Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing. — DingoJones

Good point. It's also been asserted elsewhere on this thread that there are no credible uses of the word atheism if not used as an active claim (i.e., proposition). Interestingly, it was Flew who suggested that the term could be defined as a psychological state. I've also seen several Oxford debates and Oxford-style debates in which the person taking the position on atheism did so on the basis of a psychological state, or from a position of skepticism and empiricism.

One of the positions from several atheist's was that, epistemologically, the atheist was in a position without sufficient knowledge to assert atheism as a proposition. Those individuals, therefore, defined their agnosticism in matter of degree.

While there still were ontological, teleological, cosmological etc propositions that were argued (for and against), arguments generally leaned toward how to establish justified true belief.

In the end, the interlocutors couldn't proceed with the debate until each defined their terms.

Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth? — Frank Apisa

Such an angry little man you are. I'm asking questions and challenging your positions to test their validity. If you can't handle skeptical criticism of your ideas, then you probably shouldn't be in a philosophy forum.

It will be an issue of how to define consciousness. If consciousness is awareness (in the form of a thought) regarding internal/external stimulation. And if thinking is silent talking, and talking only comes about when there is a verbal community that can teach an individual how to talk, then that kind of consciousness seems limited to just those animals that have a verbal community that can differentially reinforce particular linguistic use. Contingencies of survival have selected instinctual sounds/calls/& otherwise in non-human species, but it appears that the only species with verbal communities that teach variation of responses within a lifetime is human.

If consciousness is defined as reflexive, operant, or instinctual responses to external stimuli, then the term could possibly be used with most animals.

When philosophers discuss the hard problem of consciousness, they cannot talk about the term without respect to verbal behavior. Verbal behavior is necessary in order to discuss mental states.

It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge." — Frank Apisa

This is funny. How do you deal with other prefixes like "anti"? Is antimicrobial ok, or just microbial?

It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. — Frank Apisa

I hadn't heard this claim before. I didn't find reference to it either. Do you have a reference?

Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." — Frank Apisa

It's odd to me that you rail against the idea that people would label you incorrectly, and then in the same thread insist that your definition be applied to how someone else would self-identify. Don't you think this is somewhat hypocritical? Why not just inform someone how you plan to use a word with multiple known usages so you can have a meaningful conversation?

Is science a part of philosophy? — Malice

Philosophy has informed science regarding errors of judgement that can be discovered, empirically. Post hoc ergo propter hoc errors are routine in everyday life. One association can wrongly lead a person to conclude that event Y was caused by event X. When Y necessarily follows X, then it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude Y was caused by X (e.g., self-determined actions). However, testing can reveal third variables.

Also, if the consequences to Y select the probability of future occurrence of Y, then the "cause" of Y moves to the event that followed. How could an event that follows a response in time "cause" the action that preceded it? It can't cause the one that preceded it. It increases future probability. It selects the response.

The person at the slot machine receiving a pre-determined schedule of payouts, pulls the lever at a rate consistent with the schedule. This phenomenon isn't learned a priori (as in philosophy), it had to be discovered a posteriori vis-a-vis experimentation that was structured to reduce threats to internal validity (science); many of which were known from philosophy.

Is science an entirely different method of seeking knowledge about the world? — Malice

The process of science allows one to demonstrate the functional or casual relationships between variables. With good experimental control one can predict, verify, and replicate findings in ways not accessible to deductive reasoning.

You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics. — Gnomon

If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time.

If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural" — Gnomon

That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause.

If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent?

hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, — Gnomon

Popularity of an argument is not equal to correctness of an argument.

As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? — Gnomon

Did I say there were more than two? I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. Isn't it commonplace to present true premises and valid arguments in philosophical discussions?

Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions? — 3017amen

Language does not develop in the absence of a social environment. At some point in our evolutionary history vocal musculature came under operant control. In social groups this served a variety of purposes, one of which was to get needs met through the mediation of other individuals. Instead of going to get water one could ask for water to be brought. The outcome was identical (i.e., obtaining water), but now there was a new mechanism at work. There are decades of experimental research demonstrating this process.

