Weak atheism..

Originally posted by docb77
Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

If a person bets on the wrong god, then the true god just might punish them for their foolish behavior. The true god might not mind that people don’ t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons. Thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bardock, the difference with agnostics is that they have seen all the evidence and say "I'm not sure." A 'weak' atheist is not giving any room for there to be one. He says, definitvely, God does not exist and the reasoning for that is the total lack of evidence. An agnostic says that the lack of evidence doesn't make it impossible. (A weak atheist would reply that whilst that is literally true, it isn't rational to believe in things, or even the possibility of things, simply because they cannot be actively disproved).

But only a 'strong' atheist is saying he has an actual reason that proves (or at least strongly suggests) that there is not one. Only he says "I have here reason X, and reason X proves that there can be no God."

Yes, I understand what weak atheism means, but I am just saying that weak atheism can very well be (and most often is) an agnostic view. Agnostics think that there either can't be or that there is no proof for God at the moment. So to be a weak atheists already includes being an agnostic. I suppose the difference is important to point out against agnostics who have faith in God, but it is still part of agnosticism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Theists says there is a God

Atheists say they are wrong.

It is therefore the Theist who must produce evidence in such a situation.

I am aware that there is no way to prove a negative.

I don't like the "Atheists say they are wrong" because in my opinion Atheists say that God doesn't exist, despite anyone else claiming there is a God (Sure, probably no one would really think of God but still....) .

Originally posted by Lana
No.

The stance of "weak" atheism is that they personally do not believe in god. They don't definitively state that a god cannot exist. As I said, there is a difference between "I do not believe in god" and "God cannot exist."

= agnosticism (one form of it at least)

Originally posted by docb77
God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

Believing in God is not a choice though....sure it is safer (well, except the Hindus are right and by "choosing" the Christian god you will be born again as an Ant), but if you don't believe in God can you just make yourself believe? ...no you can't.

Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism.

Originally posted by Storm
Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism.

Yes...

But, isn't weak atheism always agnosticism?

Originally posted by docb77
...Saying you don't know if you don't know sounds like the most logical course.

I agree that it is the best, most honest place to start.

Truth is, I've decided that science can never actually prove anything. Science is only good for disproving things. That's why we're still calling things theories after eons. We trust gravity, it's never failed us so far, but if it could ever be shown that our present understanding were incorrect, the theory would have to be altered.

Realistically, Science does not pursue "truth," it pursues accuracy. It is the best we finite beings can do, so we hope and accept (until shown otherwise) that as our keyhole-view of the universe grows, we will be able to continually refine our maps.

Logically it's the same with the existence of God. The burden is on the one making the claim. You make your hypothesis, then you gather data. There really is no default position.

Skepticism isn't always the default. If I said that I'd visited south america do you automatically assume that I'm lying? Or do you reply, "Oh, that's interesting. What part?" For most people it's the latter. If there's no reason to disbelieve someone, most people trust. So are the sources saying there's a god trustworthy? That's the real question.

IMO, thinking merely in terms of economy of energy, the default position is the most logical. Why believe in something if there's no reason to? Unlike a visit to south america--which is an entirely plausible thing for a person to be able to do (and even here, the person could be lying, or hallucinating, both of which are confounding variables)--"God" is a whole other ballgame, for reasons which I believe are obvious.

Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

Pascal was a believer, very much devoted to the Christian concept of God. He was looking to convince people by scaring them with logic (proceeding from non-neutral premises). Automatically, IMO, this nullifies Occam's Razor, because the simpler position would be to take the neutral stance: "I Don't Know" (to get back to your first point).

From the position of "I Don't Know"--and then further applying Occam's Razor by not making any a priori assumptions about the nature/personality of God (eg, "If you don't believe in Me, when you die I'm gonna git you, sucka"😉--one can proceed with a position where, I feel, believing is the more practical bet.

