Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
And look at who answered...
Like a fly to feces...
rmfr
@Sapporo
"Lacking a belief that gods exist does not mean you believe reality has no gods,..."
Consider the following statements:
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
You seem to be having a problem in following what I had considered to be a relatively simple point. You seem to be thinking that I was suggesting that lacking a belief in A implies believing B is true. But that is not the case. If you consider the three options provided about the statements (given the assumption that the person believes in existence).
1) a belief that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) a belief that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
then perhaps you can, with my help, notice that with option (2) the person lacks a belief that gods exists, and does believe reality has no gods, but with option (3) the person lacks a belief that gods exist, but does not believe reality has no gods. And understand that there was no suggestion that a lack of belief that gods exists implies a belief that reality has no gods.
Knowing a person lacks a belief in A, does not inform you of whether they believe in B or not. Any more than knowing a person lacks a belief in B informs you of whether they believe in A or not. So if you were to ask a person whether they believe in A, they are not answering the question by informing you they lack a belief in B. Likewise if you were to ask a person whether they believe in B, they are not answering the question by informing you they lack a belief in A (which is what has been going on with Sheldon). Is this blowing you tiny little atheist mind, or can you get your head around it?
Remember, we have already defined this for you.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a relationship with reality.
As you Absolutists are so fond of doing, let's shift the burden of proof.
Please prove both statements below. You must prove both, because atheists have no beliefs, only facts.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
rmfr
@Someone,
It is possible for example to know that gods don't exist in reality. That would not be a belief statement.
Lacking a belief that gods exist does not mean you believe reality has no gods, nor does it mean that you don't know that the whole topic is nothing more than metaphysical bullshit.
The concept of the supernatural is metaphysical bullshit.
I don't have a belief that reality has no gods - I know that the supernatural does not exist in reality. I lack a belief that reality has gods. It would be wrong to say that I don't know whether A) or B) is true. It is meaningless to ask me if I have a belief about something that I know is logically impossible.
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
Several posters have explained to someone, that you can disbelieve A without believing B. Breezy used to do this all the time, insist that not believing something was a contrary belief. It's just a feeble attempt to reverse the burden of proof, and someone would have to either not understand the philosophical burden of proof at all, or simply be dishonest to use this nonsense.
I don't believe A because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. This is not a belief of course, so B is not relevant to my disbelief of A.
@Sapporo
You can claim to know that there were no gods, but it would still be a belief
It would only be knowledge if it were a true belief, and you could justify claiming that you were infallible in what you claimed. I don't believe it is a true belief, and you cannot logically justify your claim that it is. Even if my belief was wrong, and you could logically justify your claim, then it would still be a belief, it would just simply be a belief you could justifiably claim to be true.
Though rather than waste time discussing the point with you (maybe read https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ if you are interested) I can simply change the options (incidentally I notice the ones you wrote were not the ones in the post you were replying to)
1) believe or claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe or claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
I assume with these new options you are taking position (2) regarding statements (A) and (B). Am I right?
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
"A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities."
B is irrelevant as it is epistemologically sound to disbelieve A without holding any beliefs about B.
That would be option (3); to lack a belief in (A) and to lack a belief in (B).
Your original 3 was:
That does not apply to Sheldon.
@Sapporo
Sheldon was replying to post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... which had the options:
1) believe or claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe or claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
and not holding a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is, is logically identical to; lacking a belief in (A) and lacking a belief in (B).
"That would be option (3).... to lack a belief in (B)."
No it wouldn't, read my response again.
"B is irrelevant as it is epistemologically sound to disbelieve A ***without holding any beliefs about B.***"
I am ignoring the option of disbelieving in existence and therefore reality, and therefore considering (A) and (B) to be false.
Option (3) is not to lack a belief in (B), it is to lack a belief in (A) AND to lack a belief in (B).
The reason it is important to realise that Option (3) implies lacking a belief in (A) AND lacking a belief in (B) and not just lacking a belief in (B) is that:
If it was just lacking a belief in (B) it would allow for the option of believing (B) is false, as well the option of not holding a belief as to whether (B) is true or false.
But with it implying a lack a belief in (A) AND a lack of belief in (B) there is no option of believing (B) is false, as that would imply a belief in (A). It only leaves the option of not holding a belief as to whether (B) is true or false. So option (3) implies a lack of belief as to whether (A) is true or false, and a lack of belief in whether (B) is true or false.
