Atheism

Originally posted by Astner
The definition of belief is to accept a statement without proof, the definition of knowledge is to accept a statement with proof. To believe that you know something is an oxymoron.

Knowledge is...well, just avoid trying to define knowledge.

The best that most people have done since Aristotle was to say that knowledge is justified true belief, but Edmund Gettier (and before him--though no one paid any attention--Bertrand Russel) blew the lid off this in the 20th century.

I think you're taking the existence of true knowledge for granted.

I know I've mentioned this before, but on a psychological level, you really can't differentiate knowledge from belief.

The way our brains process and store information really isn't sensitive to that nuance.

To clarify my position: one can have a belief (and it may even be a strongly held belief) that a proposition (e.g. God does not exist) is true without believing that they know that the proposition is true.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You've clearly never taken an epistemology class.

Knowledge is...well, just avoid trying to define knowledge.

The best that most people have done since Aristotle was to say that knowledge is justified true belief, but Edmund Gettier (and before him--though no one paid any attention--Bertrand Russel) blew the lid off this in the 20th century.

I think you're taking the existence of true knowledge for granted.

Consequently when I said proof it was meant to be interpreted in relation to whatever established system of principles you're using. From that my definition encompasses the notion of knowledge.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify my position: one can have a belief (and it may even be a strongly held belief) that a proposition (e.g. God does not exist) is true without believing that they know that the proposition is true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I know I've mentioned this before, but on a psychological level, you really can't differentiate knowledge from belief.

The way our brains process and store information really isn't sensitive to that nuance.

Originally posted by Oliver North
But we will probably never get rid of that type of belief, just given how psychology works. We seek out patterns and significance in the world. As "atheists", we should probably be extremely happy at the decline of organized faith in general, and I have a lot of trouble seeing my woo-woo hippy friends trying to limit me because I have different beliefs than them.

If new age does ever form organized religions though, then ya, increasingly problematic.

Right. Part of me thinks those kinds of beliefs don't lend themselves to organized practice. But then I go to a Unitarian Universalist church on a whim (I enjoy learning) and it was basically a bunch of hippies...well...organizing. It may just have to do with numbers, not type of belief.

Originally posted by Astner
I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. Primarily because agnosticism is the only logical standpoint, and self-proclaimed atheists tend to be pseudo-intellectual assholes with no conception of proof. Besides, why invest time in that which is impossible to prove or disprove following the definition?

Er, most atheists don't claim proof. A few, sure. But you're arguing against a common atheist strawman.

You also disassociate yourself with a term because of people and their personalities? You know being an atheist doesn't automatically make you an *******, or even predispose you to it more so than any other belief, right? That line of thinking seems like a disingenuous attack on a stereotype, not a critique of the belief itself.

Would "I don't believe in any God" or "I believe there is no God" qualify as illogical to you? Because that's different than agnosticism (i.e. "I don't know"😉 yet doesn't approach anything resembling absolutist assertions.

Originally posted by Astner
I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. Primarily because agnosticism is the only logical standpoint, and self-proclaimed atheists tend to be pseudo-intellectual assholes with no conception of proof. Besides, why invest time in that which is impossible to prove or disprove following the definition?

I agree with everything in this post. That's pretty much my experience, as well.

Can't you be an agnostic atheist?

Originally posted by Digi
Er, most atheists don't claim proof. A few, sure. But you're arguing against a common atheist strawman.

Never-mind, no belief claims proof. That's what separates belief from knowledge.

Originally posted by Digi
You also disassociate yourself with a term because of people and their personalities? You know being an atheist doesn't automatically make you an *******, or even predispose you to it more so than any other belief, right? That line of thinking seems like a disingenuous attack on a stereotype, not a critique of the belief itself.

Originally posted by Digi
Would "I don't believe in any God" or "I believe there is no God" qualify as illogical to you?

Originally posted by Digi
Because that's different than agnosticism (i.e. "I don't know"😉 yet doesn't approach anything resembling absolutist assertions.

Now it's true that Greek word gnosis is connected to terms insight and knowledge—and I'm going to call you out on the formal- and informal fallacy known as equivocation, before you make it—, however its nonsensical as belief and knowledge are separate entities and gnosticism centers around belief, not knowledge.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Can't you be an agnostic atheist?

You can't believe in the inexistence of gods, yet not have a set belief.

Originally posted by Astner
No, that's an oxymoron.

You can't believe in the inexistence of gods, yet not have a set belief.

Well, that's not really with agnostic atheism means.

It means this:

"I don't know (and do not believe I can know, in most cases), but I believe x."*

Similar to agnostic theism:

"I don't know (and do not believe I can know, in most cases), but I believe y."*

The belief in x can have supporting evidence but it absolutely cannot have definitive/conclusive evidence. If it did, it would no longer be "agnostic" in primary nature: it would be gnostic.

*Yes, they were intended to say the exact same things minus one letter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that's not really with agnostic atheism means.

It means this:

"I don't know (and do not believe I can know, in most cases), but I believe x."*

Similar to agnostic theism:

"I don't know (and do not believe I can know, in most cases), but I believe y."*

The belief in x can have supporting evidence but it absolutely cannot have definitive/conclusive evidence. If it did, it would no longer be "agnostic" in primary nature: it would be gnostic.

*Yes, they were intended to say the exact same things minus one letter.

As I've said and pointed out again, I've defined belief and knowledge accordingly:

Originally posted by Astner
The definition of belief is to accept a statement without proof, the definition of knowledge is to accept a statement with proof.

