Who are "no religion" people?

[mymistake]

I would certainly agree that both those video makers are strong atheists at least in regards to the Christian god.  But do either claim to know "beyond all doubt"?   Perhaps they do in a different video.  Maybe when I get more time I will watch more of their work to get a better sense.  Sensible Simon uses the phrase "beyond all doubt" but he does so for what we would expect from the Christian god providing us with proof of his existence.

 

By the way, the dictionary entry you cited also failed to mention "knowing beyond all doubt".

 

13 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

An atheist who explicitly asserts that no deities exist.

 

Just nine little words and "beyond all doubt" isn't there.

 

I'm working on a couple of essays to be posted in the Lions Den whenever I get them finished.  It would help if you would identify specifically which parts of my argument you would like documented.  I was planning to hit the history one a bit harder but feedback would be appreciated.

 

 

[Tsathoggua9]

On 2/4/2018 at 7:52 AM, ContraBardus said:

Soft athesits and agnostics are almost the same thing.

 

Soft atheists are people who don't believe in God, but also don't explicitly say there isn't one. Agnostics are people who think there might be a God, but aren't sure either way.

 

Then there are deists, which also fit into this group. These are people who believe in the existence of "God" as a concept or being, but don't subscribe to any particular religion's version of a deity.

 

In general, these types people don't think it matters much either way, and tend to take a general view that as long as they are a "good person" they will be fine.

 

Then there are Atheists who don't want to be associated with the stigma or stereotypes of atheism, and thus don't identify that way.

 

Either way it's a null vote. Most people who identify as "non/not-religious" fall into one of these groups. Some never go to church, but a lot of them sometimes attend a church for social reasons or because family members do, or only go for special occasions such as Christmas or Easter services, or otherwise attend infrequently.

 

I suppose I'm what you'd call a "soft atheist". I dislike the word "impossible" because I don't think there is such a thing, or at least that it can't reasonably be proven, and prefer "improbable". I don't think "God" as a concept is impossible, just highly improbable to the point it's not worth considering. I suppose that's functionally the same thing as saying "there is no God", but without the implication of a level of certainty I'm not comfortable claiming about pretty much anything that I can't prove.

 

I'll usually say I'm Ignostic, as I refuse to discuss the existence of God unless the term has been clearly defined.

 

You made some excellent points! I feel pretty much the same way as you do.

[ContraBardus]

3 hours ago, mymistake said:

I would certainly agree that both those video makers are strong atheists at least in regards to the Christian god.  But do either claim to know "beyond all doubt"?   Perhaps they do in a different video.  Maybe when I get more time I will watch more of their work to get a better sense.  Sensible Simon uses the phrase "beyond all doubt" but he does so for what we would expect from the Christian god providing us with proof of his existence.

 

By the way, the dictionary entry you cited also failed to mention "knowing beyond all doubt".

 

 

Just nine little words and "beyond all doubt" isn't there.

 

I'm working on a couple of essays to be posted in the Lions Den whenever I get them finished.  It would help if you would identify specifically which parts of my argument you would like documented.  I was planning to hit the history one a bit harder but feedback would be appreciated.

 

 

 

Splitting hairs about precise word usage doesn't make you right.

 

"Can't and doesn't exist" is an absolute declarative and definitive. It literally means beyond doubt. The explanation in the video also asserts that, even though it doesn't use the exact words "beyond doubt" the content of the video explicitly states that exact concept.

 

There are plenty of people who will confidently declare that God definitely exists without doubt, so why wouldn't there be an exact opposite belief? Is it really all that different as a position? [Hint: The answer is "no".]

 

Not every Atheist is necessarily well versed in logic and reasoning, or even remotely scientifically minded. Atheists don't become Vulcans the moment they stop believing in God. Of course there are people who go to the other extreme and try to validate it. If anything, I'd think formerly religious people would be more prone to this sort of thing because religion trains them to think this way and it's a hard habit to kick, so going from one absolute to the other isn't a stretch at all.

 

You asked for proof of my claims, I provided two examples of literal proof, and now you're trying to weasel word your way out of it by splitting hairs because the exact phrasing wasn't used, even though the exact same concept is directly stated. It doesn't matter how much you like it, it exists anyway. The "History of the Church" and other unrelated conspiracy nonsense you've been posting about doesn't factor into it.

 

You've been proven wrong, and this isn't ToT so I'm not getting into a four page argument that consists of nothing but running around in circles with you about it.

 

I've backed my claims throughout this thread, and you've provided nothing but anecdote and bald claims. There really isn't anything else to say at this point.

[TABA]

Whether the "No Religion" people are agnostics, atheists, theists or deists, or whether they are in any sense "spiritual" - whatever that means - what I care about most is whether they indoctrinate their children into a religious belief.  This is nothing less than imprinting false knowledge on the minds of young people, an indoctrination that - as most of us have seen - is extremely different to reverse and overcome. 

 

I must say that I am proud to be a member of this community of people who have done just that - people who have thought about it, have concluded that it makes no sense, or that it is repulsive, and that we're done.  We reject it and we're moving on, as best we can.  But most people, even if gods, prayer and religion play little or no role in their lives, don't think about it enough to make that break.  I see this all the time: people who are irreligious while young and single then turn around and start going to church when they become parents.  And so the faith virus, which was dormant in them, is passed on to a new generation.  I hate this because it's so unnecessary.  True Believers are gonna truly believe, but I wish that others would think enough to know that, since they haven't needed gods or religion in their own lives, they certainly don't need to impose them on their children. 