Alternatively if by disbelieving (A) you meant believing (A) is false then that implies believing (B) is true. And so there would be a belief in (B).
Sadly you're simply repeating yourself, and ignoring what I have said. So I'll try again.
I disbelieve A, but have no belief about B. That's my position. It is false to claim then this implies anything about B, as I have stated unequivocally several times. As I said, not believing a claim (A) does not require one hold a contrary belief (B). Here it is again for you then...
"B is irrelevant as it is epistemologically sound to disbelieve A ***without holding any beliefs about B.***"
Try this from Descartes
He distinguishes knowledge and doubt as follows: "there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason. (1640 letter to Regius, AT 3:65)
Thus doubt can have conviction without knowledge, a claim can be disbelieved based on it not being properly evidenced, no knowledge of the claim beyond this is necessary.
Claim A is disbelieved as no can demonstrate sufficient evidence commensurate to the claim, claim B is an opposite claim, and I need neither believe nor disbelieve this in order to disbelieve A.
@Sheldon
[Again, I am ignoring the option of disbelieving in existence and therefore reality, and therefore considering (A) and (B) to be false]
My answer depends on what you mean by disbelieve.
When you write "I disbelieve A", if disbelieve is interpreted as simply a lack of belief, you are simply stating that you lack a belief in A. That is fine, and there are two logical possibilities which are compatible with that position:
a) You think A is false.
b) You lack a belief as to whether A is true or false.
But (a) is not compatible with not holding any beliefs about B. So that only leaves you with (b), and option (3) where you do not hold any beliefs about A or B.
The only other interpretation of "I disbelieve A" that I can think of is that you mean you think A is false. But that is not logically compatible with not holding any beliefs about B because it implies believing B is true.
If you disagree perhaps explain whether by "disbelieve A" you meant lack a belief that A is true, and point out what logical option not provided in my reply that you would go for.
You wrote:
---
Claim A is disbelieved as no can demonstrate sufficient evidence commensurate to the claim, claim B is an opposite claim, and I need neither believe nor disbelieve this in order to disbelieve A.
---
Assuming you are not going to claim that you are unaware of whether you believe A is false or whether you hold no belief regarding its veracity: The only logical options are for you to either believe or hold no belief regarding the veracity of B, depending on whether you thought A was false, or whether you held no belief regarding the veracity of A.
@Someone:
Do you think using letters to label statements about other statements labeled with letters is a good idea?
@Nyarlathotep
I was assuming people on the forum could notice that some statements had capital letters as labels, and others had lower case letters. Though given the kind of replies I've been getting, I suppose I should share your concern that I might be expecting a bit much of those on this forum. I assume you managed to follow it. Though I don't remember you ever answering whether given statements (and yes I am using them as statements now rather than belief statements)
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
and
B) Reality is one without any deities.
and ignoring the option of disbelieving in existence and therefore reality, and therefore considering (A) and (B) to be false, whether you consider option
1) believe or claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe or claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
or
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
to best describe your position. Could you perhaps answer? (if your position is that you deny existence then just state that instead).
Or
If you find the options tricky, perhaps just answer whether you believe or claim to know (B) is true.
What you have written on the subject is a mess, imo.
Consider:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly this is a contradiction, so it must be false
----------------------------------------------------------------
This seems to bring you back to my earlier comment about fractional deities.
----------------------------------------------------------------
That said, I'll do my best:
I'd be willing to wager everything I own vs $0.01 that god is not real. That makes me an atheist according to what I've been told (by theists) my whole life. If you don't think that makes me an atheist, take it up with them, not me. I won't argue the definition; and I will not entertain the shady tactic of shrinking the definition to the point where it no longer describes me.
So you believe that no deities exist, that is ok.
So if you don't mind I'll just reword the statements (I cannot see why it would affect your answer)
A) At least one deity exists
B) No deities exist
And from the options
1) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
or
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or false or whether (B) is true or false.
From what you wrote it seems clear you are choosing option (2).
I assume you prefer a definition of atheism that indicates a lack of belief in A rather than a definition that indicates a belief in B.
If my assumption is correct, then my question then is, why do you prefer a definition of atheism that indicates that you do not believe in A over a definition that indicates you do believe in B? Because the former does not make clear which position you take (it could be position (2) or (3)), whereas the latter does (it indicates it is (2)).
