#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
No beliefs are formed without evidence
People may hold to different standards regarding what consitutes adequate evidence. But no one believes anything without evidence.
True
Side Score: 84
|
 |
False
Side Score: 81
|
|
It's mostly personal. Obviously it is societal in the sense that individuals speak for their particular society in many shapes and forms. Further, every human being has beliefs, in X, Y, Z. And there are many beliefs with many evidences. There are beliefs with little evidence, yet a human being cannot believe in something without evidence, this is true to the human being. So yes , no beliefs are formed without evidence, to answer your question. Define evidence is the key thing here. Obviously many people have issues with the forms of evidence. Side: True
2
points
3
points
1
point
I should say, rather, that not everything is evidence always. I was lax in my use of language; my apologies. One might observe that a psychotic hallucination is not evidence of god's existence, but it is evidence of mental illness. But of course the hallucination is evidence of something. What is problematic is the assumption that all beliefs are based in evidence, rather than being a reflective misapplication of existing evidence (or the lack thereof; i.e. the unknown). I would contend that when a belief is falsely premised upon the wrong evidence it is not actually formed by that evidence, but rather distorts evidence retroactively to accommodate and justify itself. Take the obvious example of Christianity and the Bible. A Christian will point to the Bible as evidence for their beliefs, but it is soft evidence only that certain events occurred historically and a religion formed around it. Belief in that religion is formed beyond the merits of that evidence, upon the assumption of individuals and the encouragement of indoctrinating authorities like churches. The belief was not formed with evidence, though it was a consequence of the evidence existing. Side: False
That's weird. You side with me on this one despite that we look at knowledge and belief differently. I've always thought that what we call knowledge is actually just our strongest beliefs. In common use, we would say that we believe something instead of saying we know something, if we weren't absolutely sure. Side: True
2
points
Yes but not always with good evidence. For example that fact that the universe exists, is hospitable for live and it must have had a beginning is evidence towards that it was created by an intelligent designer however that is not good evidence because it still could have come into being in another way like the Big Bang. Side: True
How is any of that evidence of intelligent design? Drawing ID from the existence of the universe, the presence of life, and the notion that something must have come from somewhere is an argument fraught with fallacy and assumption. Your claim that the aforementioned could stand proof to just about anything (god to the big bang), when followed to its full conclusion, means they really prove nothing at all. Further, the inference is being drawn the wrong way around; the attempt is not to follow the aforementioned facts to knowledge but to justify belief in a deity (or other ID force) by pointing to impossibly vague and broad facts as "evidence" to substantiate a view that in actuality lacks evidence entirely. The belief is not formed with evidence. The belief is formed and evidence is arbitrarily selected to attempt to justify the presupposed conclusion, but the evidence does not support the assumption and cannot actually have informed the assumption as an immediate consequence. Side: False
1
point
I mean, if you allow for a hazy enough definition of evidence, as this debate suggests, sure. Testimonies from others are considered sufficient evidence to most people, which is one of the reasons that religion is such a big thing, and also why so many people consider themselves atheist without doing a lick of investigation on their own; the word of others is sufficient for them. I would normally vote on false for this given that I have somewhat of a higher standard for evidence than that, but as I said, with a hazy definition of what constitutes evidence it's certainly true. Side: True
1
point
This is an incorrect statement. People are born agnostic, without a belief set. Athiesm is the belief that there is no God. Here you will undoubtedly insert the idea of strong/weak atheism, which is simply converting the term agnosticism into the term weak atheism and is, as such, a compositional fallacy. If you would define athiesm as the position "without a belief in God" then you have transformed it from a philosophic position or argument into a psychological state. As such rocks are atheists as are trees. Neither hold a belief in God and are, by your definition atheists. Hence, we can see that it being described as a psychological state is insufficient and the definition should return to the original positive claim: "there is no God." Side: True
Interesting opinion. I think the atheist definition should be "one who worships no gods". Because here I am thinking I have some idea of what gods are, and I am atheist. This makes my position illogical if by definition atheists can't believe gods exist. I think they exist, and we should as much as possible recognize them for what they are. Side: False
2
points
That would make you a non-adherent, not an atheist. You believe in Gods, so you are a theist by philosophic position (you know they exist and you believe that they can be understood, meaning you can't be an agnostic). But you choose not to obey them or worship them, meaning you are not adhering to them. Think about polytheists. Clearly they aren't atheists. But polytheists don't necessarily follow other gods they recognize as existing. Hindus for example recognize many different gods, including the Christian one, but they don't adhere to those other deities, only the one they have chosen. Take a non-loaded example. Lets say we were talking about a law you find unjust. The alegal position would be that the law doesn't exist, "I don't have to follow it because it isn't real." The agnostic position would be "I cannot know if the law exists, or I cannot know what it is telling me to do." The legalist position would be "the law does exist." You fall into that latter camp, you recognize that it exists, but choose not to follow it. Theism/agnosticis/atheism are categories of belief rather than of adherence. Side: True
