believe, rather than believes not, will be able to present a more rational argument in favor of their case.

As I've just shown, that is not the case at all. At best, a rational aetheist and a rational religionista are on equal footing. Anyone who needs 9/11 and the god delusion to prove an argument has already lost.

Now you're free to disagree with me. Heck, what can I do if you do? The fun is in the debate. But please don't take my disagreements as personal.

[Elok]

What are you, British? WTF is an "aetheist?" Atheist is the word.

[DaShi]

No, it's not!

[Impaler[WrG]]

First some thoughts on the loinburger/Gepap symantics argument:

The definition I would use for knowlage - Paterns of repeatedly expressable information held in the brain. This covers Pavlov style conditioning, motor memmory and symbolic manipulation. All of these things are knowlage in the sense that they must be learned and once learned they are stable and resistent to change or loss.

An indivudials knowlage can be compared with either an external reality or another individuals knowlage. All symbolic knowlage is man made and can be verified only by comparison with another individual or a physical "rosseta stone". No platonic ideal makes symbolic knowlage a superior form, symbolic knowlage is no more or less knowlage then any other kind of knowlage.

Belif is a much more maliable thing reflecting a desision of an individuals higher reasoning as to the degree of corelation between their knowlage and a validating source. When one ceases to belive in someting the knowlage dose not disapear, only the higher desision functions re-value it. Different types of knowlage typicical make use of different validation methods. Conditioning literaly is it's own validation, cause is observed to preceed effect and an assosiation is made and unmade in the same mannor, the stimuls response is sub-concious. A learned motor memory relies on performing the act to validate it, again a validation so unconcious we dont see how one can "doupt' them.

Symbolic knowlage gets trickier, it needs some external validation such as with a language demostrating ones ability to comunicate in that language or comparing ones knowlage to a book. The quality of the validation depends on the quality of the validation source and thus no external validation can ever be perfect. Mental-Constructs as I call them are the most challenging validations. This referes to a body of knowlage which has no physical representation because no definitive representation of them can be made. Constructs such as "good", "evil" are philisophical fodder because their so disagreed upon and nothing much can ever be validated. Fortunatly a subset of Constructs called "Theories" purport to be representations of reality and can be validated against physical reality by a process known as Science. Belif in a theory means that one has made a desision or base future desisions on the predictions the theory makes about reality.


WHY I AM AN ATHIEST

I assert with maximum confidence that the God hypothesis is false.

I do this because not inspite of the fact the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. An un-testable, unfalsifiable/unverifiable theory is inherently unscientific, it can not be resolved, its like division by zero, a NULL pointer or a singularity you dont even go their. Thus in a kind of logical self-preservation I assert all such theories to be false both in the sense they are unworthy of investigation and literaly as their are an infinity of mutualy contradictory theories the chance of them being true is literaly zero.

[Elok]

Leaving out the "unfalsifiable--->false" claim, which boils down to you trying to impose standards on reality, there are potentially infinite numbers of theories on every matter, and only one of those opinions, at most, can be true. I'll grant you that the unfalsifiability makes religion a different case from most, but saying that no two people agree and therefore they're all full of it is illogical. The chance of any given one of them being true is close to zero, all other things being equal--but all other things are not equal as far as you know.

Imagine that you are looking at the night sky, you have to pinpoint Alpha Centauri, and you don't know the layout of the stars. Each star has an equally valid claim, from your POV, to be Alpha Centauri, but only one of them could be. Your task is pretty much hopeless, but do you therefore conclude that none of those stars is AC?

[Nubclear]

Imagine that you are looking at the night sky, you have to pinpoint Cardassia, and you don't know the layout of the stars. Each star has an equally valid claim, from your POV, to be Cardassia, but only one of them could be. Your task is pretty much hopeless, but do you therefore conclude that none of those stars is Cardassia?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Imagine that you are looking at the night sky, you have to pinpoint Alpha Centauri, and you don't know the layout of the stars.

That's similar (perhaps identical) to the lottery paradox. One can justifiably conclude that any individual lottery ticket is not a winner, but one cannot justifiably conclude that there is no winning lottery ticket.

[Impaler[WrG]]

If I can never collect the prize money because the lottery sponsor has fleed the country with all the money and cant be found and only they knew what the winning number is then yes I would assert that their is no winning lottery ticket. Unfalsifiability is much like that, it invalidates the whole body of tickets and I assert that ALL of the tickets are lossers and all untestable theories are false.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

That's similar (perhaps identical) to the lottery paradox. One can justifiably conclude that any individual lottery ticket is not a winner, but one cannot justifiably conclude that there is no winning lottery ticket.

Before the winning lottery numbers were announced how could you possibly state that a ticket was justifiably not a winner??

You can justifiably state that the probability of any one ticket being the winner is tiny, but there is a difference between little chance and no chance.

[loinburger]

[GePap]

Don't let Ben see that smiley.