God Exists...
- you believe, you have the satisfaction of being right. Period.
- you don't believe, you find out you're wrong. Period.

God Doesn't Exist...
- whether you believed or not, you'll never know it. End of story.

Again, I would argue for the practical benefits of believing while alive (ie, larger map of reality; source of comfort/healing in times of loss/suffering). As Bardock said in an earlier post, "Atheist or Religious is just kidding one self..." Why? Because, ultimately, while we are here, We Don't Know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...

But, isn't weak atheism always agnosticism?

No it is not.

Agnosticism is "I do not know whether there is a god or not and have seen no evidence to suggest that one does exist - or doesn't, for that matter. One may exist, but I do not know."

'Weak' atheism is "There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists and I do not believe one does or can exist."

'Strong' atheism is "There is no god, one cannot exist, and this, this, and this is evidence to prove it."

See the differences? Agnosticism acknowledges that one could exist but you just don't know either way. Atheism states that one does NOT exist. The only thing that differs in the two views of atheism presented are the reasons for this - lack of evidence for the existance of a god, or evidence that shows one cannot exist.

Its not really terribly complicated if you think about it.

Originally posted by Lana
No it is not.

Agnosticism is "I do not know whether there is a god or not and have seen no evidence to suggest that one does exist - or doesn't, for that matter. One may exist, but I do not know."

'Weak' atheism is "There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists and I do not believe one does or can exist."

'Strong' atheism is "There is no god, one cannot exist, and this, this, and this is evidence to prove it."

See the differences? Agnosticism acknowledges that one could exist but you just don't know either way. Atheism states that one does NOT exist. The only thing that differs in the two views of atheism presented are the reasons for this - lack of evidence for the existance of a god, or evidence that shows one cannot exist.

I see. So weak atheism is only if you think that there is 100% no God, because there is no evidence...

Okay, makes sense.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Many things wrong with this.
First off you are Mis-interpreting a null hypothosis.
This is not disproving a negative, it is your basic assumption that you are trying to find strong evidence (P-value of .05 or less) against.
For example A null hypothosis for God (which is rather silly to look at as a theistical being and statistics don't mix rather well) would look something like this,
(bear with me as I can't do Greek letters and subtext's in this)
if Mew (represented by M)=the existance of god.
then the Null hypothosis or H (sub) o :M=1
and the Alternative Hypothosis would be H (sub)a :M<1
or that god does not exist.
Then you would do test and get data (This is where the statistics part gets a bit messed up, Can't get hard evidence for this)
Run some calculations and get some strange numbers. For example a P-value, which is basically the probability that the numbers you got came up by chance. And if this number is low enough (>.05) then you can legally (thats true, court systems only accept p-values lower than .05) say that there is Strong Evidence against the Null Hypothosis.
Get it?

Therefore the fact remains that you can't prove a negative. And comparing God to vacations is dumb. People go on vacations and they go to South America. I know what South America is, and generally, what goes on there. I have seen it, and I can test its existance.
God is different. No-one has seen god, heard god or smelt god, or tasted god even felt god. There is no evidence to give me any sort of bearing to latch on to if you say "There is a God." this lack of sustanable evidence of anything leads to the default of skepticism. If you said for example "I went to Paratizakastan" I, having never heard seen or otherwise experienced this place, and having a rather good grasp of Geography would have to call Bullshit.

Now for some theoreticals. Lets pretend God exists.
and you believe in him simply as a saftey net. Part of Pascals wager. Don't you think that he would be a BIT pissed off that you only believed in him because of the fear that you could be wrong? A rather selfish reason to believe in something that wants you to love him and lead a good life and all that crap. I wouldn't think God would enjoy being believed in as a saftey net. I think its much better to stick to your guns, and defend what you thing. And it would be more honorable than say using him as a free insurance policy.

Thanks for the clear up, admittedly it's been about 10 years since I took statistics. I remembered the null hypothesis as being just the opposite of the stated hypothesis.