 

There is no doubt that the number of "Nones" has grown and will likely continue to rise, especially here in the USA which is behind other Western countries in this area.  I hope as many of us as possible can be open about our unbelief, because the more we are seen, the more the waverers will be emboldened to come out and join us, and do their part to break the cycle of indoctrination.  We're not going to influence the devout to deconvert, but there are plenty of others we can have an effect on.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

I must say that I am proud to be a member of this community of people who have done just that - people who have thought about it, have concluded that it makes no sense, or that it is repulsive, and that we're done.  We reject it and we're moving on, as best we can.  But most people, even if gods, prayer and religion play little or no role in their lives, don't think about it enough to make that break.  I see this all the time: people who are irreligious while young and single then turn around and start going to church when they become parents.  And so the faith virus, which was dormant in them, is passed on to a new generation.  I hate this because it's so unnecessary.  True Believers are gonna truly believe, but I wish that others would think enough to know that, since they haven't needed gods or religion in their own lives, they certainly don't need to impose them on their children.

I can say the same, I'm glad I'm one of the people that was able to put nonsense behind me. And it also stumps me why irreligious people seem to do this. I think it's just probably due to people plain not thinking and "wanting to do the right thing," and that religion (bringing your kids to church etc) is still too much associated with "doing the right thing." Ie, there is a lack of critique on religion in society, some consensus that it's not to be touched as a subject, it's off bounds and somehow sacred. There is still too much reverence for holy books in my opinion, and I hope that three or four generations down the road, the story will be a bit different. We're making our own little contribution here, by being on the internet, and hopefully making people think.

[florduh]

We know the majority believes in god and heaven. Such beliefs don't require any particular religion. Church affiliation statistics have little to do with determining how many non-believers there are.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I've backed my claims throughout this thread, and you've provided nothing but anecdote and bald claims. There really isn't anything else to say at this point.

 

You didn't cover agnostic very well, for one thing. Here's some reading on the "Agnostic Fallacy":

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3358

 

The other issue is that Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and knowing, not with belief. Let's say you don't know or claim that such knowledge is impossible. 

 

Now what? 

 

Do you believe in god anyways, although lacking knowledge, or don't you? 

 

What does this say about belief? 

 

If you say, "I don't know," then guess what, that's NOT a positive belief. 

 

Anything that is not a positive belief, is by default a negative. 

 

There's not actually a zero option when facing belief. That's fallacious reasoning. 

 

And this does pertain to the "none's" in a direct way, because I'm sure the agnostic fallacy ties into it. Mainly because dictionaries will often make the fallacious reasoning, reflecting the fallacy going around in society. Pointing to a dictionary doesn't fix or change the fallacy, it simply outlines how wide spread the fallacy actually is. 

 

The same is true with atheism. Dictionaries can be bad about that. The atheist organizations have tried taking issue with this problem, actually.  

 

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

Dear believer, how much do you believe in God? Is it more like a Methodist or a Southern Baptist? Because we should call the Methodist a "soft theist" and the Baptist a "hard theist."

 

Why does that sound silly? Both believe in and act as if they believe in God and are therefore both theists.

 

However, the extensive differentiation among those who do not worship or acknowledge any gods is somehow important. I submit that people are either theists or not theists, and further refinement of either position regarding a god is addressing nothing other than our penchant for labeling. If I say that there might be a god but it's so highly doubtful I can't really buy it, or if I say there's no way we can know, or if I say I'm certain there is no evidence whatsoever for me to believe,  what's the practical difference? It only means I am neither a Methodist nor a Baptist. I am therefore an atheist.

 

But I'm just a simple guy with a streak of pragmatism thrown in.

[ContraBardus]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You didn't cover agnostic very well, for one thing. Here's some reading on the "Agnostic Fallacy":

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3358

 

The other issue is that Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and knowing, not with belief. Let's say you don't know or claim that such knowledge is impossible. 

 

Now what? 

 

Do you believe in god anyways, although lacking knowledge, or don't you? 

 

What does this say about belief? 

 

If you say, "I don't know," then guess what, that's NOT a positive belief. 

 

Anything that is not a positive belief, is by default a negative. 

 

There's not actually a zero option when facing belief. That's fallacious reasoning. 

 

And this does pertain to the "none's" in a direct way, because I'm sure the agnostic fallacy ties into it. Mainly because dictionaries will often make the fallacious reasoning, reflecting the fallacy going around in society. Pointing to a dictionary doesn't fix or change the fallacy, it simply outlines how wide spread the fallacy actually is. 

 

The same is true with atheism. Dictionaries can be bad about that. The atheist organizations have tried taking issue with this problem, actually.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dictionaries reflect society's definitions of words, but society is who decides the definition in the first place. Not individuals who would prefer an alternate definition be the/a correct one.

 

It doesn't matter whether one likes the origins of the definition or not.