Do not think that there is less of a burden of proof for your belief in (B) than there is a burden of proof for a person that believes (A)?
@Someone reality, nature, existence are all the same thing as far as I'm concerned. If you define something as supernatural, I can tell you I know it does not exist.
An issue you have is that you are treating the supernatural as something which are defined as phenomenal, and thus a person can believe or disbelieve in it based on the nature of evidence. But the supernatural is not phenomenal. I know it does not exist in the same sense I know that Euclidian triangles with interior angles adding up to anything other than 180 degrees do not exist. Based on the simple meaning of words, I know the supernatural does not exist in reality. It is a simple matter of logic for me to know this.
There is zero evidence for the supernatural existing in reality for the simple reason that it is meaningless to say that non-phenomenal things exist. It isn't so much that the onus of proof is on you to prove that the non-phenomenal things exist - it's that it would be impossible for you to even attempt to try.
A claim is false until established otherwise. If you claim the supernatural exists, you should define it in a way that it is at least falsifiable.
I did not choose (2).
I did not report a belief in (B).
I did not report a preference for a definition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you should consider what people write; instead of just assigning positions to other people.
@Someone
I most certainly do not want to speak for anyone else here, so, for my thoughts, that I think is likely others here share at least on some level:
Many people including myself are hesitant to say option 2. I think we all recognize that we do not know everything, and anything is possible. A direct, honest answer is to say we have no opinion on 2, or someone could say we are being arrogant and only someone omnipotent could possibly know for true 100% certainty that anything is true or not.
I personally decided when the odds hit 1 in a very large number, that I am willing to round down to zero. Why? As I stated in earlier posts, for important nearly everything, especially in areas people consider deities imply (meaning of life stuff!) I consider the odds to be so remote, I need to operate and function as 0. Not 1 in a trillion.
I also think Nylar's point is another good way of putting it: I am willing to bet everything, all I own, all my current and future worldly possessions and my life, everything that is important to me, on a bet that someone's particular idea of the commonly held definition of god does not exist in any shape or form on a mere 1 cent bet. That is how confident I am that there is no god. I am not omnipotent in anyway, I can not possibly know for 100%
It is also a silly bet as most people's definition of their god include unfalsifiable premises. So neither side could ever hope to collect on such a bet.
Disbelieve is in the dictionary I'm sure. Disbelief in A as I've explained is epistemological consistent with holding no beliefs about B. The absence or lack of belief in A deity does not require that an atheist hold a contrary or opposite belief.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with this simple fact. Again if you do a little basic research on epistemology and the burden of proof you'll see your attempts to insist that people must choose a belief about B after stating they disbelieve A, is logically and epistemologically fallacious.
"The only logical options are for you to either believe or hold no belief regarding the veracity of B,"
I have stated plainly in the last half dozen responses that I hold no beliefs about B. You have insisted I must choose whether I belivevit is true or not if I disbelieve A, but this is not the case. I disbelieve A because it is not supported by any objective evidence.
Atheism is that lack or absence of belief in A deity or deities. As I have stayed this is its primary definition, and that reflects my position.
Your claim in B is a belief that is contrary to the belief in A. I don't need to hold any beliefs in B in order to disbelieve A.
The best analogy is a legal one.
The claim is one of guilt.
The verdict is either belief in guilt or no belief in guilt (not guilty). It is not necessary to know or believe that the accused is innocent in order to belief there is insufficient evidence to believe they are guilty.
@Sheldon
You wrote:
---
The best analogy is a legal one.
The claim is one of guilt.
The verdict is either belief in guilt or no belief in guilt (not guilty). It is not necessary to know or believe that the accused is innocent in order to belief there is insufficient evidence to believe they are guilty.
---
The law isn't a good analogy, at least criminal law is not. Civil law would be fine. The difference is the burden of proof in criminal law. That it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Which means that the verdict is not either belief in guilt or no belief in guilt. A finding of not guilty is not the same as no belief in guilt. A juror could believe the person to be guilty, but not consider their belief to be beyond reasonable doubt, and so return a verdict of not guilty. So there you made the error of fallacy of analogy. As in the case that you are claiming it is analogous to there is nothing analogous to the criteria that it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The atheist can just have a gut feeling that reality is one without any deities. However I can charitably assume you were imagining that the person would withhold belief in the accused's guilt unless they believed the evidence indicated their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In which case the analogy would be fine. But all that would be indicating is that for statement P it is not necessary to believe ¬P in order to disbelieve (lack a belief in) P. But that was covered in the post you were replying to. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
---
When you write "I disbelieve A", if disbelieve is interpreted as simply a lack of belief, you are simply stating that you lack a belief in A. That is fine, and there are two logical possibilities which are compatible with that position:
a) You think A is false.
b) You lack a belief as to whether A is true or false.
