Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

Even so, the definition of belief is accepting something as true. If you have a 50% confidence that something is true, then you don't really accept it as true (well, I guess you could, but it'd be pretty irrational) thus it doesn't qualify as a belief.

 

They are reacting to religious claims, and so, their arguments consist of a criticism of the religious argument. Whether they believe that no god exists has not been stated (even though it may be true).

At 95% confidence, I would accept the proposition as true, form and form one entire belief. Not 95% of a belief. If I accept something as true, that's one belief, if I do not, there is no belief. There is no other possible percentage.

The exact number of what confidence constitutes belief depends on the context. If I have an opportunity to investigate further, or the outcome really mattered to me, 95% of whatever it is might not be enough for me to accept it as true.

At some lower number (again, the exact numbers aren't really important), I might say "It's pretty likely that statement A is true, but I'm not going to accept it outright". Given that I don't accept it, it does not constitute a belief in A in itself. I might produce some other belief, like "A is possible/likely", but that's another statement.

 

I agree. As you identify, believing something is 50% true is not the same as believing that it is true so, they become different beliefs which is the point I was trying to make.

 

95% is still a different belief than 100% or 0% but, I understand that you are simply setting your own personal arbitrary threshold and, confidence is an excellent choice of word in the context.

Edit - thinking about it I guess that it could be stated as the choice to believe or lack belief is binary but, the threshold for being convinced of either position is variable. I could probably live with that but, another model that comes to mind is a kind of regression of beliefs that branch out into sub-beliefs that you can make binary decisions about to fulfill some numerical measure?

 

I think your edit here is what I'm getting at. If one considers beliefs to come in percentages, then we do indeed run into issues like the ones Kokomojojo mention, if you lack 1% belief, is that enough to qualify as lacking that belief? You also run into the issue I've tried to highlight with the gumball example, if you don't know whether there is an even or an odd number, are you forced to conclude that you have 50% belief, and therefore accept either one as true? Both of those seem weird, it seems to me much more natural (and more consistent with the definitions I can find of belief) that belief is a boolean thing, something that you either have or you don't, there is no partial beliefs. I would probably understand what you meant if you said you believed something 95%, but belief in that sense is not the same as belief in the normal sense.

Yeah, the exact percentage is arbitrary, personal, and depends on a lot of things. I don't think the exact number matters.

 

The gumball example allows you to make numerical analyses that can be convincing and gives the impression that this and the odd or even number analogy is representative of belief, which I think is deceptive and is why I have not indulged it.

I'm going have a think about this and come back to it although, like you, I cannot see the primary belief as being anything other than Boolean and binary.

 

Do you believe flying unicorns exist? If no, do you believe they don't exist? If so what evidence is there that they don't exist? If you don't believe in unicorns but don't believe they don't exist then are you confused about their existence and are legitimately torn over whether unicorns exist and think there is a legitimate case for and exist the unicorns?

 

only because its a well known fairy tail. if it were not I would believe neither until sufficient evidence was presented.

 

youve got your facts crossed. the gumball example is used to prove that agnostic is a valid propositional conclusion since counting the gumballs is not allowed, which means you will never have absolute proof how many gumballs are in the jar.

Its not belief that is the issue its what is believed. Its been said countless times that agnostics have beliefs too.

force an agnostic to respond binary and you get:

Agnostic, do you believe there are an odd number of gumballs in the jar? Ans: I dont know.
Agnostic, do you believe there are an even number of gumballs in the jar? Ans: I dont know.
Agnostic, what do you believe? Ans: I believe its impossible to know if there are odd or even gumballs in the jar.

The agnostic responds with the greatest knowable truth.

Neo-atheist-revisionists demand agnostics be considered atheists thereby attempting to force their beliefs upon us when the agnostic is the only reasonable determination for anything with insufficient evidence to be proven. Why? Because when raised to the level of 'absolute' proof, theists are 'guessing' even and atheists are 'guessing' odd, both 'guessing' (based upon probability maybe) where agnostics on the other hand deal in hard core absolute facts.

