The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[DirtyRed]

Where do you get this shit? Atheism is not an assertion of belief. It's an assertion of lack of belief.

No, that's agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I'm not agnostic because it is pretty fucking obvious that Bible-god is not real based on everything we have learned about the world over the last 500 years or so.

Agnostic:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Obviously, if we can obtain evidence one way or the other, we listen to it. We can be fairly certain that the Bible is hooey and obviously not accurate as a science textbook. This does not mean there is no god. Unless you can provide some evidence that there is no god of any sort, shut the hell up. Note that the lack of evidence supporting the existence of god is not the same as evidence there is no god.

So must we be agnostic about the existence of flying saucers, unicorns, reincarnation, astrology, etc. because there's no proof that they exist (work, etc), and no proof that they don't exist? Or would it be more rational to disbelieve in them until we've received sufficient proof?

Yes, though I think one could build a reasonable case that astrology is hooey. Record was astrologists divine by astrologizing or whatever, then compare their predictions to what actually happens. When we find they're talking out of their ass quite often, we can conclude that astrology is not an effective predictor of things.

But to declare something doesn't exist just because there is a lack of evidence of its existence is to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

[perman]

No, that's agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

This is a matter of definition really. While your definition of agnosticism is the accepted one, many considider theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism to be 2 separate axis producing the 4 categories gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. Theism derives from the greek word Teos meaning God. Gnosis means knowledge. Therefore agnosticism/gnosticism signifies knowledge, while theism/atheism signifies belief. In this sense, we are really all agnostics technically, since none of us really know, and those that don't consider themselves agnostics are really just overly certain about something one can't be certain about.

Richard Dawkins for instance says that even if you can't technically prove whether atheism or theism is true, that doesn't mean you have to consider theism and atheism to be equally probably claims. As such an agnostic theist is a person who doesn't know but who considers theism more likely. Conversely, an agnostic atheist also doesn't know, but considers atheism more likely.

[paterfamilias]

No, that's agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



Agnostic:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Obviously, if we can obtain evidence one way or the other, we listen to it. We can be fairly certain that the Bible is hooey and obviously not accurate as a science textbook. This does not mean there is no god. Unless you can provide some evidence that there is no god of any sort, shut the hell up. Note that the lack of evidence supporting the existence of god is not the same as evidence there is no god.



Yes, though I think one could build a reasonable case that astrology is hooey. Record was astrologists divine by astrologizing or whatever, then compare their predictions to what actually happens. When we find they're talking out of their ass quite often, we can conclude that astrology is not an effective predictor of things.

But to declare something doesn't exist just because there is a lack of evidence of its existence is to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

You are guilty of the logical fallacy of confusing your null and alternative hypotheses. The null is the absence of the effect you seek. The alternative is the effect you seek.

If you seek to determine whether there is a god, then the null is that there is no god, and the alternative is that god(s) exist(s). If evidence of the effect exists, we reject the null and conclude that the alternative is true; in the absence of evidence of the effect, we fail to reject the null. There is no need to defend the null against the claim— either there is evidence for the claim or there is not. After a certain amount of time and effort we can start to infer that a particular null probably will never be rejected. However, no matter how sure we get of that, we would still reject that null the moment evidence appeared to the contrary.

You are right that it's essentially impossible to prove a negative. That is why the process focuses on the positive claim. Someone says there is an all-powerful being? That's a positive claim for which it should be pretty easy to find some real supporting evidence.

If I told you that space monkeys fly out of my butt at night, the burden is not on you to prove it doesn't happen, and in the absence of any proof that it does, it would not be a position of faith for you to tell me, no matter how desperately I wanted it to be true, that I was talking out my ass. Nor would that lack of evidence leave you throwing up your hands and saying that neither claim had more merit.

[Adam Skillin]

But to declare something doesn't exist just because there is a lack of evidence of its existence is to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

So what if I think the chances that there's a god or gods is 1%? Am I an agnostic? What if I think the probability is more like 0.000001%? What if I'm unwilling to engage in the hubris of claiming certainty about my atheist, materialist beliefs, but really and truly get the strong sense that there's very, very probably no supernatural forces at play in the universe? Because if that doesn't make one an atheist, then I don't believe in atheists either.

[dpg]

So, instead of providing evidence that the universe is "disinterested" (a rather anthropomorphic phrase), "driven" by random events, and has "no inherent meaning" (and you knew this from a young age!) you would rather insist that I must now accept flying saucers and unicorns? Changing the argument with a straw man example is much easier than admitting that you've substituted one belief system for another, then congratulating yourself for your insight.

