This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong? — frank
Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa
You did NOT answer my question!
And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that. — Frank Apisa
Yes. — Frank Apisa
I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa
"Angry...rant?"
You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part? — Frank Apisa
In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa
At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa
...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa
How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?
I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant. — Frank Apisa
S
8.7k
Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa
Your "opinion" is wrong. — S
You did NOT answer my question!
And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that. — Frank Apisa
That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).
You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.
And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use. — S
Yes. — Frank Apisa
And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic? — S
I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa
No, that wasn't my point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. — S
It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no logically relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important. — S
"Angry...rant?"
You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part? — Frank Apisa
Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps... — S
In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa
Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong. — S
At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa
That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying. — S
...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa
Why are you shouting? — S
And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am. — S
How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?
I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant. — Frank Apisa
You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.
S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and effectively reinforce your own personal semantics. — S
Harry Hindu
1.8k
The only reason someone would abandon logic and reason is that they don't find the conclusions of logic and reason consoling. In other words, they have an emotional attachment to a certain assumption and if logic and reason don't reinforce that assumption, then logic and reason aren't good for reaching all conclusions. — Harry Hindu
Do whatever you want to do.
No need to announce it.
Just do it. — Frank Apisa
DingoJones
586
↪Frank Apisa
If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist. — DingoJones
Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind. — Dingo
That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods. — Dinjo
You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.
S
8.7k
Do whatever you want to do.
No need to announce it.
Just do it. — Frank Apisa
Okay. Understood.
I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things! — S
For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...
...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.
Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa
Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith. — Fooloso4
S
8.7k
For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...
...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.
Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa
Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game. — S
Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!".
I mean, are you a teenager or something? — S.
Fooloso4
272
The limits of reason has been a central topic of philosophy at least since Socrates. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason provides a rational defense of the choice of faith. He saw rational proofs of the existence of God, however, as a source of disbelief because rationally they fail. Reason can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or resolve the other antinomies. Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith.
A larger question that informs such discussions is whether the world is rational and thus fully understandable through the use of reason. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does the world exist because existence is rational and non-existence is irrational? Is what happens governed by reason? Or is reason just our way of making sense of things? — Fooloso4
I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa
DingoJones
587
↪Frank Apisa
That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean. — DingoJones
Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.
Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...
...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa
Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. — Frank Apisa
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa
S
8.7k
I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa
Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse. — S
S
8.7k
Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...
...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa
No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here. — S
Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa
...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists." — Frank Apisa
↪Frank Apisa
One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are. — DingoJones
Fooloso4
274
...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists." — Frank Apisa
I do not think it is so simple. Many things that had previously been attributed to the work of God now have physical explanations in which the supernatural plays no role. Newton set out to demonstrate the hand of God at work, but it turned out that his physics left no room for the actions of God. It was the work of natural forces not God at work. There are some who appeal to some form of intelligent design, but natural explanations increasingly leave no place for the hand of God. The only place left where a God may play a role is with claims that God is the ground or source of existence. But if we ask why there must be a ground or source, something other than what is as the reason for what is, then such claims seem less likely. — Fooloso4
Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa
Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference. — S
Okay...a challenge.
Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa
Okay...a challenge.
Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa
What one takes to be likely is based on evidence and temperament. I find no evidence that leads me to think it is likely that there is a God. I have no convictions that lead me to think that there is a God. Someone else, however, may have strong convictions that there is a God and believe that everything is evidence that there is a God. For him it is not only likely that there is a God, but he does not even think it possible that there is not.
I see no way or even any reason to resolve these differences.
— Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.