But (a) is not compatible with not holding any beliefs about B. So that only leaves you with (b), and option (3) where you do not hold any beliefs about A or B.
---
There with option (b) the person was lacking a belief in (A) and lacking a belief in (B). So you were just effectively repeating what I had already stated.
Since statements (A) and (B) both have the same implicit assumption in them as originally written, I will re-write them to remove it (as it saves me keep writing stuff like "[Again, I am ignoring the option of disbelieving in existence and therefore reality, and therefore considering (A) and (B) to be false]" and avoids you taking that position and not mentioning it)
A) At least one deity exists.
B) No deities exist.
So B = ¬A. In other words B is the logical complement of A.
Now regarding beliefs about a statement, there are three options, assuming the person is not going to argue that they could believe it to be true or believe it to be false, but not be aware of the belief.
(1) To believe it to be true
(2) To believe it to be false
(3) To lack a belief as to whether it is true or false.
(Ignoring any claims that people do not believe what they know)
Given that, with statement P and its logical complement ¬P there are only then three logical options.
(1) To believe P to be true and to believe ¬P is false
(2) To believe P is false and to believe ¬P is true
(3) To lack a belief as to whether P is true or false and to lack a belief as to whether ¬P is true or false.
You have claimed that you disbelieve in A and lack any beliefs in ¬A.
The only option that is compatible with that is option (3).
You've missed the point of the analogy which was nothing to do with the level of evidence required. It was just to illustrate that not believing something does not mean that you have to believe a contrary or opposite claim. There was no fallacy, just an analogy you misunderstood.
I disbelieve option A. This need not involve any belief about B. This is logically and epistemologically sound. Again you need to research this so you can see your error.
I have already linked several sites explaining your claim is spurious. Of course you just keep repeating your claim without addressing this.
Atheism is a lack of belief, and need not involve a contrary belief as you keep erroneously insisting.
Who knows why you think you can tell atheists what they must and must not believe, but you're wrong.
@ Sheldon
You seem to me to be lying again. You claim I missed the point of the analogy and that:
---
It was just to illustrate that not believing something does not mean that you have to believe a contrary or opposite claim.
---
But in my reply about the analogy I wrote http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
---
However I can charitably assume you were imagining that the person would withhold belief in the accused's guilt unless they believed the evidence indicated their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In which case the analogy would be fine. But all that would be indicating is that for statement P it is not necessary to believe ¬P in order to disbelieve (lack a belief in) P.
---
Indicating that I understood that the analogy could have been meant to indicate that for statement P it is not necessary to believe ¬P in order to disbelieve (lack a belief in) P. I also went onto point out that I had already indicated that in previous posts. It seems you are just repeating some obvious thing. Why would you do such a thing? My guess is that you hope readers read what you wrote and think "oh Sheldon is right there, it is not necessary to believe ¬P in order to lack a belief in P" and think that you are not only holding your own but pointing out things out to me. So I also guess you hope they are too lazy to read what you were replying to, so that they don't go "what is Sheldon talking about Someone has already made that point". If they were to check more deeply they might even notice that Someone pointed that out in the first post they made on this thread http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... . Option 3 was intended as an example of a position where a person did not believe ¬P and lacked a belief in P. So stop effectively stating what I had already effectively illustrated in the first post in this thread. Option (3) was intended to be an example of an option which was compatible with lacking a belief in A and not involving any belief about B.
So writing things like
---
I disbelieve option A. This need not involve any belief about B. This is logically and epistemologically sound. Again you need to research this so you can see your error.
---
is silly and deceptive, since it gives the impression that I might have denied the option but I haven't once during this conversation, and have been pointing out that a disbelief in option A need not involve any belief about B throughout, usually labelled as option (3).
In the post you were replying to I pointed out that option (3) was the only option that you have where that would be the case. In http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag... I wrote:
---
Now regarding beliefs about a statement, there are three options, assuming the person is not going to argue that they could believe it to be true or believe it to be false, but not be aware of the belief.