I wasn't comparing God to vacations. I was comparing evidence of God existing to evidence of having visited another place. How is God different? There have been people who have seenor heard him - Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Stephen. My previous question stands. The real question is whether or not they are trustworthy or not.

I think the main thing is that you're right about not being able to gain reproducible data. I do think a person can prove the existence of God to him/herself, but I have never seen an instance where it could be proved to another person.

On the other hand, It would be impossible to actually disprove the existence of God to either oneself or another. Lack of data not being actual data and all. Wasn't there a guy a few years ago that actually did try to mathematically prove God? Maybe I'm just remembering things.

As far as God being pissed if that were the only reason, probably. But as I understand it, the wager doesn't actually deal with motives. The "true believer" should get some reward, while the nonbeliever would not get that same reward. PS - Pascal's wager isn't the reason I believe, it's just an intresting piece of logic a few hundred years old. Same as Occam's razor. Basically all it means is that in the absence of evidence you make the assumption that gains the greatest rewards with the fewest possible losses. It can be applied outside of a religious context as well.

-edit-

I was right, there was guy doing number games with God's existence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_D._Unwin

67% chance of God existing according to his number games. hysterical

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I understand what weak atheism means, but I am just saying that weak atheism can very well be (and most often is) an agnostic view. Agnostics think that there either can't be or that there is no proof for God at the moment. So to be a weak atheists already includes being an agnostic. I suppose the difference is important to point out against agnostics who have faith in God, but it is still part of agnosticism.

Agnosticism and Negative Atheism may be compatible, but they are not equivalent. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas Atheism is an ontological position. In other words, Agnostics question whether the existence of God is knowable, whereas Atheists question whether or not God exists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Agnosticism and Negative Atheism may be compatible, but they are not equivalent. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas Atheism is an ontological position. In other words, Agnostics question whether the existence of God is knowable, whereas Atheists question whether or not God exists.

Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

So you're saying that a weak atheist is actually both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time?

Originally posted by docb77
So you're saying that a weak atheist is actually both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time?

Well, yes...although I understand (now) that it is not equal... it seems to me that of you are a weak atheist you also decided to be an agnostic....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

Where has anyone said that?

I just spelled out a few posts up exactly what the differences between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism are.

Originally posted by Lana
Where has anyone said that?

I just spelled out a few posts up exactly what the differences between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism are.

I concluded that. If someone thinks there is no evidence it seems to me that they already made up their mind about the evidence...which is what Agnosticism is about..isn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I concluded that. If someone thinks there is no evidence it seems to me that they already made up their mind about the evidence...which is what Agnosticism is about..isn't it?

No....agnosticism is just that there is no evidence to prove either side, so they think a god might (or might not) exist but they just don't know either way.

Atheism is the stance that there is no god. Reasoning for this varies from being the lack of evidence to show that one does exist, or evidence that they believe proves one does not exist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.

Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof: It is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Just wanted to point out, without naming any names, that there're alot of weak atheists here at KMC so far from what I've been reading, again without saying any names.

I'd say the majority. You know who you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Originally posted by Lana
No....agnosticism is just that there is no evidence to prove either side, so they think a god might (or might not) exist but they just don't know either way.

Atheism is the stance that there is no god. Reasoning for this varies from being the lack of evidence to show that one does exist, or evidence that they believe proves one does not exist.

Yes, agnostics say there is no evidence for god or there can never be...then they can still go ahead and believe there to be a god or not...

And that'S what weak atheists do, they see that there is no evidence (so they already acknowledge that god can't be know) but then they reason that because of this lack of evidence God doesn't exist.

That is an agnostic view, just that they believe it to be a sure sign that God doesn't exist....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

No. Atheism deals with whether or not God exists. Agnosticism deals with whether or not it possible to know whether or not God exists.

Well, this topic boomed. And damn, Bardock... having difficult grasping the concepts much?