Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

Do you also consider aunicornism a belief?  How about aleprechanism?  I've been an aFreedieKrugerist since 1984.

 

Does it only count as a belief for ideas that you have heard of?  Wouldn't it also count as a belief when you don't believe in things you have never considered or never heard of?  I bet you have been an aTrerxfetfsdfalskerjgwseklftj your whole life.  Because whatever that is you don't believe in it.

 

See the problem with turning lack of belief into a belief?

 

 

From there it is easy to note that the possibilities for potential concepts are unbounded.  That would make us unbelievers in an infinite number of things.  You are an unbeliever times infinity just like everyone else.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in then it is silly to single out the "god" set from this infinite group.

 

Thus there is no reason to even talk about atheism.  We should all be atheists by default.

 

Even believers are atheists if you compare the infinite number of gods they don't believe in that dwarfs the number of gods they do believe in once we include all potential god concepts imaginable and those beyond imagination.

 

 

I get your point, but I don't think it really matters. I haven't formed an opinion on any of those things.

 

I will say this. There is a distinct difference between being an a-whatever-ist because you have come into knowledge about something through someone or some experience with that particular thing and that you choose to disbelieve it, and being an a-whatever-ist because you have no knowledge of a particular subject because you have never been confronted with information regarding it.

 

The bottom line is, if you have heard of anything and you decide it has no root in reality and it is simply a fictional subject based on the evidence, or lack thereof, you choose to believe what you believe about that subject. That is what makes it a belief.

 

Once again, the definition of belief: "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

When the evidence is not persuasive for you to establish a belief in that subject, then the truth for you regarding that subject becomes the conviction of the truth of that particular subject. It is a belief. If you have never heard of a particular subject, then I would argue that it is not possible to have a belief or to disbelieve in it, because you have no capability to make a belief or unbelief assessment regarding its validity. So you are incapable of believing or disbelieving in it.

 

 

 

Shhhhhh.... Atheists don't 'believe' things that people tell them ... they 'accept' things ... that people tell them ... in science journals... (wink).

 

jkjkjkjkjkjkjk 

 

Hugs all my favorite atheists right here, right now!  :-)

 

Midniterider - fence sitter.

[midniterider]

Storm, how about this.  Think of all the theists in the world.  They each hold their own beliefs in their respective religions, and when ask 'why do you believe in x or y?' they'll present their case why they believe x / y.

 

A christian is an atheist concerning: zeus, thor, the hindu gods, klingon gods, etc.

 

Myself as an atheist just goes one god further.  I don't believe in yaweh anymore than I believe in the klingon god of the dead.

 

It's not that I believe there's no god.  I just refuse all the god claims in the world at this moment.  

 

If Christians are atheists then lets close up this website. It has been a beautiful success. :-)

[directionless]

 

Of course most people can laugh these things off without researching them. 

Eventually one will reach a point where certain things are settled to their satisfaction. Every few months there is a new story about somebody visiting Heaven while their brain activity was impaired in some way. Personally, I've had an interest in NDE for about 40 years, so I have researched it. None of the claims made in our entire written history can provide any evidence that consciousness leaves the body when so physically and neurologically stressed. Stories have come out that someone "died" on the operating table and subsequently read a message written on top of a tall cabinet or accurately described the roof of the hospital; ultimately even the handful of stories like that have been found out to be false. I therefore no longer have any interest in the latest tale of people "dying" and returning after a trip to the "other side." Same for ghosts, demons, psychics and a few other pieces of woo. At some point we can and should close the case and move on and try to discover the discoverable rather than look for scraps that support wishful thinking.

 

I have never researched NDEs, but I agree that they are only interesting if the person claimed to gain some verifiable information (like the message written on top of a tall cabinet you mentioned). I have wanted to research NDEs, but the websites don't seem to distinguish between the type of NDE you describe and the type where it could be all in the mind. I've never had the energy to dig through all the pointless NDE stories to find those few that claim clairvoyance. Apparently the clairvoyance claims are not very persuasive.