 

I don't particularly like the word "Faggot" as it relates to homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that I can arbitrarily decide that it doesn't mean a derogatory term for homosexuals anymore because I dislike that definition and its usage.

 

It's also not just one source that specifies the explicit rejection or denial of the concept of God, but all of them I've seen.

 

Regardless of whether a "zero option" exists or not, which is up for debate, Atheism has altered from it's etymological origins. It doesn't simply mean someone who is not religious anymore and hasn't for quite a while, it means someone who actively rejects or denounces the concept of God. Agnostics don't do that.

 

Agnostics are not simply a type of Atheist. They are a separate and different type of thinking. Similar yes, but not the same thing.

 

If Soft Atheists and Agnostics were the same thing, we wouldn't need another word for Agnostics. The term Agnostic-Atheist also wouldn't be a thing. Agnostic and Atheists convey two different ideas regarding the modern definitions.

 

The argument was made that dogmatic Atheists don't exist. That there aren't people who reject the concept of God absolutely and with certainty. I literally proved that isn't the case.

 

You could argue that most Atheists aren't true "Hard Atheists" and are simply varying degrees of "Soft Atheism", but not that Atheists that reject the concept of God as not possible with certainty don't exist. I have provided literal proof that they do exist.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

The argument was made that dogmatic Atheists don't exist.  

 

 

I must have missed it.  Who made that argument?  I argued the exact opposite.  Some dogmatic atheists must exist simply because the population is so large.

[ContraBardus]

52 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

I must have missed it.  Who made that argument?  I argued the exact opposite.  Some dogmatic atheists must exist simply because the population is so large.

 

You did.

 

If you said this then your argument is inconsistent and you don't know what dogmatic means. You did claim that Hard Atheists who believe there is no God "beyond all doubt" don't exist and asked me to provide examples of it. Which I did.

 

That is literally what dogmatic means. Someone who claims something as incontrovertibly true.

 

If you're arguing that Hard Atheism and Dogmatic Atheism aren't the same thing, that's false. A Hard Atheist is someone who directly asserts that "there is no God" as an indisputable fact, that is a dogmatic position.

 

Being dogmatic doesn't mean that new evidence can't change their minds. Just that they don't consider that as a possible outcome and assert that their position is definitely correct. It is commonly difficult to change someone who is dogmatic's mind, but not impossible. Many on these forums were dogmatic Christians at one point, so it can't really be argued that isn't true.

 

Atheism is a spectrum, Hard Atheism is an extreme on that spectrum, and most Atheists are some degree of Soft Atheist and don't realize it. Some are more certain than others, but if you say that some form of God being real is possible, however unlikely, then you are a Soft Atheist.

 

Agnosticism is the exact middle ground between the Theist and Atheists spectrums. It is also not mutually exclusive and there can be a bit of a mix as someone can be an Agnostic-Theist or Agnostic-Atheist if they lean towards one or the other, but remain unconvinced regarding both due to a lack of information or evidence. If they make a determination either way, they become either a Theist or Atheist depending on which way they went.

 

Again, the etymology of the word Atheist is largely irrelevant here. That's just the origins of the term and doesn't really have any say in regard to how it is defined in modern language.

[mymistake]

No, words actually matter.  The meanings for words matter.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic

 

"1  Relating to the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal.

 

2  Asserting opinions in a doctrinal or arrogant manner; opinionated."

 

 

If you think 1 + 1 = 2 that isn't dogma nor is it dogmatic in nature.  Atheist generally welcome debate on the existence of god.  They don't excommunicate people who believe.  Or threaten them with hell.

 

Furthermore I didn't assert "beyond all doubt" type atheist do not exist.  I said I have never found one.  You did not provide an example of an atheist who claims they know "beyond all doubt" that gods do not exist.

 

What I have found is a lot of strong atheists who find "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be the standard that is meet by the evidence.

 

[midniterider]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You didn't cover agnostic very well, for one thing. Here's some reading on the "Agnostic Fallacy":

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3358

 

The other issue is that Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and knowing, not with belief. Let's say you don't know or claim that such knowledge is impossible. 

 

Now what? 

 

Do you believe in god anyways, although lacking knowledge, or don't you? 

 

What does this say about belief? 

 

If you say, "I don't know," then guess what, that's NOT a positive belief. 

 

Anything that is not a positive belief, is by default a negative. 

 

There's not actually a zero option when facing belief. That's fallacious reasoning. 

 

And this does pertain to the "none's" in a direct way, because I'm sure the agnostic fallacy ties into it. Mainly because dictionaries will often make the fallacious reasoning, reflecting the fallacy going around in society. Pointing to a dictionary doesn't fix or change the fallacy, it simply outlines how wide spread the fallacy actually is. 

 

The same is true with atheism. Dictionaries can be bad about that. The atheist organizations have tried taking issue with this problem, actually.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

:Anything that is not a positive belief, is by default a negative." - False dichotomy.

 

Something that is not a positive belief can be neutral as well as negative. It can also be null and void. "Everyone is born an atheist" is an example of a false default negative position. People are born with a null and void idea of most everything until they are exposed to an idea..like religion or atheism.

 

I've never read Kant. Am I positive about Kant? Or negative? Neither, really. My mind has not been exposed to his ideas therefore I have no opinion. I may have an opinion after I read Kant or I may not. If I agree with some of his thoughts but disagree with others then am I positive or negative?