Not at all. I'm saying we should assume things (like flying saucers, leprechauns, and a personal god) don't exist until we have evidence that they do. Example from the legal world. If someone says, "Pluripotent is a serial killer." And I say, "What's your evidence that he is?" And the person says, "Well, what's your evidence that he isn't?." We would say that this person is breaking the rules of logic and common sense if he insists on believing that lack of disconfirmatory evidence is grounds for his belief. Just as there is no proof that you are a serial killer, so too there is no proof that the universe is "interested." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that at the helm of this vast universe with its billions of stars and trackless voids is a fatherly god that has a plan for each and every one of our lives.

[John Watson]

No, that's agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of unicorns or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in unicorns.



Agnostic:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of unicorns or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in unicorns."

Obviously, if we can obtain evidence one way or the other, we listen to it. We can be fairly certain that the Bible is hooey and obviously not accurate as a science textbook. This does not mean there is no unicorns. Unless you can provide some evidence that there is no unicorns of any sort, shut the hell up. Note that the lack of evidence supporting the existence of unicorns is not the same as evidence there is no unicorns.



Yes, though I think one could build a reasonable case that astrology is hooey. Record was astrologists divine by astrologizing or whatever, then compare their predictions to what actually happens. When we find they're talking out of their ass quite often, we can conclude that astrology is not an effective predictor of things.

But to declare something doesn't exist just because there is a lack of evidence of its existence is to draw unsubstantiated conclusions.

Feel free to substitute unicorns for Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other myth, for the same result.

[ecj]

No, that's agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

Lack of belief /= certainty that you know what does or does not exist. It just means there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of something, like Jesus or unicorns.

The agnostic makes a stronger claim that there is no way we can know this. I am not an agnostic because I think it's silly to suggest that you can be sure that we'll never figure this stuff out.

[DoctorWho]

Not at all. I'm saying we should assume things (like flying saucers, leprechauns, and a personal god) don't exist until we have evidence that they do. Example from the legal world. If someone says, "Pluripotent is a serial killer." And I say, "What's your evidence that he is?" And the person says, "Well, what's your evidence that he isn't?." We would say that this person is breaking the rules of logic and common sense if he insists on believing that lack of disconfirmatory evidence is grounds for his belief. Just as there is no proof that you are a serial killer, so too there is no proof that the universe is "interested." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that at the helm of this vast universe with its billions of stars and trackless voids is a fatherly god that has a plan for each and every one of our lives.

If I am understanding Tertius's statement, an inanimate thing cannot be interested or have inherent meaning. Some parts of the universe of course have meaning (my family to me, for example), but I don't think that is what is intended. I don't understand the random part because I think the majority view is that physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe, but I think that's a quibble because what the phrase means is that there is no god. And others have pointed to the lack of evidence but I don't think that's right, at least if "god" is broadly construed.

There is lots of subjective, anecdotal evidence from near death experiences, visions, etc. I don't think it's persuasive, but it's still evidence. And there is subjective evidence too, including the existence of matter and maybe the existence of consciousness. I don't find those persuasive either, but it's still evidence.

[George Christiansen]

Not at all. I'm saying we should assume things (like flying saucers, leprechauns, and a personal god) don't exist until we have evidence that they do. Example from the legal world. If someone says, "Pluripotent is a serial killer." And I say, "What's your evidence that he is?" And the person says, "Well, what's your evidence that he isn't?." We would say that this person is breaking the rules of logic and common sense if he insists on believing that lack of disconfirmatory evidence is grounds for his belief. Just as there is no proof that you are a serial killer, so too there is no proof that the universe is "interested." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that at the helm of this vast universe with its billions of stars and trackless voids is a fatherly god that has a plan for each and every one of our lives.

I think it is totally legitimate to put the burden of proof on anyone making an assertion and to proceed as if what they say is not true until you are convinced, but that is not the same a stating that there is no God. You have just shifted the burden of proof onto yourself.

[paterfamilias]

There is lots of subjective, anecdotal evidence from near death experiences, visions, etc. I don't think it's persuasive, but it's still evidence. And there is subjective evidence too, including the existence of matter and maybe the existence of consciousness. I don't find those persuasive either, but it's still evidence.

The multiple of anecdote is not data, unfortunately, and you are right not to find those examples persuasive. Near-death experiences and other visions are informed by our pre-existing belief systems and vary accordingly from people to people. So if near-death experiences and visions are evidence for a belief system, then they are evidence for every belief system simultaneously. Taken to the extreme, that logic suggests that anything anyone has ever hallucinated is true.