Therefore agnostics deal with and accept only the greatest reasonable truth of the matter.

 

false, lack is not binary, its conditional. one may lack 1% or 80% or any percentage between zero and 100, based upon some assigned condition. Binary is 100 percent in or 100% out. Sure you can do a regression if you like, the answer is still going to be binary in your world, in mine its trinary.

No its the same belief with different level of confidence unless it tips the scale to theist or agnostics.

 

How does there being a fairy tale about something prove that it is false? How do you know the fairy tale isn't based on truth? Sailors made stories about Sea Monsters like giant squid and we later find them. People made stories about dragons but maybe their origins are dinosaur fossils. Homer wrote a mythical legend about the battle of Troy and later much of that is confirmed.

What if someone did make up the story but they happened to be correct without even knowing it? E.g. what if someone made up a story about other planets outside our solar system before modern astronomy and they happened to be proven true when we later find that there indeed are? Someone making a story about something doesn't affect the truth of that something. It is just an unproven story but not disproven.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Oh? I thought I had sufficient evidence to believe unicorns do not exist, but since you put it that way, presuming everything you are saying is correct and true, I had better revise my thoughts and claim agnostic since I dont know and under those conditions its highly unlikely that I can know the correct answer.

 

Right, take two unproven ideas A and B. If some natives make a fairy tale about A, does that make A false and less believable than B which is equally unproven but nobody made a fairy tale about it yet.

For example, people have made fairy tales about flying unicorns, But what if nobody had made fairy tales about flying unicorns would that change anything about its believability? There are no fairy tales about flying meerkats is that more believable than flying unicorns which fairy tales have been made about?

So to me whether or not fairy tales have been made about something is not proof for or against it. What matters is how much evidence it has. But does the lack of evidence mean something is false or simply that we don't have enough to believe in it yet and are waiting for the evidence?

 

Theist. There is a god.
Atheist. Piss off until you have some kind of evidence, and watch you don't stand in the flying unicorn **** on the way out.
End of.

I am an atheist I lack belief. And patience, but that is just me!

 

I'm with Kokomojojo on that one. The idea of the gumball example is to examine what can be said about claims like "I believe there is an even number of gumballs" from an agnostic's perspective. First, we set up the system where agnosticism is the natural default decision, by making sure the options are basically equivalent. That's not to say that "there is a god" is necessarily equivalent with "there is no god", it's just that the argument I'm making doesn't have to do with the positions being asymmetrical.

Basically, if someone does not know whether there is an even number of gumballs, should their stance towards "there is an even number of gumballs" be considered a lack of belief?

I say yes. If it was a belief, the agnostic would say "I believe there is an even number of gumballs", and that would be a contradiction (given that anyone holding that stance isn't really an agnostic). So the stance towards that position should be an absence of that belief. The fact that they are also unconvinced of the opposite, that there is an odd number, has no bearing on whether they can be said to lack the first belief.

 

If you use that analogy then you would have to say the gumballs can never be counted. That way it would be equivalent to saying whether or not God exists. There is no way to answer that to the satisfaction of everyone. Some will always deny the existence of God no matter what.

There is evidence for God. At least to the extent that humans can comprehend. I do believe that most people who believe God exists do not envision a bearded man in the sky but whatever reason we humans exist today. I see nothing wrong with such a belief.

 

There is absolutely no evidence for gods as your own thread showed, there is more evidence for unicorns since at least we can imagine what a unicorn would be. Consequentially most gods are made in the image of their creator, men!

 

You are wrong. But thanks for illustrating my point of how some people will ignore evidence to protect their worldview as well as their fragile psyche.....

 

It is a good sign you recognise it in yourself......

 

Well, I have looked and that is not the case. I am objective and not closed minded.

 

Exactly what evidence, outside of your own opinion, have you presented? Verifiable proof, not more of your imagination.

 

Further proof you will refuse to recognize truth.

 

Plenty of proof.