 

For myself, I've found it useful to research all types of woo, because otherwise the uncertainty bothers me. Even when I assign a small probability to a piece of woo, it intrudes on my thinking because the implication of true woo is too disturbing.

 

As you mentioned a person eventually gets tired of investigating new woo reports of the type already investigated in the past.

[Storm]

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

 

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be an antagonist in this thread. I am enjoying the conversation and I have been learning a lot about reasoning and logic and how it works and what it means in regards to atheism. I am ok with agreeing to disagree. I am also ok with changing what I think in regards to atheism being a belief. I have read a few articles on the web and have been actively participating in this discussion with all of you. I have yet to see or have anything shown to me that my initial position is flawed to the point where I need to reevaluate and decide if I want to change where I stand on it. I will continue to read and study this area and maybe I will change my mind and accept it as most of you have. But at this point, I see no reason to change my understanding of atheism and I hold to what I originally stated. If you disagree, great. No issues there.

 

I would like to discuss this more if anyone is still willing.

 

Thanks

[Vigile]

No worries Storm.  I ain't mad.  Message boards tend to hide people's moods. 

 

Also, this is pretty much just a mental exercise unless one is trying to put those with faith on the same level as those who use factual-based reasoning to make up their minds. 

[Orbit]

 

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

 

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be an antagonist in this thread. I am enjoying the conversation and I have been learning a lot about reasoning and logic and how it works and what it means in regards to atheism. I am ok with agreeing to disagree. I am also ok with changing what I think in regards to atheism being a belief. I have read a few articles on the web and have been actively participating in this discussion with all of you. I have yet to see or have anything shown to me that my initial position is flawed to the point where I need to reevaluate and decide if I want to change where I stand on it. I will continue to read and study this area and maybe I will change my mind and accept it as most of you have. But at this point, I see no reason to change my understanding of atheism and I hold to what I originally stated. If you disagree, great. No issues there.

 

I would like to discuss this more if anyone is still willing.

 

Thanks

 

The dictionary has a basic definition of the word atheist, and that is "lack of belief" in gods. I do not understand why you want to change the dictionary to include your personal definition of atheist. There does need to be some kind of accepted authority on the meaning of words in order to enable logical discourse. Wikipedia gives a fuller explanation of strong vs weak atheism vs agnosticism. For me, these terms are not up for redefinition.

[directionless]

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be an antagonist in this thread. I am enjoying the conversation and I have been learning a lot about reasoning and logic and how it works and what it means in regards to atheism. I am ok with agreeing to disagree. I am also ok with changing what I think in regards to atheism being a belief. I have read a few articles on the web and have been actively participating in this discussion with all of you. I have yet to see or have anything shown to me that my initial position is flawed to the point where I need to reevaluate and decide if I want to change where I stand on it. I will continue to read and study this area and maybe I will change my mind and accept it as most of you have. But at this point, I see no reason to change my understanding of atheism and I hold to what I originally stated. If you disagree, great. No issues there.

 

I would like to discuss this more if anyone is still willing.

 

Thanks

 

I agree with your arguments (for what that is worth )

 

We could probably all reach an agreement if we developed a more useful model than the typical "belief/disbelief", "theist/atheist", ... The vocabulary is way too vague. The agree or disagree model is grossly oversimplified. Naturally nobody can agree about the meaning of anything.

 

Personally, I think we should think about choices and decisions. The epistle of James emphasized the centrality of actions in Christianity. The same is true for other opinions besides Christianity.

 

We can see the choices available and the decisions made. What is going on in that person's mind can only be guessed. So we need to anchor the model to decisions. That is why I think decision theory would provide a better model:

The idea of expected value is that, when faced with a number of actions, each of which could give rise to more than one possible outcome with different probabilities, the rational procedure is to identify all possible outcomes, determine their values (positive or negative) and the probabilities that will result from each course of action, and multiply the two to give an expected value. The action to be chosen should be the one that gives rise to the highest total expected value.

