when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos
This is painfully bad commentary but as you are Catholic, it is unsurprising. — AmadeusD
Most atheists I know found the famous four fairly underwhelming as thinkers, more like good polemicists — Tom Storm
One can certainly withhold judgement with regard to God's existence. IMO, this entails considering both God's existence and nonexistence as live possibilities. — Relativist
That's a good point, one that overlooked. It's another very good reason to withhold judgement.The God-concept is too indeterminate in my mind to hold any clear convictions. — Dawnstorm
What about a narrow definition, such as a being that intentionally created the universe, by choice?A lot of atheists ask for evidence, but I have trouble with that. I'd need some operable definition to stand in for my intuition; but I feel like the concept is such that if you can define it clearly enough so that asking for evidence makes sense, it ceases to be God. The scope's too big for evidence. — Dawnstorm
By "prima facie", do you mean - before all other beliefs are considered? If so, that just seems to say that all logical possibilities should be on the table. But they ought not to remain on the table for long. You based your belief on knowing your wife. — Relativist
I don't know your wife, but I feel pretty strongly that no extraterrestrial aliens that look like humans have ever come to earth, so I feel justified in believing she's not an alien, — Relativist
We agree that the rock is something we ought to withhold judgement (or abstain) on.
We also agree that your belief that your wife isn't an alien is reasonable. I hope you agree that MY belief about your wife is also reasonable, in that it follows from my prior belief about aliens. — Relativist
It's logically possible your wife's an alien, but logical possibility is too weak to support a belief or even a suspicion. — Relativist
Similarly with unicorns and gods. — Relativist
Sure, a different epistemological process is fine, as long as it's a methodology that tends to lead to truth. — Relativist
I don't preclude using the term think "agnostic", but I think it's useful to describe what one is agnostic about. As I said, I am agnostic to deism - although you disagree with me saying that, I guess. — Relativist
Unhelpful for what? As I said, I think the terms we use to describe ourselves are nothing more than imperfect introductions to our positions. Adhering to your preferred semantics doesn't seem like it would make the terms any more than that, either. I've described my position in a bit of detail, and I don't think your terms (anti-theist/deist) captures it any better than "atheist agnostic-deist, and possibly even worse. — Relativist
I am in no doubt about my lack of belief. I am certain/confident that the gods I am aware of don’t exist. The Abrahamic, the ancient and the Hindu. But I cannot talk to versions of God I have not heard of yet. — Tom Storm
People in most cases should be allowed to choose their preferred appellation. — Tom Storm
I personally think the idea that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe the proposition that gods exist is a vast improvement on those who say, There Is No God. — Tom Storm
What about a narrow definition, such as a being that intentionally created the universe, by choice?
There's no empirical evidence, but one might infer this as a viable explanatory hypothesis for the existence of a universe that permits the development and existence of intelligent life. — Relativist
I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist. — Leontiskos
In some ways this is merely about the meaning of words. — Leontiskos
I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist — Leontiskos
Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino
I'm new to Reddit. — Tom Storm
I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. — Tom Storm
Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?' — Tom Storm
Why does it matter if someone calls itself "atheist". If by "atheist" they don't mean someone who denies the existence of God, so what? If they explain what they mean by it, why the fixation? So you can go and say "Well so you are not an actual atheist!"? It is childish and unproductive. — Lionino
Thanks. Read it. I see the argument but I'm not sure it matters. I still believe there's something interesting and useful in the agnostic atheist category. I'll mull over it. — Tom Storm
The irony burns.(including things like ↪AmadeusD's childish posts and ad hominem). — Leontiskos
These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one. — AmadeusD
Belief is connected to knowledge through rationality. — Hallucinogen
If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant. — Tom Storm
Agreed.without reason nothing changes about what's on the table. — AmadeusD
This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?That's a reason to think it's unlikely, but you have no knowledge, and so a belief is unwarranted. — AmadeusD
Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her.I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? There seems to be a black and white fallacy here - you're importing a belief into my wording where there isn't any. Confusing a bit. — AmadeusD
Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero.an exact cabbage shaped rock on the moon, corresponding with the one in my fridge? Come on... — AmadeusD
Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien.I don't believe she is. I don't believe she isn't. Again - what's hte problem? — AmadeusD