 

If the left part of my brain says Gods are phooey, but the right part of my brain loves communing with invisible entities...am I positive or negative? Maybe I'm both positive and negative simultaneously!

 

And then we consider the word 'belief'. What is belief? Belief is actively thinking a certain way about something. If I dont waste spend my time thinking about Jesus or atheism or agnosticism or any other religion or philosophy then I have chosen a zero option.

 

I consider myself an agnostic but I'm not in love with that label. Maybe I'll call myself a zero option.

 

Thanks for reading my drivel. Carry on.

 

 

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, florduh said:

However, the extensive differentiation among those who do not worship or acknowledge any gods is somehow important.

 

 

The hyper-concern about the extensive differentiation of labelling seems bizarre.

 

midnite rider

quasi hard soft over-easy sometimes theist, sometimes non-theist.

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

No, words actually matter.  The meanings for words matter.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic

 

"1  Relating to the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal.

 

2  Asserting opinions in a doctrinal or arrogant manner; opinionated."

 

 

If you think 1 + 1 = 2 that isn't dogma nor is it dogmatic in nature.  Atheist generally welcome debate on the existence of god.  They don't excommunicate people who believe.  Or threaten them with hell.

 

Furthermore I didn't assert "beyond all doubt" type atheist do not exist.  I said I have never found one.  You did not provide an example of an atheist who claims they know "beyond all doubt" that gods do not exist.

 

What I have found is a lot of strong atheists who find "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be the standard that is meet by the evidence.

 

 

 

Straw man, I never said the meanings of words don't matter. In fact I directly stated the exact opposite. What I said was that the etymological origin of a word does not necessarily accurately represent the current definition of a word. Thus the etymological origin of the term "Atheist" is irrelevant to the context of this discussion, and that's absolutely true.

 

Also, yes I did. Again you're splitting hairs because the exact phrasing wasn't used, even though the literal exact same idea was conveyed.

 

As for your link...further down on the exact same page you posted above:

 

dogmatic

/dɒɡˈmætɪk/

adjective

1.

1. (of a statement, opinion, etc) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable
2. (of a person) prone to making such statements

2.

of, relating to, or constituting dogma: dogmatic writings

3.

based on assumption rather than empirical observation

 

Top of Google Search:

 

dog·mat·ic

dôɡˈmadik/

adjective

adjective: dogmatic

inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

 

 

Miriam Webster:

 

Definition of dogmatic

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

 

2 : of or relating to dogma (see dogma)

 

Wikitionary:

 

Adjective

dogmatic (comparative more dogmatic, superlative most dogmatic)

1. (philosophy, medicine) Adhering only to principles which are true a priori, rather than truths based on evidence or deduction.
2. Pertaining to dogmas; doctrinal.
3. Asserting dogmas or beliefs in a superior or arrogant way; opinionated, dictatorial.

 

[Related to above for clarification]

 

 

Definition of dogma

plural dogmas also dogmata play \-mə-tə\

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

 

Definition of a priori

1 a : deductive

b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori

c : presupposed by experience

2 a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive

b : formed or conceived beforehand

 

 

Collins English:

 

dogmatic

(dɔgˈmætɪk ; dôgmatˈik)

 

adjective

1. 

a. 

(of a statement, opinion, etc) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable

b. 

(of a person) prone to making such statements

2. 

of, relating to, or constituting dogma

dogmatic writings

3. 

based on assumption rather than empirical observation

 

Cambridge:

 

dogmatic adjective

us /dɔɡˈmæt̬·ɪk, dɑɡ-/

 

(of a person or a group) strongly expressing your beliefs as if they were facts:

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 Also, yes I did. Again you're splitting hairs because the exact phrasing wasn't used, even though the literal exact same idea was conveyed.

 

No, it wasn't.  Beyond all doubt means beyond all doubt.  This is the heart of our disagreement.   The core impasse is not spitting hairs.  Every other kind of knowledge is held to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" and that should apply to the question of god's existence as well.

 

Look, I can imagine a dogmatic strong atheist.  That would look like somebody who thinks "My pastor said gods are real.  Everything my pastor says is a lie.  So gods cannot be real and I will never explore this issue any further because I will never waste one more second on it."  That would be dogmatic strong atheism.  There probably are people like that who exist.  But let's not pretend that represents the strong atheist who actually thinks about the issue.  Being a strong atheist does not automatically make someone dogmatic.  Atheists who build good arguments based on evidence are not being dogmatic.

 

 

Please note: 

-When I make an argument of my own that isn't a strawman.  In order for there to be a strawman I would have to misrepresent your argument.

-You have not shown an atheist who claims to have special authority regarding the non-existence of God.  That definition doesn't help you.  (Maybe one exists but who is it?)

 -If you want to argue dogmatic is logical then good luck.  I don't know if that is what you are trying to go for here with all those definitions.  Working definitions into a false equivalence doesn't fly.   

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

No, it wasn't.  Beyond all doubt means beyond all doubt.  This is the heart of our disagreement.   The core impasse is not spitting hairs.  Every other kind of knowledge is held to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" and that should apply to the question of god's existence as well.