Sitting in an armchair attempting to explain the history and functions of language development a priori is not going to get anyone very far.

In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali

Exactly! This is pretty standard stuff since Gettier. But even Gettier pointed out that JTB was insufficient to establish knowledge; hence, Gettier cases.

So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support — Gnomon

How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? Even if it could be established, theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God that cares about when one works, what one eats, who one sleeps with, and in what position.

What other options do you see to explain the BB besides — Gnomon

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting any particular model for describing how the universe came into existence. I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options. If the universe was always here, then coming into existence is an assumption made about the big bang. Cosmologists question why their measurements of entropy are as high as they are at their calculated time of the big bang. Mathematical models also fit multiverse explanations. I have no informed opinion on the topic.

Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon

Thanks. I'll take a look.

I can see how the devil may be omnimalevolent but so far I haven't heard of the devil being defined as omnipotent. — TheMadFool

Agreed. This seems to be taking the contrasting view to the paradoxes of an "omni" God.

Ex: can an omnipotent God make a rock so heavy he can't pick it up?

If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. — Malice

Do you consider yourself an atheist?

The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons. — Malice

Yes. When we discovered this about our tendencies we learned to say correlation is not causation.

I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you? — Monist

Why would you want to? I would think that it would be advantageous to only tentatively accept a given finding, and then if presented with better, contradictory evidence, then happily "shake the belief" and tentatively accept the updated info.

But that has no biological survival value. — 3017amen

But it could...

"I'm feeling sick. Can you get me to the hospital?"

"I haven't eaten in days. Would you feed me?

"I'm thirsty. May I have a drink of water?"

In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with — 3017amen

Why do the properties have to be metaphysical? There is plenty of empirical evidence that people learn to ask questions through a long history of reinforcing consequences provided for asking and answering questions. We learn to ask questions because we receive answers that help us in some practical way.

do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that?
— CeleRate

No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely. — Malice

How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"?

why are you wondering? — 3017amen

I'm interested in learning.

Isn't that in itself a false dichotomy? — 3017amen

How so?

I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists. — Malice

Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? If so, then do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? Or, do you have different reasons?

"cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe. — Gnomon

Yes. When you wrote "our world" earlier I thought you meant that the Earth was created in an instant (Which has been a theological claim, but not a cosmological one).

One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. — Gnomon

It still could be a creation event. I'm just not sure what theists think this grants them if it is.

They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. — Gnomon

This is a false dichotomy. It's not as if it has been established that the only two options are a non-contingent (world or universe?), or a contingent one that depends on an immaterial creator.

PS__The "Creator" I refer to is an abstraction based on logical inference, not a concrete entity known directly by revelation. It's the "god of the philosophers". — Gnomon

I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present.

When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiate it from "unfalsifiable"? — Malice

I'm not sure how to interpret your claim in the context of your use of "possibility". Do you mean anything is possible, so therefore, a creator agent is possible? Are you thinking that there is a greater-than-chance probability for the existence of a creator? Can your claim be demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified (i.e., verifiable)?

My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof" — David Mo

What more is there then, "The evidence has not convinced me"? If you aren't convinced by my claim that there is a 6 foot tall, invisible, untouchable, white rabbit that visits me each day, do you have the burden to discredit my claim? Ok, then I would like you to refer to the rabbit as Harry as I don't think you can prove his non-existence. Also, Harry is very sensitive about people not believing in him.

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable — Malice

Unfalsifiable or unverifiable? If you were presented with sufficient evidence of a "creator agent" then that agent's non-existence would have been falsified. However, you might take the position that we currently have no investigatory methods that allow us to investigate things that exist outside space/time, outside the known universe, or which are metaphysical. Then, you might claim that the phenomenon is unverifiable.