Suppose you knew that I believed that gods exist in the same way that other personalities can exist within a single mind, as with multiple personality disorder. In other words, gods are purely a psychological phenomenon. Would you still think of me as a "non-adherent theist" ? Side: False
1
point
No, I would argue that you are, in that case, an atheist. You don't hold that gods exist, you hold that people have a concept of gods. Those are two separate positions. Understanding that there is a character in "A Christmas Carol" that is called the Ghost of Christmas pas does not mean that you think ghosts exist, it means that you recognize that there is a character in a book. By stating that they are solely psychological phenomenon you are making the same positive claim that other atheists make. Gods are not real, they are psychological states, just as we wouldn't argue that numbers are real, they are concepts. Side: True
You don't hold that gods exist, you hold that people have a concept of gods. I do hold that gods exist though. I just understand them in the only manner I recognize as logically tenable, which differs from some more popular ways. The dispute about whether or not god exists, is something I feel like I have matured past. Since I grant that gods exist, any serious god related disputes are, from my perspective, regarding their supposed characteristics or nature. Do gods exist at least conceptually. Yes. No one disputes that. If atheism requires one to not believe that any gods exist, then I am not atheist and technically neither are most who profess atheism. I think the deciding factor for atheism/theism should be lack of worship, not lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Those are two separate positions This is something almost everyone would agree with you about upon cursory consideration. Understanding that there is a character in "A Christmas Carol" that is called the Ghost of Christmas pas does not mean that you think ghosts exist, it means that you recognize that there is a character in a book. The Ghost of Christmas Past IS a character in a book, for sure. Perhaps ghosts are something more than just imaginative activity , perhaps not. I make no assertion either way, but I do grant that the Ghost of Christmas Past exists (albeit perhaps only imaginatively). What I dare to do (at risk of ridicule) is challenge the orthodoxy that asserts that the imaginary is not a subcategory of real phenomena. At a fundamental level I am a realist who believes that everything is real. I do not categorize any phenomenon as "not real" or non-existent. I am not (like so many are) willing to embrace the logical contradiction that "THERE ARE things that ARE NOT". By stating that they are solely psychological phenomenon you are making the same positive claim that other atheists make. Gods are not real, they are psychological states, just as we wouldn't argue that numbers are real, they are concepts. I do not claim that gods are solely psychological phenomena, I claim that THEY EXIST AT THE VERY LEAST AS SUCH. I am not saying that gods are not real, I am saying that the term god may refer to a number of conditions in reality. Either a real entity that is regarded as infallible, or an anthropomorphized principle or body of ideals that's considered worthy of utter devotion. It really depends on who you are talking to, what's meant. I tend not to think in terms of "I believe/disbelieve", but rather, "Does this or that explanation of god make logical sense to me?" If a certain description doesn't, I think I should put off forming an opinion until such time as it does. Lastly, don't assume that I won't argue that numbers exist and are real. I would probably enjoy the challenge. This, even though I believe numbers are imperfect ideals. Side: True
1
point
I do hold that gods exist though. Are you a platonist then? Do you hold that numbers exist? I don't mean numerals, like those that are seen on a page, I mean the actual concept of a number, does it actually exist? The problem with your analysis, in my view, is your definition of the word "exist." I think you are blurring the line between feasible and exists. Concepts can be logically possible without actually existing in any real sense. Essentially I think you are arguing Plato's view that concepts and ideals actually exist. That justice is a real object, not just a term for a category of outcomes. That all abstract objects really exist. There are a number of problems with a platonists view which I won't go into here. I think they are best rejected here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ Side: False
Are you a platonist then? I find some interesting parallels between thoughts associated with platonism and my own, but I hesitate to identify as a platonist, primarily because I don't want my opponents to argue against their idea of what platonism is rather than finding out what my viewpoint is and challenging it directly. Do you hold that numbers exist? I don't mean numerals, like those that are seen on a page, I mean the actual concept of a number, does it actually exist? In the same manner that thought exists. The problem with your analysis, in my view, is your definition of the word "exist." I think you are blurring the line between feasible and exists. Concepts can be logically possible without actually existing in any real sense. I think your assessment is somewhat off base. As simple as I can put it, my basic logic does not allow the acceptance of the self contradicting statement that: "There are things that are not" Statements which assert "there are things that are not" are poorly formed. If you understand what I mean by this...you could correct the following statement: "There is no current king of England" Essentially I think you are arguing Plato's view that concepts and ideals actually exist. I have expressed how I think, and tried to be clear. that my position is that anything we can discuss "exists", well understood or not. I of course don't pretend to be advancing anything entirely novel, but as I said before, I prefer to be treated as an individual. There are a number of problems with a platonists view which I won't go into here. I think they are best rejected here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ I am interested in having conversations more than reading essays or listening to lectures. I read that anyway, and won't go into my critique of it here. Side: True