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

[Storm]

 

 

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

 

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be an antagonist in this thread. I am enjoying the conversation and I have been learning a lot about reasoning and logic and how it works and what it means in regards to atheism. I am ok with agreeing to disagree. I am also ok with changing what I think in regards to atheism being a belief. I have read a few articles on the web and have been actively participating in this discussion with all of you. I have yet to see or have anything shown to me that my initial position is flawed to the point where I need to reevaluate and decide if I want to change where I stand on it. I will continue to read and study this area and maybe I will change my mind and accept it as most of you have. But at this point, I see no reason to change my understanding of atheism and I hold to what I originally stated. If you disagree, great. No issues there.

 

I would like to discuss this more if anyone is still willing.

 

Thanks

 

The dictionary has a basic definition of the word atheist, and that is "lack of belief" in gods. I do not understand why you want to change the dictionary to include your personal definition of atheist. There does need to be some kind of accepted authority on the meaning of words in order to enable logical discourse. Wikipedia gives a fuller explanation of strong vs weak atheism vs agnosticism. For me, these terms are not up for redefinition.

 

 

I am perfectly ok with your opinion and I think you provide a valid point. I am definitely going against the flow in regards to what most atheists think in regards to the definition of atheism. I am not necessarily trying to redefine atheism, although that may or may not end up happening after this discourse. I am merely trying to understand a concept that is fairly new to me. I have been mulling some thoughts about our discussion here and I hope to post something later after I think I have gathered my thoughts in a logical framework and I will share it with you all. I would appreciate your input, as well as anyone else's who might like to put their two cents in. If you choose to not continue in the discussion, that's ok too. I am just up for a discussion on this topic. I enjoy being stretched and challenged in my thinking and this thread has been doing so in regards to my understanding of atheism.  

[Storm]

 

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be an antagonist in this thread. I am enjoying the conversation and I have been learning a lot about reasoning and logic and how it works and what it means in regards to atheism. I am ok with agreeing to disagree. I am also ok with changing what I think in regards to atheism being a belief. I have read a few articles on the web and have been actively participating in this discussion with all of you. I have yet to see or have anything shown to me that my initial position is flawed to the point where I need to reevaluate and decide if I want to change where I stand on it. I will continue to read and study this area and maybe I will change my mind and accept it as most of you have. But at this point, I see no reason to change my understanding of atheism and I hold to what I originally stated. If you disagree, great. No issues there.

 

I would like to discuss this more if anyone is still willing.

 

Thanks

 

I agree with your arguments (for what that is worth )

 

We could probably all reach an agreement if we developed a more useful model than the typical "belief/disbelief", "theist/atheist", ... The vocabulary is way too vague. The agree or disagree model is grossly oversimplified. Naturally nobody can agree about the meaning of anything.

 

Personally, I think we should think about choices and decisions. The epistle of James emphasized the centrality of actions in Christianity. The same is true for other opinions besides Christianity.

 

We can see the choices available and the decisions made. What is going on in that person's mind can only be guessed. So we need to anchor the model to decisions. That is why I think decision theory would provide a better model:

The idea of expected value is that, when faced with a number of actions, each of which could give rise to more than one possible outcome with different probabilities, the rational procedure is to identify all possible outcomes, determine their values (positive or negative) and the probabilities that will result from each course of action, and multiply the two to give an expected value. The action to be chosen should be the one that gives rise to the highest total expected value.

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

 

 

Its good to know I am not the only crazy one here...

 

I like your mention of the Decision theory. It will be interesting to see how we might be able to apply it to this thread.

[directionless]

Also, I can't find the post now, but Neverlandrut mentioned how the field of statistics is applicable (null hypothesis, defaults, etc.)

 

To be honest I didn't read those posts in detail, because I'm not familiar enough with statistics to understand them. I've been browsing wikipedia slowly to try to come up to speed enough to follow Neverlandrut's points. I read "A Very Short Introduction to Statistics" a few months ago, but I forget things faster than I can learn them.

