Is Atheism a Belief?

[Stubby]

That's not relevant though. You can have no evidence for something and still have no warrant to have a belief either way wrt its truth or falsity. For instance, I see no evidence it's not raining in Ottawa. That doesn't provide me any warrant to believe or disbelieve the proposition, 'it is raining in Ottawa.' The absence of evidence only amounts to rational grounds for asserting or denying a proposition in certain circumstances and I don't live in Ottawa.

It never ceases to amaze me that atheists can't get their heads around this.

You still have it arse backward. Ottowa is a real place. It may or may not be raining there. It is far more likely to be snowing at the moment but whatever.

And I notice you dodged my question and my point showing that at least one prominent person claims to have knowledge that god exists.

Show me the courtesy of answering my question and I will prove that you have it wrong.

[Chaircat Meow]

You still have it arse backward. Ottowa is a real place. It may or may not be raining there. It is far more likely to be snowing at the moment but whatever.

Yeah, it is a real place. This is relevant because?

And I notice you dodged my question and my point showing that at least one prominent person claims to have knowledge that god exists.

I didn't actually dispute people claim to know God exists. I said they didn't call themsevles gnostics. I'm questioning why we need to bother distinguishing someone who claims they are certain God exists from someone who believes he does. Usually we accept people hold beliefs with various degrees of certainty so why make a big deal out of that here?

[TrueMetis]

That's not relevant though. You can have no evidence for something and still have no warrant to have a belief either way wrt its truth or falsity. For instance, I see no evidence it's not raining in Ottawa. That doesn't provide me any warrant to believe or disbelieve the proposition, 'it is raining in Ottawa.' The absence of evidence only amounts to rational grounds for asserting or denying a proposition in certain circumstances and I don't live in Ottawa.

It never ceases to amaze me that atheists can't get their heads around this.

Atheism includes both disbelief and lack of belief. Anything but the positive belief in gods is atheism.

The absence of evidence only amounts to rational grounds for asserting or denying a proposition in certain circumstances and I don't live in Ottawa.

And god is one of those things, because people have searched for thousands of years and never once found evidence of deities. On the other hand, it has rained in Ottawa, and as such it might do so again. It also as simple as a quick google search to find out for sure.

Yeah, it is a real place. This is relevant because?

I didn't actually dispute people claim to know God exists. I said they didn't call themsevles gnostics. I'm questioning why we need to bother distinguishing someone who claims they are certain God exists from someone who believes he does. Usually we accept people hold beliefs with various degrees of certainty so why make a big deal out of that here?

People don't call themselves Homo Sapien terribly often, or acknowledge we are apes. In fact some will deny vehemently that they are. Doesn't change the facts. Not all terms require you to accept them to apply to you.

Atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic are not self identifiers. They are descriptions. Like "the grass is green." The grass doesn't get to dispute that it is green when it's green.

[Chaircat Meow]

Atheism includes both disbelief and lack of belief. Anything but the positive belief in gods is atheism.

That's a rather fatuous way to categorize things. Disbelief and absence of belief are two very different things.

And god is one of those things, because people have searched for thousands of years and never once found evidence of deities.

The point is you need some conditions that ought to be met if God existed and aren't to conclude we lack evidence. And that's not what you and Stubby were asserting, as I recall. You were suggesting the lack of evidence per se warranted disbelief and it doesn't.

On the other hand, it has rained in Ottawa, and as such it might do so again. It also as simple as a quick google search to find out for sure.

The proposition is, 'it is raining in Ottawa,' (i.e. now) not, 'it could be raining in Ottawa.'

People don't call themselves Homo Sapien terribly often, or acknowledge we are apes. In fact some will deny vehemently that they are. Doesn't change the facts. Not all terms require you to accept them to apply to you.

Atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic are not self identifiers. They are descriptions. Like "the grass is green." The grass doesn't get to dispute that it is green when it's green.

My question is why are we bothering with such a set of categories when categorizing people as Theist, Agnostic and Atheist is much truer to way we usually think.

[The guy from the Vale]

"It's raining in Ottawa" is a testable hypothesis. The existence of god isn't.

[TrueMetis]

That's a rather fatuous way to categorize things. Disbelief and absence of belief are two very different things.

They're close enough to be held under atheism. Disbelief and lack of belief would refer to basically the same thing. In that both disbelief and lack of belief in something means you aren't accepting that thing is true. One is simply slightly more active than the other.

The point is you need some conditions that ought to be met if God existed and aren't to conclude we lack evidence. And that's not what you and Stubby were asserting, as I recall. You were suggesting the lack of evidence per se warranted disbelief and it doesn't.

Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to disbelive in Sasquatch, what makes god so special? Someone posited a claim, gods existence, they were unable to prove that claim with evidence, as such we do not accept that claim. Basic atheism. Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to not accept the existence of something, it's just not a valid reason to claim it absolutly doesn't exist. Which is why most atheists are agnositc.

The proposition is, 'it is raining in Ottawa,' (i.e. now) not, 'it could be raining in Ottawa.'

I know, but the knowledge it has rained in Ottawa makes this a claim that is worth looking into. If there had never been evidence it rained in Ottawa and someone claimed it was you'd be fairly justified in thinking them wrong. (though unlike deities it would be a simple matter to prove)

My question is why are we bothering with such a set of categories when categorizing people as Theist, Agnostic and Atheist is much truer to way we usually think.

Because gnostic theists exist. The entirety of Catholicism is based on the idea that the guy in the funny hat knows what god wants in the same way that you know what colour your car is. And there are all sorts of people (like creationists) claiming knowledge of god.