1
point
I find some interesting parallels between thoughts associated with platonism and my own, but I hesitate to identify as a platonist, primarily because I don't want my opponents to argue against their idea of what platonism is rather than finding out what my viewpoint is and challenging it directly. Certainly fair. I'll attempt to draw out your position as we move forward. Please feel free to correct me if I mis-step. "There are things that are not" Ok, that seems more of a wording issue than a philosophic position. It would be simple to rephrase that statement as "I can imagine things that do not exist" or "not all logically possible things actually exist." In an effort to better understand your position, let me ask this: "In what manner would you distinguish between something that exists like thought and something that exists like Fenway park?" Do they exist equally? Are they in kind different or categorically different? Side: False
Certainly fair. I'll attempt to draw out your position as we move forward. Aw....would you be so kind? Ok, that seems more of a wording issue than a philosophic position. It would be simple to rephrase that statement as "I can imagine things that do not exist" or "not all logically possible things actually exist." You touch on a dear old pet notion of mine in acknowledging how wording issues can make it seem like there are serious philosophical differences where there truly aren't. I will explain how I interpret your 2 alternate statements in hopes that you will gain enough insight to help me make some personal breakthrough, since you seem like you care. 1. I can imagine things that don't exist With my imagination I can be wildly creative 2. Not all logically possible things actually exist Some things that can occur have not yet occurred You helped inspire a little poem... We can suppose what may not exist, in places we knows we both can and can't test, draw seriousness from nothing but jest; find beauty without addressing the rest, but dream as we tend to not a one can help to from ourselves reality divest In an effort to better understand your position, let me ask this: "In what manner would you distinguish between something that exists like thought and something that exists like Fenway park?" Do they exist equally? Are they in kind different or categorically different? Great question! I fell asleep trying to come up with an answer that would make sense. Here's the best I can come up with right now...Things such as thoughts, are conditions and events within the intellect. Things such as Fenway Park, are conditions and events that occur outside the intellect, in what is commonly referred to (and methinks somewhat erroneously) as "the real world" Side: True
1
point
Aw....would you be so kind? Sorry, that did come off as a bit condescending. I didn't mean it that way, my apologies. With my imagination I can be wildly creative Right, perhaps we should rephrase my initial point to "I can imagine logically possible things that do not actually exist." Some things that can occur have not yet occurred And some things that can occur will never occur, right? We can suppose what may not exist, in places we knows we both can and can't test, draw seriousness from nothing but jest; find beauty without addressing the rest, but dream as we tend to not a one can help to from ourselves reality divest I like it! Things such as thoughts, are conditions and events within the intellect. Things such as Fenway Park, are conditions and events that occur outside the intellect, in what is commonly referred to (and methinks somewhat erroneously) as "the real world" Ok, given that distinction are both categories equally "existent?" And should we treat them equally from a philosophic point of view? Side: False
Sorry, that did come off as a bit condescending. I didn't mean it that way, my apologies. "I invite being challenged", "I expect I could learn from it.", "I would consider it a favor" were what I had i mind, and you thought that I thought you were being condescending. I didn't think you were, but yeah I think condescending people are real lowlifes :) Right, perhaps we should rephrase my initial point to "I can imagine logically possible things that do not actually exist." Those things would actually be imaginary then right? Let's suppose I imagine a cat that is actually outside my yard, to be in my yard. Where is the cat I imagine? Inside the yard, outside the yard, or is it actually in my imagination? :) And some things that can occur will never occur, right? I'm not sure but I tend to think so. Ok, given that distinction are both categories equally "existent?" And should we treat them equally from a philosophic point of view? I am not sure what you mean by "equally existent". Are a cloud and a dime equally existent? From a philosophic point of view, they are both conditions of reality we can influence, and that can greatly effect our plans and well being. In order to give an assesment of whether two things are equal , what standard of measure should I use..?.. and to quantify what? lastly here...This assumption that two things whatsoever can be equal.....I can only make it if equal means "adequately similar" Side: False
1
point