 

Off the top of my head it seems like:

- statistics is applicable to the research phase when we refine the trust we put in different hypotheses

- decision theory is applicable to the phase when we apply these possible hypotheses to choose an action

[directionless]

I stumbled onto an interesting thought in a wikipedia article about philosophy of religion (notice the part I marked in bold):

Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life.

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

 

So if we define theism as a form of life then we might define atheism as not following that form of life. This goes back to ficino's statement that originally atheism meant "not giving the gods their due".

 

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped. He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above. By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence. Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence. The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word. This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.' If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

This viewpoint supports the applicability of decision theory in any discussion of religion, because decisions define our way of life. (Of course each person has hypotheses about cause and effect with probabilities that determine their decisions. I'm just saying let's see if things are more clear by stepping back and treating the all that as hidden inside a black box. We can categorize religious viewpoints based on the resulting decisions instead of the details of those viewpoints.)

[Storm]

I stumbled onto an interesting thought in a wikipedia article about philosophy of religion (notice the part I marked in bold):

Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life.

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

 

So if we define theism as a form of life then we might define atheism as not following that form of life. This goes back to ficino's statement that originally atheism meant "not giving the gods their due".

 

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped. He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above. By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence. Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence. The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word. This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.' If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

This viewpoint supports the applicability of decision theory in any discussion of religion, because decisions define our way of life. (Of course each person has hypotheses about cause and effect with probabilities that determine their decisions. I'm just saying let's see if things are more clear by stepping back and treating the all that as hidden inside a black box. We can categorize religious viewpoints based on the resulting decisions instead of the details of those viewpoints.)

 

 

I like where you are going with this. I think orbit and Vigile and others raised a good point, in that the definitions and words that we use take on limited meanings and have a different definitions for each person. I think it is easy to get away from the original intent when things like this happen. For me, I find that atheism is a worldview for many of the posters in this forum. They left a different worldview in being a former xtian or whatever their religion was, and now they have realized that that worldview was wrong and now they have accepted the worldview that is typically represented in atheism. Yes there are varying levels of atheism and differing viewpoints, but the same is true for many religions. I am still reading and studying this, so I may change my mind at some point, but I have seen both sides make good points and at this point, its even for me.

[florduh]

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

[Storm]

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

 

Easier said than done. Our world as we know it right now is highly defined by religion, whether we like it or not and/or whether we know it or not. You and I are who we are because of religion. We are fortunate to have escaped it, but it still affects our lives.

[Vigile]

 

and now they have realized that that worldview was wrong and now they have accepted the worldview that is typically represented in atheism.

 

What does an atheistic world view look like?  I'm struggling to see the paradigm beyond the answer to the question of religion and gods.  That means those things have no hold on us, but beyond that, we seem pretty diverse if you ask me. 

 

[Vigile]

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

 

Yup, this is why I argue the point of belief.  It's a wedge attempted by the apologists to even out the playing field and shift the burden of proof. 

[mymistake]

 

What does an atheistic world view look like?  

 

I would say one goes about living his life and worries only about the things you can see, hear and touch.  That is an atheistic world view.  No pink unicorns watching you when you have sex.  No flying spaghetti monsters demanding a percentage of your income.  No gods telling you who to hate.  It's a nice, simple life.

[florduh]

 

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

 

Yup, this is why I argue the point of belief.  It's a wedge attempted by the apologists to even out the playing field and shift the burden of proof. 

 

I will not discuss theism vs atheism vs soft atheism vs agnosticism et al as if God's existence is axiomatic and I need to build a case to support my minority position. Theists, you have failed for thousands of years to convince rational, logical, thinking people that your proposition for an invisible and undetectable deity is tenable. Sorry, it's not my problem, you have simply failed to make the case and it is proper that I reject your proposition. I do not hold an opposing belief, I hold no belief. Atheist is not the opposite of theist. Atheist shouldn't even be a word any more than Asasquatchist should be a word.