 

Look, I can imagine a dogmatic strong atheist.  That would look like somebody who thinks "My pastor said gods are real.  Everything my pastor says is a lie.  So gods cannot be real and I will never explore this issue any further because I will never waste one more second on it."  That would be dogmatic strong atheism.  There probably are people like that who exist.  But let's not pretend that represents the strong atheist who actually thinks about the issue.  Being a strong atheist does not automatically make someone dogmatic.  Atheists who build good arguments based on evidence are not being dogmatic.

 

 

Please note: 

-When I make an argument of my own that isn't a strawman.  In order for there to be a strawman I would have to misrepresent your argument.

-You have not shown an atheist who claims to have special authority regarding the non-existence of God.  That definition doesn't help you.  (Maybe one exists but who is it?)

 -If you want to argue dogmatic is logical then good luck.  I don't know if that is what you are trying to go for here with all those definitions.  Working definitions into a false equivalence doesn't fly.   

 

Yes, it was. You're claiming that because the exact same phrasing wasn't used, it somehow doesn't "count" regardless of whether the exact same idea was conveyed with the only difference being the exact phrasing that was used.

 

Someone who claims that God "can't and doesn't" exist is making the claim that God doesn't exist beyond doubt. "Can't and doesn't" is a declarative absolute, it means the exact same thing. Especially with the addition of the word "can't" which deliberately precludes it as a possibility. They both literally mean the same thing with the only difference being the exact words used to convey the same point.

 

You were trying to claim my definition of dogmatic was incorrect or at least that my usage of the term was questionable by posting an alternate definition that didn't contain the definition I was referencing. Even though on the exact same page for the definition you posted, the exact definition I am referencing is attributed to the word. If that wasn't what you were trying to do, then why post it? There really isn't any other reason for you to have done so.

 

I posted the definitions as evidence that your claim regarding that my use of the definition of the term was incorrect or questionable is wrong.

 

Also, your earlier 1+1=2 analogy was terrible. We know 1+1=2 because it can be proven, and therefore is not dogmatic. You'll notice that several of the definitions of dogmatic mention a lack of evidence and proof that something is true. God can't be proven not to exist, but there is no evidence that it does exist either. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "There is no God" is not provable, therefore stating it as if it is a fact is dogmatic.

 

I know what a straw man is. You're making another one here. I never argued that being dogmatic was logical in the first place. Therefore there is no reason for that to be there unless you are misrepresenting my previous arguments.

[mymistake]

3 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 Also, your earlier 1+1=2 analogy was terrible. We know 1+1=2 because it can be proven, and therefore is not dogmatic. You'll notice that several of the definitions of dogmatic mention a lack of evidence and proof that something is true. God can't be proven not to exist, but there is no evidence that it does exist either. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "There is no God" is not provable, therefore stating it as if it is a fact is dogmatic.

 

Can you prove that "God can't be proven to not exist"?  If your claim can't be proven then by your own line of reasoning your claim is dogmatic.  Good luck with that one.  

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

Can you prove that "God can't be proven to not exist"?  If your claim can't be proven then by your own line of reasoning your claim is dogmatic.  Good luck with that one.  

 

Of course I can. That's literally why the burden of proof lies on positive claims.

 

You are literally asking me to prove an unrestricted negative. See Russell's Teapot for more information.

 

Now, that isn't universally true all the time, but proving a negative requires restrictions and limitations. For example, you can prove that there are no kittens in a shoe box provided you have access to it simply by opening it and having a look, that is if you define "kittens" as the commonly understood concept of what a kitten is specifically. It doesn't disprove invisible ghost kittens or some other abnormal definition of "kittens". Proving that there are no kittens in the box also does not prove that kittens don't exist at all, only that there are none in that specific box.

 

Another limitation is contradictory claims. You can't prove that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist. However, if someone claims that there is a teapot that is made both 100% of porcelain and 100% of stainless steel, both of those things can't be true. If a teapot is made of one substance, and contains any of the other, then it isn't really 100% made of either.

 

In a broad sense, negatives can't be proven. You can't prove the non-existence of an undefined entity, but if you apply enough specifics to what qualifies as God and what qualifies as existence, possibly, depending on what those restrictions are. However, that would only disprove that particular God in regard to that specific definition of existence, and not God as a concept.

 

The more specific you get, the more likely a negative can be proven. That doesn't automatically make it possible either though. It is highly situational and depends on the boundaries involved.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So the inability to prove that God does exist, doesn't prove that it doesn't.

 

Regarding the existence of something like God without any sort of limitations or specifics, you can only prove the positive, that it does exist, not that it doesn't.

 

Some would argue that science proves negatives all the time. For example, research that suggests cell phones don't cause cancer. However, that doesn't prove that they don't. It just shows that there is no evidence to support it according to the tests and data gathered by the study. It doesn't prove the negative is true, just that there's no positive evidence that supports it within the scope of the research, and the two are not the same thing. There could be information missing, or some other factors the research didn't take into account. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

That isn't saying that the research reached a false conclusion, only that it hasn't proved that it does not happen. It only supports the likelihood that it does not within the framework of the factors that were involved in the study.