Let's suppose I imagine a cat that is actually outside my yard, to be in my yard. Where is the cat I imagine? Inside the yard, outside the yard, or is it actually in my imagination? :) My position would be that the cat is outside your yard. But the concept of the cat being inside your yard is logically possible and internal to you mind. I think the two are two separate things. The cat in reality and the thought you have conceived about it. The question is, does the latter have the same ontological significance as the former? I'm not sure but I tend to think so. Lets presume, for a second that that is true, that some things that can occur never actually do. If so, then could we argue that while those things could occur (and we could imagine them occurring) that they do not actually exist since they will never occur? I am not sure what you mean by "equally existent". Are a cloud and a dime equally existent? IE they have the property of being. They are rather than are not. Perhaps more helpfully, things that are existent have the property of being causally potent. IE they can be the cause of something. Things that do not exist cannot be a cause. I would argue both a dime and a cloud are equally existent, one is metal, the other is water vapor. Both can be the cause of something. Side: False
My position would be that the cat is outside your yard. But the concept of the cat being inside your yard is logically possible and internal to you mind. This seems like a difference of opinion between us. My position is that whatever is imagined, is by definition imaginary. Whenever we attempt to discuss things as they objectively are, we are in truth, bound to discuss things as, we more or less subjectively, imagine them to be. Do you accept this as true, and if not can you explain how we mitigate subjectivity my any means besides corroborative assesments from peers. Are ideas causally potent, I dare say so. I don't think there is a single thing, imaginary or otherwise that does not have an effect on it's surroundings. The interesting question to me is: "How do we determine the boundaries of a thing, and what makes it appropriate at times to regard what may be the effects of a thing as its definitive properties?" oh yeah...gotta answer your questions.. The question is, does the latter have the same ontological significance as the former? You are asking someone who thinks that everything, by definition exists, well described or not..... well understood or not. So My answer is yes. Reality is host to only the real as I see it. Lets presume, for a second that that is true, that some things that can occur never actually do. If so, then could we argue that while those things could occur (and we could imagine them occurring) that they do not actually exist since they will never occur? I tried, and although I can see that most anyone would accept this as obviously true, I have trouble accepting it even for a moment, even just for the sake of argument. I can certainly accept that often enough, the things we imagine are for the most part just that, occurrences within the intellect. But isn't it true that the intellect itself is not a closed system, and the causal potency of mere ideas through communication extend beyond a single intellect? If causal potency is the measure of a things "realness", then some purely imaginary things (or as you would say "not actually real") are arguably more causally potent than some things that are indisputably real. So in a nutshell, since I believe that ideas have consequences, or that they are as you say "causally potent", they are real in the same sense that anything else is real. So I think that answers your initial question in the affirmative. Side: False
1
point
My position is that whatever is imagined, is by definition imaginary. Whenever we attempt to discuss things as they objectively are, we are in truth, bound to discuss things as, we more or less subjectively, imagine them to be. I think that is a very interesting point. Sort of a "through the mirror darkly" kind of argument. IE that objective discussions of reality are beholden to our subjective viewpoints and data collection systems. Very true. The question then arises, do those objective realities exist independently of our subjective viewpoints on them? And secondly, does the secondary coloring of the objective truth by our subjective viewpoint constitute another form of reality (to which I think you would answer yes). Are ideas causally potent, I dare say so. I don't think there is a single thing, imaginary or otherwise that does not have an effect on it's surroundings. Hmm, I'm not as sure I can buy into this point. The concept of "seven," which, independent from any physical counting or object, could be said to exist as an idea. What can it "cause?" This gets to your next point as well. I agree that ideas do have consequences, but not alone. The idea of something, absent an actor is impotent. "Seven" or "good" doesn't do anything. A person acting on that idea might, but the idea itself isn't the cause right? On the other side of it, I don't hold the idea of Eugenics as responsible for the Holocaust, I hold the people who used eugenics as the idea for their actions as responsible. Side: False
The question then arises, do those objective realities exist independently of our subjective viewpoints on them? I'd say "Not entirely". does the secondary coloring of the objective truth by our subjective viewpoint constitute another form of reality (to which I think you would answer yes). Yes it is my position that there is only the real. We often make inaccurate assesments of what is, but this does not render anything , including these assesments in any way "unreal". the concept of "seven," which, independent from any physical counting or object, could be said to exist as an idea. What can it "cause?" This gets to your next point as well. I agree that ideas do have consequences, but not alone. The idea of something, absent an actor is impotent. "Seven" or "good" doesn't do anything. A person acting on that idea might, but the idea itself isn't the cause Ideas are components of personalities, and they are only causally potent by virtue of that. Is there anything that is not to some degree causally potent? I don't think so. Everything exists in relation to everything else, nothing besides perhaps reality itself is causally potent all on it's own.