[directionless]

I will not discuss theism vs atheism vs soft atheism vs agnosticism et al as if God's existence is axiomatic and I need to build a case to support my minority position. Theists, you have failed for thousands of years to convince rational, logical, thinking people that your proposition for an invisible and undetectable deity is tenable. Sorry, it's not my problem, you have simply failed to make the case and it is proper that I reject your proposition. I do not hold an opposing belief, I hold no belief. Atheist is not the opposite of theist. Atheist shouldn't even be a word any more than Asasquatchist should be a word.

Imagine a world where everywhere you turn there is somebody offering you a chocolate chip cookie. You are forced to say "no thank you" over and over again.

 

How can you claim to have no opinion about chocolate chip cookies? You obviously don't like chocolate chip cookies for some reason. It is reasonable to ask what you have against chocolate chip cookies, don't you think?

 

Nobody can claim to simply lack an opinion about chocolate chip cookies under those circumstances.

[florduh]

Nobody can claim to simply lack an opinion about chocolate chip cookies under those circumstances. 

 

 

CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO EXIST! They are there to like or dislike. 

 

We are talking about is my opinion on invisible, tasteless unicorn cookies. There is nothing for me to discuss or dislike regarding such a proposed cookie as I have not and cannot experience it in any way. I will not accept the ground rules of the theists no matter how large their majority.

 

How can you not discern the difference? Brainwashing?

[Neverlandrut]

Also, I can't find the post now, but Neverlandrut mentioned how the field of statistics is applicable (null hypothesis, defaults, etc.)

 

To be honest I didn't read those posts in detail, because I'm not familiar enough with statistics to understand them. I've been browsing wikipedia slowly to try to come up to speed enough to follow Neverlandrut's points. I read "A Very Short Introduction to Statistics" a few months ago, but I forget things faster than I can learn them.

 

Off the top of my head it seems like:

- statistics is applicable to the research phase when we refine the trust we put in different hypotheses

- decision theory is applicable to the phase when we apply these possible hypotheses to choose an action

That may be so. Statistical analysis of hypotheses, to be fair, is applicable to physical counts (things that can be quantified). It's not directly applicable to deciding if a god exists. However, the LOGIC behind the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis is applicable to deciding whether to accept or reject the claim that a god exists. The basic logic goes more or less like this:

 

A claim is either true or false. There is no inbetween.

 

If there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the claim is likely true, then the null hypothesis (position that it's not true) is the position that you take, until such time as new evidence arrises to be evaluated along with any already existing evidence. At that time, you recalculate and reasses. The null hypothesis is the "default" position. It is akin to falsifiability in science. It is the only reasonabe conclusion (although a tentative one) that one can make in the face of "not enough evidence" to support the claim.

 

Aside:

Also, in statistics, when determining whether or not to accept or reject a hypothesis, you are also given a specified margin of error to work with which helps you determine what degree of certainty you have about your conclusion.

 

Also, as many have said, rejecting a claim does not mean you have proof it is false. It only means you must reject the claim at this time because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

[Orbit]

Also, I can't find the post now, but Neverlandrut mentioned how the field of statistics is applicable (null hypothesis, defaults, etc.)

 

To be honest I didn't read those posts in detail, because I'm not familiar enough with statistics to understand them. I've been browsing wikipedia slowly to try to come up to speed enough to follow Neverlandrut's points. I read "A Very Short Introduction to Statistics" a few months ago, but I forget things faster than I can learn them.

 

Off the top of my head it seems like:

- statistics is applicable to the research phase when we refine the trust we put in different hypotheses

- decision theory is applicable to the phase when we apply these possible hypotheses to choose an action

Decision theory provides a statistical tool for weighting factors in a decision, but has nothing to do with statistical hypothesis testing. In hypothesis testing, the logic of statistics requires you to start with a "null" hypothesis, which states that there is no statistical difference between the things you are comparing. So in statistical hypothesis testing, you start from a negative position. I teach statistics so it might be easier just to ask me questions instead of wading thru Wikipedia, and judging by Neverlandrut's answer there are plenty of people here who can answer statistical questions.