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Dictionaries reflect society's definitions of words, but society is who decides the definition in the first place. Not individuals who would prefer an alternate definition be the/a correct one.

 

 

Yes, and in this case what the atheist organizations are protesting is a dominant christian society setting forward straw man type definitions that make atheist's and atheism what they think it should mean. Again, the organizations have tried taking issue with it for that reason. But it really boils down to grass roots efforts like this, to set the record straight and possibly change public opinion through dialogue and education, basically. 

 

13 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Regardless of whether a "zero option" exists or not, which is up for debate, Atheism has altered from it's etymological origins. It doesn't simply mean someone who is not religious anymore and hasn't for quite a while, it means someone who actively rejects or denounces the concept of God. Agnostics don't do that.

 

Agnostics are not simply a type of Atheist. They are a separate and different type of thinking. Similar yes, but not the same thing.

 

If Soft Atheists and Agnostics were the same thing, we wouldn't need another word for Agnostics. The term Agnostic-Atheist also wouldn't be a thing. Agnostic and Atheists convey two different ideas regarding the modern definitions.

 

Agnostics are either theists or atheist's, in edition to not knowing if god exists. That's what I'm saying. Not knowing says nothing about whether or not you believe. An agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but chooses to believe anyways. While an agnostic atheists knows that it's beyond knowing, but with holds belief all the same based on whatever reason they so choose for not believing. 

 

The reason there are two words, or soft atheism and agnosticism, is simply because one has to do with knowledge and one has to do with belief. The more people understand that the better. 

 

13 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

The argument was made that dogmatic Atheists don't exist. That there aren't people who reject the concept of God absolutely and with certainty. I literally proved that isn't the case.

 

You could argue that most Atheists aren't true "Hard Atheists" and are simply varying degrees of "Soft Atheism", but not that Atheists that reject the concept of God as not possible with certainty don't exist. I have provided literal proof that they do exist.

 

How about Richard Dawkins? Is he a hard, or dogmatic atheist? 

 

Guess what, he readily admits that he's an agnostic as well as an atheist. And he listed the same reasons that I've set forward in terms of not knowing if any gods exist out there somewhere, but withholding belief all the same. And being anti-theistic at the same time, being against religion. He's agnostic, atheist, and anti-theistic. These are descriptive terms that apply to certain aspects of his over all world view, not mutually exclusive terms that do not mix and match. 

 

So even in a hard atheist example, agnosticism can factor in.

 

It's not the zero option that many people take it to mean.  

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

Something that is not a positive belief can be neutral as well as negative. It can also be null and void. "Everyone is born an atheist" is an example of a false default negative position. People are born with a null and void idea of most everything until they are exposed to an idea..like religion or atheism.

 

I've argued the exact opposite. Atheism is our natural state, because, of course, we're not born with positive belief in gods and not positive belief in gods, IS not belief in gods. 

 

Theism is learned, not natural. And not neutral either. There's no false dichotomy. It's literally that black and white. It sounds harsh to call babies atheist's, especially when theist's children can't possibly have positive belief in god until a certain age. But I content that that conclusion is where the truth leads.

 

If something means "not" something else, then that's it. 

 

This should soften people's perspective on atheism as our natural state, that which we are born into. 

 

Just like Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any other positive belief that's learned, we are not born believing in these evidently man made stories along with their characters. We're born a-santist's, a-easter bunniest's, a-tooth fairiest's, etc. We are also, technically, born not knowing or agnostic about them. We're born agnostic atheists in this way. And agnostic theism would have to be learned after the fact. 

 

We're born atheist's, it's really that simple. 

 

And if we're never convinced of any of this make believe story content, we stay atheist's. 

 

And, more importantly, if we become theist's and then later revert back to your natural atheist state, once again, then we're "Born Again Atheist's." 

 

I'll leave it there for now....

 

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

5 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Of course I can.  

 

Are you unwilling?  I'd love to see you prove that "God can't be proven to not exist".  There is no need for distractions.  Please proceed with your proof.

 

 

5 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

You are literally asking me to prove an unrestricted negative.  

 

You put yourself in that spot.  You said it wouldn't be dogmatic if you can prove what you assert.  And you asserted "God can't be proven to not exist".

 

 

5 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

The more specific you get, the more likely a negative can be proven. That doesn't automatically make it possible either though. It is highly situational and depends on the boundaries involved.

 

On that we are very much in agreement.  For instance if one were to commit the special pleading fallacy and allow the topic under discussion to include unfounded, ridiculous and contradictory objections then you will never get anywhere.  This is why for all other fields of knowledge we only require "beyond a reasonable doubt".  If the objection has no foundation you can safely ignore it.  If an objection is not compatible with "reality as we know it" then you ignore the objection.  If magic and miracles are not acceptable excuses in any other field then we should require evidence before we accept them as a shield for the gods.  Without assumed miracles the gods evaporate.

 

 

[ContraBardus]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've argued the exact opposite. Atheism is our natural state, because, of course, we're not born with positive belief in gods and not positive belief in gods, IS not belief in gods. 

 

Theism is learned, not natural. And not neutral either. There's no false dichotomy. It's literally that black and white. It sounds harsh to call babies atheist's, especially when theist's children can't possibly have positive belief in god until a certain age. But I content that that conclusion is where the truth leads.