I don't hold the idea of Eugenics as responsible for the Holocaust, I hold the people who used eugenics as the idea for their actions as responsible. Then the question arises: Don't you think it's possible to attack bad ideas without attacking the people beset by them? Side: False
1
point
I'd say "Not entirely". Interesting. Can I refine that a bit? Do you hold that those objective realities (say Jupiter) exist only in conjunction with our subjective impression? Or, that we are simply incapable of understanding that objective reality given our subjective viewpoint? Or is it a third thing I haven't offered? Yes it is my position that there is only the real. We often make inaccurate assesments of what is, but this does not render anything , including these assesments in any way "unreal". Ok, so what about subjective positions that do not claim a relationship to objective reality? Say a perfect circle. Ideas are components of personalities, and they are only causally potent by virtue of that. Ok, so then, would I be correct in assuming that you hold these objects are not existent absent human conception of them? If so that would be an area of disagreement between you and the platonists I referenced earlier. Then the question arises: Don't you think it's possible to attack bad ideas without attacking the people beset by them? Personally I do yes. A person is capable of forming, evaluating and accepting/rejecting viewpoints independent of their identity. They are also capable of changing their acceptance/rejection of those viewpoints as well. My son once held that 1+1=3 (he was young), I can show him the error in that idea without attacking him personally. Side: True
Do you hold that those objective realities (say Jupiter) exist only in conjunction with our subjective impression? Or, that we are simply incapable of understanding that objective reality given our subjective viewpoint? Or is it a third thing I haven't offered? We witness patterns of events and decide to categorize them according to our imperfect understanding. For example, Jupiter, like I'd suppose everything else, is in a non-stop process of change. Jupiter is not precisely what is was a moment ago, yet we still refer to it as Jupiter. So long as we don't notice a change that we deem to be significant enough to merit calling it a different name, we still call it Jupiter. I think it's somewhat illusory to think of Jupiter as a single thing, rather than a complex of various things that we classify as definitive elements of Jupiter. Should Jupiter disintegrate, we might say Jupiter no longer exists, or that Jupiter has changed. I believe the latter would be more truthful. I am just freely sharing my thoughts here, but believe it or not I am trying to, as directly as possible, answer your question. Jupiter is a label for a concept that we have been developing and refining with the intent of using it to better understand our situation. All concepts and their labels are dependent on conscious effort. Much of what we attempt to adequately conceptualize does indeed (I quite strongly suspect) exist independantly of our thoughts about it. If that read like a dodge, I apologize. I'll try again if you ask. Ok, so what about subjective positions that do not claim a relationship to objective reality? Say a perfect circle. These exist as suppositions of varying usefulness. Ok, so then, would I be correct in assuming that you hold these objects are not existent absent human conception of them? If so that would be an area of disagreement between you and the platonists I referenced earlier. Notwithstanding a "trivial-great" issue with your phrasing, Yes. The existence of conceptual objects depends on consciousness. We sure have digressed from the opening topic haven't we! I am not disappointed in any way....but....This topic was conceived as an initial assault on the misconceptions that arise from thinking that faith=belief without evidence. If you follow my train of thought on this, please share any insight you may have. Otherwise please continue with the inquisition. Hopefully I will give you enough rope to hang me :) Side: True
1
point
Jupiter is not precisely what is was a moment ago, yet we still refer to it as Jupiter. Gotcha, this somewhat mirrors the naturalist point of view argued by Lawrence Krauss. So you would agree with Krauss that there really isn't such a thing as "Dave" or "Mike" since those are only concepts we use for ever shifting groups of atoms. Given that, would you follow Krauss into the argument that ideas don't really exist either? That they are simply illusions created by electro-chemical processes? This topic was conceived as an initial assault on the misconceptions that arise from thinking that faith=belief without evidence. And I would certainly agree with that. I certainly would not equate the two perfectly in any sense of the manner. The vast, vast, vast majority of beliefs are formed with evidence, both external, logical and from more basic beliefs. I only have been supporting the "false" side because I would argue there are some beliefs that are formed absent evidence, what Plantinga and others called properly basic beliefs. The belief that there is history and my memory correlates to it for example. The acceptance of my senses as being collectors of data (however imperfectly) of the outside world. Those are beliefs we largely just hold as underlying assumptions to other, evidence based beliefs. Otherwise please continue with the inquisition. Hopefully I will give you enough rope to hang me :) Ha, not at all. Despite appearances, I honestly don't intend this as some kind of Socratic exercise. Side: False