(1) To believe it to be true
(2) To believe it to be false
(3) To lack a belief as to whether it is true or false.
(Ignoring any claims that people do not believe what they know)
Given that, with statement P and its logical complement ¬P there are only then three logical options.
(1) To believe P to be true and to believe ¬P is false
(2) To believe P is false and to believe ¬P is true
(3) To lack a belief as to whether P is true or false and to lack a belief as to whether ¬P is true or false.
You have claimed that you disbelieve in A and lack any beliefs in ¬A.
The only option that is compatible with that is option (3).
---
You cannot provide a different logical option other than (3) assuming that you are not going to going try to argue that they could believe it to be true or believe it to be false, but not be aware of the belief. So don't pretend that I have given you the impression that I am denying that option (3) is possible.
If readers are still not clear why option (3) (assuming that the person is not going to going try to argue that they could believe P to be true or believe it to be false, but not be aware of the belief) is the only option compatible with the position Sheldon claimed to have which was a disbelief in A and a lack of any belief about ¬A, then I will try to explain further.
Lacking a belief in A rules out taking position (1). But there are still two options (2) and (3). But only one of them also has a lack of any belief about ¬A and that is option (3).
People might notice now, that a few atheists have started to admit that they take position (2) (though also notice how long it took!). That option is not now open to Sheldon without admitting he has lied. Because while it is compatible with lacking a belief in A, it is not compatible with lacking any belief in ¬A.
You might wonder why he doesn't accept that the only logical option compatible with his position is position (3), or point out a logical alternative.
I suspect he did lie, but now cannot go back and claim position (2) without it being obvious AND doesn't want to be saddled with publicly stating he lacks a belief in the statement no deities exist.
Anyway I've decided not to continue on posting on this thread, though I will probably monitor the Evidence for Design thread http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design for a bit. But I my time is limited, and this has taken up quite a bit. I don't consider this a war despite what a suggestion on the evidence thread may have sounded like. We are all just beings making sense of the experience. Hope that regardless of whether you believe in any deities or not you choose to follow the loving selfless path, but if not then it is your existence I guess.
@Someone
To use your court analogy...
The case wouldn't even go to trial, because the question is unfalsifiable, and would be known to be meaningless.
Before you ask your question, you need to define "deity" in a way that is falsifiable. It is meaningless to ask someone if they know if something non-phenomenal does or does not exist in the phenomenal world. By definition, the non-phenomenal does not exist in the phenomenal world.
For me, reality and the natural world are the same thing. It is not a belief to say that the supernatural is not a part of the natural world - this is something I know to be true. Saying that reality contains supernatural elements is oxymoronic.
I know that the supernatural can never be elements of reality. Any attempt at presenting tangible evidence of the supernatural would be self-defeating.
@Sapporo
I assume you were replying to http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheist-world-view?pag...
Given the statements:
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
And the modified options
1) believe or claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2) believe or claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
You did not confirm that you are taking position (2), but you were weren't you, because you claimed you knew (A) was false which implies you were claiming knew (B) to be true. Could you just confirm?
@Someone, you need to make your contrived options be about belief OR knowledge, not a hodge-podge of both. You should also state what you mean by 'reality'.
You have previously implied that experience is synonymous with reality. I have already told you that I know the supernatural can never be experienced within reality.
I do not have a belief that reality is one without deities. I know that reality is without deities. Similarly, I know that the interior angles of an Euclidian triangle always add up to 180 degrees.
@Sapporo
You wrote:
---
@Someone, you need to make your contrived options be about belief OR knowledge, not a hodge-podge of both.
---
No I don't. They are fine as they are for my purposes. But I will oblige so as not to give you an excuse for not confirming again.
You also wrote:
---
You should also state what you mean by 'reality'.
---
For the purposes of this question you can consider me to mean whatever has existed and/or whatever exists.
So for the readers convenience, I will ask you again. Given the statements:
A) Reality is one with one or more deities.
B) Reality is one without any deities.
And the modified options
1a) believe that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
1b) claim to know that (A) is true and therefore (B) is false
2a) believe that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
2b) claim to know that (B) is true and therefore (A) is false
3) do not hold a belief on whether (A) is true or whether (B) is
You did not confirm that you are taking position (2b), but you were weren't you, because you claimed you knew (A) was false which implies you were claiming knew (B) to be true. Could you just confirm?
Pages