 

If something means "not" something else, then that's it. 

 

This should soften people's perspective on atheism as our natural state, that which we are born into. 

 

Just like Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any other positive belief that's learned, we are not born believing in these evidently man made stories along with their characters. We're born a-santist's, a-easter bunniest's, a-tooth fairiest's, etc. We are also, technically, born not knowing or agnostic about them. We're born agnostic atheists in this way. And agnostic theism would have to be learned after the fact. 

 

We're born atheist's, it's really that simple. 

 

And if we're never convinced of any of this make believe story content, we stay atheist's. 

 

And, more importantly, if we become theist's and then later revert back to your natural atheist state, once again, then we're "Born Again Atheist's." 

 

I'll leave it there for now....

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're born Agnostic actually, not Atheist. We aren't born believing there is no God.

 

Someone who has never heard of Superman doesn't believe there is no Superman, because they have no concept of what Superman is to begin with. They have neither a positive nor negative position regarding him, because they have no position at all.

 

You could make an argument that once most people learn about the concept of God, they become either an atheistic-agnostic or theistic-agnostic by default because the knowledge of the concept of God would naturally lead to leaning towards one or the other on some level, but not that people are born Atheistic.

 

That doesn't mean that no one can remain completely Agnostic at all either. It just suggests that it's probably rare.

[ContraBardus]

13 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Are you unwilling?  I'd love to see you prove that "God can't be proven to not exist".  There is no need for distractions.  Please proceed with your proof.

 

 

 

You put yourself in that spot.  You said it wouldn't be dogmatic if you can prove what you assert.  And you asserted "God can't be proven to not exist".

 

 

 

On that we are very much in agreement.  For instance if one were to commit the special pleading fallacy and allow the topic under discussion to include unfounded, ridiculous and contradictory objections then you will never get anywhere.  This is why for all other fields of knowledge we only require "beyond a reasonable doubt".  If the objection has no foundation you can safely ignore it.  If an objection is not compatible with "reality as we know it" then you ignore the objection.  If magic and miracles are not acceptable excuses in any other field then we should require evidence before we accept them as a shield for the gods.  Without assumed miracles the gods evaporate.

 

 

 

I did prove it, but you have a vested interest in not accepting the evidence I've provided or any argument regardless of how well reasoned. I'm confident my argument regarding that is airtight logic. There is a conflict of interest here, so of course you wouldn't admit that I've proved it regardless of how well I've done so, so we find ourselves at an impasse.

 

At the least, I've definitely proved that my statement that "God can't be proven to not exist" is not dogmatic, because there is more than enough evidence and sound logic provided in my post to support the claim.

 

Dogmatic means that someone makes a claim that they can't support as fact, not someone who makes a claim that they can't absolutely prove is 100% fact. If that was the case then every scientist in the world would be dogmatic.

 

"God doesn't exist" as a declarative absolute cannot be supported. There is no evidence you can provide to prove that the undefined term "God" doesn't "exist", which is also yet another poorly defined factor in the statement.

 

Let's look at it another way.

 

Someone says that "Santa never existed".

 

Well, that could be true or false depending on who you mean by "Santa" exactly.

 

There are a lot of different versions of "Santa". Some are benevolent, some are even demonic. There are an unknown number of different "Santas", probably thousands. Kris Kringle, St. Nicholas, Father Christmas, Krampus, etc...

 

Then there's one that you actually can prove existed. The Bishop known as St. Nicholas. There is contemporary evidence that supports he existed, records, accounts, images made during his life of him, and even a tomb with remains that can be verified as legitimate using records to corroborate that it's him in there. However, it could be argued that whether he qualifies as a true "Santa" or not is up for debate.

 

So, in a sense, Santa Claus can be proven to exist. However, that only proves that one instance of Santa existed. Not that there is a magical toy maker that lives at the north pole, or that there is a demonic monster that steals naughty children away and beats them in burlap bags before boiling them alive.

 

Some of those others are easier to disprove than others, and some of them can indeed be disproved to some degree of certainty. You can prove that specific Santas within certain limitations don't exist.

 

You can't however, disprove that "Santa" doesn't exist as a concept even if you don't consider St. Nicholas as a legitimate example of a "Santa". Maybe the toy shop is in another dimension, maybe the sleigh has control over time, maybe the real Santa brainwashes parents into thinking they bought the toys under the tree and plants false memories of buying them, maybe he plays favorites, votes Republican, and doesn't like poor kids?

 

Even if you prove that a particular Santa doesn't exist, you didn't prove that he never existed. Let's say you disproved that "physical existence in this dimension toy shop located at the exact North Pole in a home that is not hidden away and is openly visible" Santa doesn't exist by going to the North Pole and physically inspecting it. That doesn't prove that the toy shop was never there. Maybe it got swallowed up by the ice, maybe ice movement over a long period of time moved it, maybe it was packed up by the elves and moved elsewhere leaving no trace it was ever there? All you've proven by going there and inspecting the location is that it does not exist there now, not that it never existed at all.

 

The simple fact is that "Santa" just like "God" is not well defined enough to prove or disprove as a concept. Especially in regard to a term like "exist" which is yet another poorly defined term.