would agree with Krauss that there really isn't such a thing as "Dave" or "Mike" since those are only concepts we use for ever shifting groups of atoms. No. I am fine with thinking of things as "event complexes" would you follow Krauss into the argument that ideas don't really exist either? No That they are simply illusions created by electro-chemical processes I would agree that the vast majority of ideas are at least somewhat illusory. I have no reason to doubt that all things ARE interrelated electro-chemical processes. Ha, not at all. Despite appearances, I honestly don't intend this as some kind of Socratic exercise. I have this fantasy of meeting someone who is skilled at revealing contradictions in my ideology. I have been on this site for awhile and have yet to meet anyone who really seems willing to try. You seemed like you might though, and I admit i got a little excited. Side: True
1
point
No. I am fine with thinking of things as "event complexes" Ok I have no reason to doubt that all things ARE interrelated electro-chemical processes. Then are you a materialist? IE do you hold that no non-material things truly exist? There is no "number 7" only our bio-electric concept of it? You seemed like you might though, and I admit i got a little excited. I'll try. ;-) Though this isn't really my area of expertise. I do know someone who is pretty good at it though if you are interested. Side: False
Then are you a materialist? Im not sure. I do not understand the logical basis for the material/non-material dichotomy. do you hold that no non-material things truly exist? No. But perhaps only because I am not sure the distinction between material and non-material is valid to begin with. I'll try. ;-) Though this isn't really my area of expertise. You can be the first to put me to the test here I do know someone who is pretty good at it though if you are interested. Someone that would take time out of their day to help me find logical inconsistencies in MY beliefs? That would be awesome! I could hardly be done a greater favor. Side: False
1
point
Im not sure. I do not understand the logical basis for the material/non-material dichotomy. Well I would propose it is similar to the logical basis for any distinction in things by criteria. Living/dead, blue/red, solid/liquid, these are all categorical distinctions based upon attributes. Likewise material (within our material universe) vs non-material (not present within the confines of our universe) would seem to be a logical distinction as well. Someone that would take time out of their day to help me find logical inconsistencies in MY beliefs? That would be awesome! I could hardly be done a greater favor. Ha, touche sir, touche. Side: False
This is an incorrect statement. People are born agnostic, without a belief set. Athiesm is the belief that there is no God. Come on, Atheism is the lack of belief in God; if a religious person asked someone if they believed in God and the person said no, most of the time that person would be labeled an Atheist. If he is using your definitions then it totally makes sense though, that's why I was asking. Here you will undoubtedly insert the idea of strong/weak atheism, which is simply converting the term agnosticism into the term weak atheism and is, as such, a compositional fallacy. Why do you guys spend time trying to classify Atheists instead of looking at the real world and seeing that your God doesn't do what you say He does? If you would define athiesm as the position "without a belief in God" then you have transformed it from a philosophic position or argument into a psychological state. As such rocks are atheists as are trees. Neither hold a belief in God and are, by your definition atheists. Sweet, there are more Agnostics than Christians now, let's party. Hence, we can see that it being described as a psychological state is insufficient and the definition should return to the original positive claim: "there is no God." Well, if he had said people claim that there is no God without actually looking into it at all, I wouldn't have asked my question. Side: True
0
points
if a religious person asked someone if they believed in God and the person said no, most of the time that person would be labeled an Atheist I agree with you. The person in question has said, "I don't believe in God" ie "there is no God" that is a positive claim on the existence of God and is very different than the response you would get from a very young kid "I don't know, what is god?" Two very different positions philosophically. One makes a positive claim (no God) the other makes a neutral claim (I don't know). Why do you guys spend time trying to classify Atheists instead of looking at the real world and seeing that your God doesn't do what you say He does? Actually, the idea of strong/weak atheist is an atheist idea, not a theist idea. It was first proposed by Bertrand Russel. So I'm not sure why you think it is "you guys" who do it. I would be happy to debate you on the underlying arguments for theism, be it the Cosmological Argument, Cosmological Fine Tuning argument or the Moral argument. --------- I'm unclear on your response to the actual debate question however. Do you feel that all beliefs are formed with evidence? If so, what evidence do you use to believe that your perceptions represent a physical world? Side: False
I agree with you. The person in question has said, "I don't believe in God" ie "there is no God" that is a positive claim on the existence of God and is very different than the response you would get from a very young kid "I don't know, what is god?" You have said that saying that you don't believe in God is different from saying there is no God, and now you are saying that they mean the same thing. This is what is wrong with you people. I'm unclear on your response to the actual debate question however. Do you feel that all beliefs are formed with evidence? If so, what evidence do you use to believe that your perceptions represent a physical world? I responded on the other side. I don't think it is evidence, I think it is justification. All you really need is some justification, not actual evidence. I use sight, tough, hearing, taste, and smell in my beliefs of a physical world. Side: True
1
point