[directionless]

 

 

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

 

Yup, this is why I argue the point of belief.  It's a wedge attempted by the apologists to even out the playing field and shift the burden of proof.

 

I will not discuss theism vs atheism vs soft atheism vs agnosticism et al as if God's existence is axiomatic and I need to build a case to support my minority position. Theists, you have failed for thousands of years to convince rational, logical, thinking people that your proposition for an invisible and undetectable deity is tenable. Sorry, it's not my problem, you have simply failed to make the case and it is proper that I reject your proposition. I do not hold an opposing belief, I hold no belief. Atheist is not the opposite of theist. Atheist shouldn't even be a word any more than Asasquatchist should be a word.

 

I'm sure there is some brainwashing, but IMO there are some real chocolate chip cookies offered by Christianity. For example, my little town has a church on almost every street corner. Every time I drive past one of those churches on Sunday morning I am effectively saying that I have better things to do with my time on Sunday morning. So I'm expressing my opinion (IMO )

[directionless]

Decision theory provides a statistical tool for weighting factors in a decision, but has nothing to do with statistical hypothesis testing. In hypothesis testing, the logic of statistics requires you to start with a "null" hypothesis, which states that there is no statistical difference between the things you are comparing. So in statistical hypothesis testing, you start from a negative position. I teach statistics so it might be easier just to ask me questions instead of wading thru Wikipedia, and judging by Neverlandrut's answer there are plenty of people here who can answer statistical questions.

My idea is that the decision is the key, because a person cannot claim to "lack belief" after making a decision where the truth of that belief could be important. Like I would not say nasty things about God unless you paid me a lot of money to do it. The amount of money required would establish my level of belief that God exists and would be offended.

 

Thanks for offering to answer questions. I need to read enough to actually know what I need to ask. I will quote something I saw in wikipedia regarding the null hypothesis that associates it with "conventional wisdom" instead of "disbelief". That matches my idea that the default is simply whatever you currently believe. In medieval Europe the default would be and should be Catholicism. Let me know what you think. (I highlighted the reference to conventional wisdom.)

The phrase "test of significance" was coined by statistician Ronald Fisher.[1] These tests are used in determining what outcomes of a study would lead to a rejection of the null hypothesis for a pre-specified level of significance; this can help to decide whether results contain enough information to cast doubt on conventional wisdom, given that conventional wisdom has been used to establish the null hypothesis.

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

[mymistake]

 

 

 

We must stop allowing theists to define us and everything else, and impose their rules on our own thinking. It is so ingrained even reasonable atheists don't see it.

 

Yup, this is why I argue the point of belief.  It's a wedge attempted by the apologists to even out the playing field and shift the burden of proof.

 

I will not discuss theism vs atheism vs soft atheism vs agnosticism et al as if God's existence is axiomatic and I need to build a case to support my minority position. Theists, you have failed for thousands of years to convince rational, logical, thinking people that your proposition for an invisible and undetectable deity is tenable. Sorry, it's not my problem, you have simply failed to make the case and it is proper that I reject your proposition. I do not hold an opposing belief, I hold no belief. Atheist is not the opposite of theist. Atheist shouldn't even be a word any more than Asasquatchist should be a word.

 

I'm sure there is some brainwashing, but IMO there are some real chocolate chip cookies offered by Christianity. For example, my little town has a church on almost every street corner. Every time I drive past one of those churches on Sunday morning I am effectively saying that I have better things to do with my time on Sunday morning. So I'm expressing my opinion (IMO )

 

 

Sure churches are social clubs.  But that isn't the selling point.  They want to save your soul (the part of you that cannot be shown to exist) from hell (an afterlife that cannot be shown to exist) through what Jesus Christ (who cannot be shown to exist) did on the cross (which cannot be shown to have been an actual event).