Originally posted by Astner
You're an idiot, read my entire reply and don't waste my time quoting it out of context.

U mad? lol

I did read your entire post and the context is clearly there. You just did not get it.

Originally posted by Astner
As I've said and pointed out again, I've defined belief and knowledge accordingly:

This means that when I talk about belief and knowledge I'll be using those definitions.

And it is quite obvious I am using similar definitions. Go back and re-read my post. Then you'll understand why it is not really an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Astner
No, that's an oxymoron.

You can't believe in the inexistence of gods, yet not have a set belief.

N-no, they're not. Knowledge and belief are two separate things. Once can believe there is no God without espousing the existence of knowledge (proof) that validates that belief.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
N-no, they're not. Knowledge and belief are two separate things. Once can believe there is no God without espousing the existence of knowledge (proof) that validates that belief.

Once again, no one can prove (or disprove) god's existence. Hence knowledge is a non-factor.

Agnosticism is the lack of a fixed belief.

Atheism is the belief of that there's no god.

Originally posted by Astner
But neither agnosticism nor atheism has anything to do with knowledge.

Once again, no one can prove (or disprove) god's existence. Hence knowledge is a non-factor.

Agnosticism is the lack of a fixed belief.

Atheism is the belief of that there's no god.

YouTube video

I want to know how much of it you disagree with.

Astner's definitions for belief and knowledge hinge on the influence of proof, yet he hasn't defined proof in anything approaching a satisfactory way.

Agnostic atheism is absolutely not an oxymoron by any reasonable definition, either language or philosophy based.

Agnosticism is the position that things are not (and maybe cannot be) known. It does not have any automatic implication in your ability to believe, though it is often associated with a lack of belief.

Astner is giving a definition of atheism that is his own. He may be entitled to do that, but it is no good for wider debate to just use your own definitions for terms. Atheism in fact covers two distinct viewpoints. The first is that you do not think there is a God. The second is that you think there is no God. The distinction there is tangible and significant. Astner is being too narrow with atheism by implying it is only the latter (in fact, most atheists are the former), and is confusing some definitions with agnosticism in the process.

If a person says he does not think there is a God but also thinks there is no way to judge that in any objective sense, then he is absolutely entitled to call himself an agnostic atheist.

Originally posted by Astner
BOnce again, no one can prove (or disprove) god's existence.

Thats not actually correct.

Any god can be disproven once testable claims about them are made.

The only gods that cannot have evidence presented against them are the ones that, by definition, are unfalsifiable. These types of Gods are a product of, what, 200 years of human intellectual history and do not represent the type of god that the vast majority of religious people believe in, especially those of the major monotheisms.

Even the hippy stuff Digi was talking about is testable most of the time. We can demonstrate that the only "energy" passed between people when they hug is heat and kinetic. We can model weather patterns and show they have no correlation to people's emotions.

Like anything else in science, if a theory has mountains of evidence presented against it, we can discard it as false. It doesn't mean it is false in the absolute, universe defining sense, but if there is no evidence in support, we can say it is wrong. This is especially true when competing theories are involved, but not they are not necessary.

The only God that cannot be disproven is one that is ontologically a God of the gaps, and that God is neither interesting nor the one people are talking about when they call themselves a believer. This "you can't prove god" is a wonderful blend of special pleading and red herring.

Originally posted by red g jacks
would you mind explaining the rationale behind this a little?

haha, I can try...

think of it like this:

The vast majority of everything we learn is based on what are called response contingencies. A response contingency is based on learning that some action produces some response. We learn things as basic as how the commands to "move" our body correspond to the actual muscle expansion and contraction in our bodies.

A good example is light switches. As a child, you have no knowledge about what light switches do, thus no belief about light switches. By this, I mean, there is nothing stored in your brain to access when you try to determine what light switches are, so you can't form a "belief" about them. If you try to, the only thing you can do is access knowledge about other contingencies you have. As you learn what a light switch does, the contingency between flicking it up and a light coming on is created, and over time, the "belief" that light switches turn on lights is generated.

Basically, any "belief" you have, is simply just the best guess you have based on previous contingencies you have experienced. You can't believe something you don't know, because the belief is simply the combination of previous knowledge stored in the brain.

The trend seems to be to try and call "belief" a non absolute statement and "knowledge" an absolute statement, but that seems like nonsense. The best you could say is that "belief" comes when there are competing contingencies and knowledge is when there are not (a concept in memory research called think/know), but that doesn't seem like the same qualitative difference being suggested by people who make the belief/know distinction.

It would be like saying the fact you know some light switches turn on fireplaces means you don't know light switches turn on lights, you only have some belief about it; belief becomes a term of almost meaningless distinction.

What is most likely is that, people who feel they have to qualify what they are saying with the "believe/know" paradigm simply have a contingency in their memory about the limitations of human knowledge, and thus accept they are not claiming an absolute truth about reality. Their "belief" is still just a collection of their contingencies.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Astner's definitions for belief and knowledge hinge on the influence of proof, yet he hasn't defined proof in anything approaching a satisfactory way.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Thats not actually correct.

Any god can be disproven once testable claims about them are made.

The only gods that cannot have evidence presented against them are the ones that, by definition, are unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, since a lot of people seem to have a problem with my definitions—which I only make to clarify my position—I just want to point out this. Buddhism is an atheistic religion.