You have said that saying that you don't believe in God is different from saying there is no God, and now you are saying that they mean the same thing. This is what is wrong with you people. Ad Hom and Compositional fallacy. You are mixing two similar, but different statements and then acting as if they are the same. When you ask a person (as you suggested) if they believe that God exists, they could answer Yes (theist), No (atheist) or I'm not sure (agnostic). You are trying to argue that someone who says "no," includes those who don't know, but don't hold a positive view that God exists. That is a compositional fallacy because that is not an "atheist" position it is a "apatheist" position. That is the philosophic position defined as "all things not positively affirmed. Think of it like a Venn Diagram. The left circle (not including overlap) are theists. The right circle (not containing overlap) are atheists. The overlap only are agnostics. The right circle including overlap are apatheists. The left circle including overlap are apoatheists. I use sight, tough, hearing, taste, and smell in my beliefs of a physical world. Then, if I may, what leads you to the belief that your senses represent the physical world? Side: False
Ad Hom and Compositional fallacy. "Making up fallacies" fallacy. Just because I attacked you doesn't mean that it was ad hominem. I clearly described why you were wrong, then I added a "mean" statement. And, you can't accuse me of making a compositional fallacy when I was describing how you were making a compositional fallacy. You are mixing two similar, but different statements and then acting as if they are the same. No, I took 2 different statements that you said and told you that the don't agree with each other. You are acting as if 2 statements are the same which is what I am trying to point out to you. When you ask a person (as you suggested) if they believe that God exists, they could answer Yes (theist), No (atheist) or I'm not sure (agnostic). You are trying to argue that someone who says "no," includes those who don't know, but don't hold a positive view that God exists. "Making a 2 choice question into a 3 choice question" fallacy. The "no" answer includes all of the people who strictly believe that God does not exist, and all of the people who aren't sure if God exists. If someone says no to the question, they are confirming their lack of belief in God, nothing more. Since the argument I made to start was that a lack of belief is considered to be Atheism by you people, you have confirmed that I am correct. That is a compositional fallacy because that is not an "atheist" position it is a "apatheist" position. That is the philosophic position defined as "all things not positively affirmed. So, you are saying the "no" answer is the apatheistic answer, which means you can't conclude that they are Atheists, which you tried to conclude. Think of it like a Venn Diagram. The left circle (not including overlap) are theists. The right circle (not containing overlap) are atheists. The overlap only are agnostics. The right circle including overlap are apatheists. The left circle including overlap are apoatheists. Right, since the apatheistic group includes agnostics, and you have already shown that the group that says "no" refers to apatheists, you have just described that you believe that the "no" answer doesn't mean Atheist. That is all I was trying to say. Then, if I may, what leads you to the belief that your senses represent the physical world? Sweet, I am supernatural then. I am God, praise me. Side: True
0
points
Just because I attacked you doesn't mean that it was ad hominem. I clearly described why you were wrong, then I added a "mean" statement. And, you can't accuse me of making a compositional fallacy when I was describing how you were making a compositional fallacy. Actually, yes it does. Attacking an opponent rather than the argument is, by definition, an ad hom fallacy. The fact that you had another argument as well does not mean that the person comment was not fallacious. I recommend reviewing this site for a better understanding of fallacious argumentation: http://www.nizkor. A review of that site would show that you were indeed committing a compositional fallacy in the manner of accusing me of one. You were using misleading statements and confusing their definitions when comparing them. The "no" answer includes all of the people who strictly believe that God does not exist, and all of the people who aren't sure if God exists. Then their statement of "no" is not an accurate response to the question. If I were to ask you: "Does X+5=Y?" You, as agnostic about the question, wouldn't answer "no" you would say "I don't know." You are attempting to smuggle the "I don't know" position with a hidden bit of context. Allow me to illustrate with two questions: Do you agree with the statement: God exists? Theist: Yes Atheist: No Agnostic: No Do you agree with the statement: God does not exist? Theist: No Atheist: Yes Agnostic: No You are simply ignoring the second question and arguing that the third group agrees with you. This is a kind of special pleading because we wouldn't do that in the second question nor would we do that in any other area. For example: "Do you agree with the Republican Party Platform?" Answer: No. That does not mean the answerer is a Democrat. They could be a libertarian, an independent, etc In a more formal sense, you are confusing ~a (not theist) with b (atheist). ~a includes b and it includes ~a~b. So, you are saying the "no" answer is the apatheistic answer, which means you can't conclude that they are Atheists, which you tried to conclude. I think you misread my response. Allow me to restate it and lets see if it is clearer. Apatheist contains both atheists and agnostics. (it is ~a from above). They are the set of people who would answer no to the first question labeled above. Apoatheists contain both theists and agnostics. (~b from above). They are the set of people who would answer no to the second question above. Sweet, I am supernatural then. I am God, praise me. That doesn't answer the question. I'm asking why do you hold the belief that your senses reliably represent the physical world rather than are an illusion or are random fluctuations, etc? What makes you hold that belief? Side: False