OK, then my comments apply only to those of us who HAVE given serious consideration to these hypothetical existents. After such consideration, if they are left with mere logical possibility, then I think the appropriate belief is "doesn't exist". A key point I mentioned earlier is that beliefs aren't incorrigible. We should remain open to revising belief when we learn more. A corrollary: beliefs do not reflect certainty (certainty reflects incorrigibility).Both logically possible though, so I simply give them no serious thought. I don't 'believe' anything about htem. — AmadeusD
You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?)If there is no observability/falsifiability in the concept (Theistic God) there is no truth to be lead to. — AmadeusD
...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions.This is because, as far as I'm concerned (and, I don't actually see this as an interpretation) you are misusing the word/s — AmadeusD
You're arguing that the label "agnostic deist" is incoherent, but my impression is that it's only incoherent to someone who accepts your preferred semantics. I made up the term "agnostic deist", I didn't borrow it from someone else - and when I use the term, I explain what I mean. So what's the problem?Your final sentence here is an answer to your first. Its entirely incoherent and seems to just absolutely ignore the linguistic inaccuracy and falseness, relative to your expounded position. If you believe in a theistic God, you cannot be an atheist. If you believe in the material, mind-independent world, you cannot be an idealist. If you entertain a deistic God, you cannot also be agnostic because the deistic God is discoverable. They are incompatible positions. — AmadeusD
Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is.Look, your point is taken, but I see it as an attempt to maintain incongruent positions because you can use language that refers to things you are not entitled to refer yourself to, — AmadeusD
It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. — AmadeusD
But no, I'm not saying everything is black and white. There's also gray area, but there need to be reasons to be in the gray area. Mere logical possibility is not enough. Do you disagree? — Relativist
This is a key point: what is needed to warrant belief in something's nonexistence?
It's not true that I have no knowledge. For example, I know:
-the speed of light provides a limit to how far aliens could travel
-our physical characteristics are a product of our evolutionary history, and therefore the chances aliens with human intelligence and appearance is vanishingly small. — Relativist
Did I misunderstand? I thought you actually believe your wife is human, warranted by your knowledge of her. — Relativist
Either she's a human or an alien. Your warrant for believing she's human is also warrant for believing she's not an alien. — Relativist
You seem to be saying that one should deny the existence of a Theistic God if one believes there are no observables (=empirical evidence?) and if it's not falsifiable (through other empirical evidence?) — Relativist
Of course not. I've been discussing this in terms of approximation. The chances of finding one with the exact shape (down to the molecular level) are zero. — Relativist
This means I accept that there can be non-evidential warrant. — Relativist
...per your preferred semantics. Notice that despite this, I've been able to describe my positions to you, and you are free to attach whatever label you like, consistent with those positions. — Relativist
So what's the problem, other than my not being interested in using your terms. — Relativist
I am open to using different terminology to self-define, other than "agnostic deist", as long as it tells just as much about my position as does this one. I'm not open to using a different term merely to fit a semantics you've devised, particular your insistence that I call myself a "deist" despite the fact that I think it pretty unlikely that there is any kind of deity at all. That would mislead far more people than does "agnostic deist". — Relativist
Why are you claiming I'm maintaining an "incongruent position"? What's incongruent about considering deism a live possibility, but unlikely? I get that you don't like the label I use, but that has no bearing on what my position is. — Relativist
It's not the definitions, it's that the definition precludes...
Did this come out the way you intended? It's contradictory. — Relativist
But I agree that one cannot be both a deist and claim gods are unknowable. But that's why it's inappropriate to call me a deist - so you erred in insisting I should have that label. My label more accurately conveys my position: I'm an "agnostic deist" meaning that I'm agnostic as to deism. — Relativist
I do not claim you must use that term. I claim your term is wrong, and we/you need a new one for the position you hold. I stick to that.Perfect example is that final sentence I noted - I didn't suggest it was an accurate label. I illustrated that the words we currently use do not capture your position - not because it doesn't fit into the definitions, but because the definitions actively preclude a deist from claiming God is not knowable. I suggested a new set of words to illustrate positions relative to deism, and separately, theism. — AmadeusD
What's the criteria? — AmadeusD
Cogito, ergo, sum. LOL — AmadeusD
Baptism. I don't know how it is for converts. But for people baptised as a baby, just that is not enough, you must go through catechism to receive the eucharisty and then confirmation — otherwise you are just a non-practicing Catholic which might as well be apostate — Lionino
Well in that case you become by thinking, not by saying; non sum quia dico, sed quia cogito. :^) — Lionino
This is not my experience of the Catholic view. They are Catholics-in-waiting — AmadeusD
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.