[Chaircat Meow]

"It's raining in Ottawa" is a testable hypothesis. The existence of god isn't.

And ???

Firstly that's not the point of the example. At all.

Second, not all of our beliefs need to be testable hypothesises.

Thirdly, it is not even clear the existence of God couldn't be a testable hypothesis.

[Stubby]

And ???

Firstly that's not the point of the example. At all.

Second, not all of our beliefs need to be testable hypothesises.

Thirdly, it is not even clear the existence of God couldn't be a testable hypothesis.

Give us an example of such a belief then.

And I note you still haven't answered my question. :rolleyes:

[Chaircat Meow]

Give us an example of such a belief then.

And I note you still haven't answered my question. :rolleyes:

Murder is immoral. All beliefs must be testable hypothesises (that's two).

I have lots of reason to think you possess no pet sphinx. I've been to pet shops and they don't have sphinxes. If people had pet sphinxes we know about them, because we'd see them, feed them, all the time, and consequently they wouldn't have a reputation as mythical creatures. Easy.

[The guy from the Vale]

So, why is god in the category of "it rains in Ottawa" for you and not in the "pet sphinx" category? After all, there are credible reports that tell f rain in Ottawa. There has been no credible evidence brought forward for the existence of god.

[Chaircat Meow]

So, why is god in the category of "it rains in Ottawa" for you and not in the "pet sphinx" category? After all, there are credible reports that tell f rain in Ottawa. There has been no credible evidence brought forward for the existence of god.

He's not. We know it rains in Ottawa. My proposition was 'it is raining in Ottawa,' i.e. now. From Inverness you can't tell, oddly enough. I have good grounds to think Stubby has no pet sphinx, as I explained.

[The guy from the Vale]

From Inverness you can tell nowadays, thanks to the internet. There are such things as meteorological radars and broadcast surveillance cameras, for example.

And even then, we can find out afterwards if it rained in Ottawa at a certain day, by buying a newspaper from there or contacting somebody who lives there and asking them. There are ways to find out about that. There's no way to find out about god's existence. Just as there's no way to find out about the existence of an invisible, shy pet sphinx would be.

[TrueMetis]

He's not. We know it rains in Ottawa. My proposition was 'it is raining in Ottawa,' i.e. now. From Inverness you can't tell, oddly enough. I have good grounds to think Stubby has no pet sphinx, as I explained.

You have the internet right? It takes 5 seconds to find out the weather in Ottawa. (It's snowing)

Can you do the same thing with gods?

[Stubby]

Murder is immoral. All beliefs must be testable hypothesises (that's two).

I have lots of reason to think you possess no pet sphinx. I've been to pet shops and they don't have sphinxes. If people had pet sphinxes we know about them, because we'd see them, feed them, all the time, and consequently they wouldn't have a reputation as mythical creatures. Easy.

So do you believe me or not?

[Chaircat Meow]

Fine then. Assume someone doesn't have the internet. Or ponder whether Urban II had evidence it was raining in Jerusalem at any given time in 1097. It really does not matter.

[The guy from the Vale]

So, to repose the question, why is god in the "it's raining in Ottawa" category (something that's eminently knowable, if possibly currently unknown) and not in the "invisible pet sphinx/Russell's teapot" category?

[Seli]

That's not relevant though. You can have no evidence for something and still have no warrant to have a belief either way wrt its truth or falsity. For instance, I see no evidence it's not raining in Ottawa. That doesn't provide me any warrant to believe or disbelieve the proposition, 'it is raining in Ottawa.' The absence of evidence only amounts to rational grounds for asserting or denying a proposition in certain circumstances and I don't live in Ottawa.

It never ceases to amaze me that atheists can't get their heads around this.

It is fairly simple, a basic informal bayesian analysis. Ottowa is in Canada somewhere, I belief inland-ish. So a untempered by the gulf stream local land climate is expected. This is the middle of winter so it does not seem likely any precipitation will be in the form of rain.

Given the climate (some rain, but not daily, and not all the time) and the time of year your statement is most likely wrong, but not impossible.

The same chains of logic can be used for any claim about the existence of god. We can put these claims within the larger framework of what we know about the universe and about the history of humanity.

[Chaircat Meow]

So, to repose the question, why is god in the "it's raining in Ottawa" category (something that's eminently knowable, if possibly currently unknown) and not in the "invisible pet sphinx/Russell's teapot" category?

Can you please address the point I'm making, not the one you've made up.

It is fairly simple, a basic informal bayesian analysis. Ottowa is in Canada somewhere, I belief inland-ish. So a untempered by the gulf stream local land climate is expected. This is the middle of winter so it does not seem likely any precipitation will be in the form of rain.

Given the climate (some rain, but not daily, and not all the time) and the time of year your statement is most likely wrong, but not impossible.

The same chains of logic can be used for any claim about the existence of god. We can put these claims within the larger framework of what we know about the universe and about the history of humanity.

And the same goes for this.

[Stubby]

Can you please address the point I'm making, not the one you've made up.

And the same goes for this.

I have. But you refuse to answer me So why should they?

[Seli]

Can you please address the point I'm making, not the one you've made up.

And the same goes for this.

Then what point are you making? I think I showed that we can make a statement on how likely a claim is to be true, even without knowing the answer. With precipitation that is by the way exactly what current meteorologist do, they try to do the same analysis for future dates.

A lot of statements about gods fall in exactly the same category, testable and possible to give a rough likelihood. Admittedly some others are so vague they are near impossible to analyse this way (forms of deism, last-thursday-ism, deceitful god), although those have other weaknesses.