I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. — David Mo

Sorry, I attributed your comment to someone else earlier. The word can mean without belief in theism. But this forces the issue that there are those with theistic beliefs.

There are people that believe in telekinesis, ghosts, and clairvoyance, but the word a-paranormalist does not exist. There are no a-fairyists, no a-SantaClausists, a-extraterrestrialists, etc even though there are large populations of believers and non-believers for each of these beliefs.

Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum — rikes

This might be the only thing we can take as properly basic, though I'd be open to considering other things.

However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot. — rikes

The 17th century enlightenment helped with the problem of our inherent irrationality by giving us a new epistemology to investigate the universe.

convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, — Gnomon

I haven't seen any claims by astronomers, but what do cosmologists say?

So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. — Gnomon

How does this qualify as a specific reason?

But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it. — Gnomon

What evidence?

So I think it's somewhat redundant to say our past selves determine our future selves. — NOS4A2

Except, entropy. Why do you remember the past but not the future?

We are huge we can only traverse our body in segments, other, purer consciousness can sense all body in one. — Qwex

What is a"purer consciousness", how did you establish its existence, and how do you know its capabilities?

My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life. — Qwex

In philosophy this type of argument is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force. — Qwex

What does this mean?

The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse. — Qwex

How did you establish this?

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. — Qwex

There's also no specific reason presented to think it was created. But if created, created by what?

a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. — Qwex

How do you establish a "high probability"?

Present you is partially conditioned by past you. — Pfhorrest

This is an interesting way to put it. We are ever-changing organisms as a result of our experiences, but the changes aren't evident until some point in the future.

That wanting to want something is your will, and the effectiveness of that self-conditioning is the freedom of your will; freedom from the other influences that would condition you otherwise, your own self-conditioning prevailing over those other influences — Pfhorrest

I think it's problematic to use will as part of the premise and the conclusion. It leads to circular reasoning. The things you want are your will and your will is the things you want. It also seems to contradict the point made about conditioning; even conditioning that is designed by the person himself.

Each of us determine the course of our own lives by the simple fact that nothing else does. — NOS4A2

Couldn't the selective effects of past consequences on behavior explain why one wants to do something at a given time? The interactive effects of myriad experiences of the past impinging on present circumstances to bring about (not coerce) determined thoughts and actions.

agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.

Will you address that? — Frank Apisa

I think the best one can do is to say, "This is what I mean when I use this term". You can always reject a person's use of a given word, but it may be an equivocation.

If the person said, "I think the baby is without a belief in God," probably neither the person in support of the proposition nor the one against it could disprove the other's argument. However, given what's known about language development and reasoning, I would suspect that the null hypothesis would be that an infant has no more of an opinion on God than it does for determining if socialism is better than capitalism.

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position? — Frank Apisa

I reply based on my current understanding of the words gnostic and theist, but I have no general objection to others using the terms in other specified ways. I also have no insistence that an interlocutor define the term as I do. I accept that people use the term atheism to mean that they believe God does not exist. If that's how the person is using the term, then I'd ask if the person has evidence to support the claim that a God does not exist.

I, however, remain unconvinced by the evidence or arguments that I've heard, so that is how I use the term atheist. As I lack sufficient knowledge about the theistic claim, I might describe my position as an agnostic atheist.

To take a contrasting position, I could be an agnostic theist and say that, although I don't know, I believe that there is a God.

For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. — Frank Apisa

I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.

I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa

This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic.

There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods. — Frank Apisa

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.

As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation.

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa

I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable.

If free will just means uncoerced actions, then I don't think people would care so much. If it means that one is the origin of one's thoughts and actions, then it matters a great deal. The individual as the uncaused causer of one's thoughts and actions grants the individual the credit or blame for those thoughts and actions. If there are lawful and logical events in the universe that account for one's behavior, then the credit or blame go to those events.

Usages of words change. If someone defines their view of atheism as, "without a belief in God," that seems consistent with one of the term's common usages.

One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa

There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?