 

As for "miracles", that depends on what you mean by "miracle" and again what particular kind of "God" you're talking about. There are forces that we can't explain as it is. We don't actually know how gravity works for example. We know it exists and what it does, but cannot explain why it does what it does and can't control it ourselves to any degree, we can manipulate what it does to our advantage, but cannot change its properties or explain exactly what it is. "God's Power" could just be another example of this.

 

You could say that many "unexplained" things that occur are "miracles". Some people do miraculously recover from potentially life threatening illness without any known cause. It's very rare, but things like that do actually happen. That's just one example of an "unexplainable" that could be attributed to "miracles".

 

Science isn't really about proof in this sense anyway, and that's not what we've been discussing. This is a philosophical debate in the first place, the two do mix somewhat, but this isn't a hard science debate. The positive standards of proof in science don't really matter and are only relevant in the sense that they are not intended to provide negative conclusions in the first place, which supports my point.

[ContraBardus]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, and in this case what the atheist organizations are protesting is a dominant christian society setting forward straw man type definitions that make atheist's and atheism what they think it should mean. Again, the organizations have tried taking issue with it for that reason. But it really boils down to grass roots efforts like this, to set the record straight and possibly change public opinion through dialogue and education, basically. 

 

 

Agnostics are either theists or atheist's, in edition to not knowing if god exists. That's what I'm saying. Not knowing says nothing about whether or not you believe. An agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but chooses to believe anyways. While an agnostic atheists knows that it's beyond knowing, but with holds belief all the same based on whatever reason they so choose for not believing. 

 

The reason there are two words, or soft atheism and agnosticism, is simply because one has to do with knowledge and one has to do with belief. The more people understand that the better. 

 

 

How about Richard Dawkins? Is he a hard, or dogmatic atheist? 

 

Guess what, he readily admits that he's an agnostic as well as an atheist. And he listed the same reasons that I've set forward in terms of not knowing if any gods exist out there somewhere, but withholding belief all the same. And being anti-theistic at the same time, being against religion. He's agnostic, atheist, and anti-theistic. These are descriptive terms that apply to certain aspects of his over all world view, not mutually exclusive terms that do not mix and match. 

 

So even in a hard atheist example, agnosticism can factor in.

 

It's not the zero option that many people take it to mean.  

 

This sounds an awful lot like you want Hard Atheist to mean something different than it does because you want to refer to yourself that way because it sounds cooler. It's not a Straw Man if it's a legitimate definition, and it is.

 

Actually, Christian organizations don't really argue that "Hard Atheists" state "There is definitely no God" they generally state that all Atheists say this. They don't really differentiate the spectrum of certainty and would like to lump us all together. That's the misrepresentation, not defining "Hard Atheists" as dogmatic [which they are].

 

You are also deliberately ignoring the fact that these people actually exist, and I've already proven that they do in this thread, and are going on as if Christians just made it up. It might be incorrect to say that all Atheists are Hard Atheists with dogmatic beliefs, but it is equally wrong to act as if these people don't exist and that Atheism is completely made up of rational and cheerful people who never attack Christian beliefs and overstate or are overconfident regarding the certainty of their own. The simple fact is that not every Atheist is logical or rational, and that the kinds of people that Christians like to paint the rest of us as do exist. They might not represent the majority of us, but they are real, and they are what makes up Hard Atheists.

 

Not every subset of Atheism necessarily should be positive. We have unreasonable assholes too, and you've been on these forums long enough that you should have realized that by now.

 

It seems like you're trying to push dogmatic Atheists out of Atheism and minimize the concept of their existence because you don't like their beliefs and don't want Atheism to be associated with them. You think it makes the rest of Atheism look bad, and it does, but that doesn't make them not Atheists, or mean that Hard Atheism is not their subgroup within Atheism.

 

There are plenty of Muslims who don't like violent terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of their God, but that doesn't make those terrorists not Muslims no matter how much other Muslims might argue that they aren't really part of their religion. They call them "Extremists" and try to distance themselves from them, but it doesn't change their association with the faith or how it is portrayed by other belief systems. They are judged by the worst of their kind, even though they are the minority, and that's how it works for us too. [Let's stick to the point here and not argue about all the other lesser evils Muslims in general promote, that's not what the thread is about.]

 

Our unpleasant little assholes group is called "Hard Atheists" and while they are considerably more benign than the Muslim's unpleasant little subgroup in general, they are the ones who people who don't agree with our lack of beliefs will try to use as examples for the rest of us. Whether it is fair or a misrepresentation of the majority is irrelevant. That's what people who are attacking our lack of belief will target because it's how they can make us look our worst and have the biggest advantage.

 

Dawkins is a Soft Atheist. He admits he cannot prove that God does not exist. We've already covered that Agnostics and Atheists are not mutually exclusive terms. I was the one who said it first in this thread to begin with. Not sure why you're repeating it here.

 

Anti-theistic doesn't really factor into it. That's simply a matter of how aggressive someone is. It's also worth pointing out that most "anti-theistic" people have more problems with the organizations and actions than the actual beliefs themselves. They usually argue against specific religions or specific ideas of God and the negative impact of the results of those beliefs.

 

At any rate, anti-theism is really a separate topic and not relevant here.