Actually, yes it does. It is funny, you said I was wrong, then point out how I was 100% correct. "Attacking an opponent rather than the argument is, by definition, an ad hom fallacy." It is a fallacy only if I don't also attack your argument. So, solely attacking you does not count as ad hom, which I explained. The fact that you had another argument as well does not mean that the person comment was not fallacious. One statement that is not part of my argument does not make my argument fallacious. And, one fallacious statement doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore the argument that you are saying is valid. A review of that site would show that you were indeed committing a compositional fallacy in the manner of accusing me of one. You were using misleading statements and confusing their definitions when comparing them. Wrong. We are trying to establish the definitions of words. Please address the issue I stated. Saying it is a compositional fallacy without reasoning is begging the question. Then their statement of "no" is not an accurate response to the question. If I were to ask you: "Does X+5=Y?" You, as agnostic about the question, wouldn't answer "no" you would say "I don't know." You can't be agnostic about an algebra problem, I don't see how this fits. You are attempting to smuggle the "I don't know" position with a hidden bit of context. Allow me to illustrate with two questions: Do you agree with the statement: God exists? Theist: Yes Atheist: No Agnostic: No Do you agree with the statement: God does not exist? Theist: No Atheist: Yes Agnostic: No You are attempting to get information that requires the second question to be asked by asking the first question only. Is it ok to do that in other contexts? If you want to know if someone believes that no God exists, you should ask that person if they believe no God exists. Any other question will not give you the answer you are looking for. You are simply ignoring the second question and arguing that the third group agrees with you. This is a kind of special pleading because we wouldn't do that in the second question nor would we do that in any other area. For example: "Do you agree with the Republican Party Platform?" Answer: No. That does not mean the answerer is a Democrat. They could be a libertarian, an independent, etc WHAT?!?!?! You are the one claiming that that answer means they are a Democrat. In a more formal sense, you are confusing ~a (not theist) with b (atheist). ~a includes b and it includes ~a~b. You are the one who is saying they are the same person. I think you misread my response. Allow me to restate it and lets see if it is clearer. Apatheist contains both atheists and agnostics. (it is ~a from above). They are the set of people who would answer no to the first question labeled above. Apoatheists contain both theists and agnostics. (~b from above). They are the set of people who would answer no to the second question above. YOU are the one who said that only Atheists would answer no to the question. I am telling you that I agree that all Apatheistic people will answer no, not just Atheists. That doesn't answer the question. I'm asking why do you hold the belief that your senses reliably represent the physical world rather than are an illusion or are random fluctuations, etc? What makes you hold that belief? You are saying my senses are not part of the physical world, therefore supernatural. Bow down to me, I am your God. Side: True
1
point
One statement that is not part of my argument does not make my argument fallacious. I didn't say your entire argument was fallacious. I said that statement represented a fallacy. The argument you made directly committed a different fallacy. Wrong. We are trying to establish the definitions of words. Please address the issue I stated. Saying it is a compositional fallacy without reasoning is begging the question. You realize that I did do this right? And that you reply to it below? You can't be agnostic about an algebra problem, I don't see how this fits. You certainly can be, you are agnostic as to its answer. holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ You are attempting to get information that requires the second question to be asked by asking the first question only. My point seems to have been unclear, sorry. I'm proposing those as two separate questions to highlight that the way you are asking the question means that an individual could be both theist or atheist depending on how you phrase the question. Clearly that is problematic unless you are holding that theist and atheist are not mutually exclusive positions. The fact that this contradiction arises shows that the manner in which the question is being framed in incorrect. Rather, we should frame a question in a manner that produces the same response regardless of the specific phrasing. For example: Does God [not] exist? Regardless of which variant you choose there the outcomes are the same. Theists will answer opposite to Atheists and agnostics will answer different from both (I don't know). You are the one who is saying they are the same person. There seems to have been some confusion. Let me offer some definitions in an attempt to clarify. Theist: One who holds the positive claim that God exists. Agnostic: One who does not hold a positive claim towards God's existence. Atheist: One who holds the positive claim that God does not exist. Given those definitions we can see that the way you originally framed the question is problematic as that agnostic category would answer as atheists in one variant or theists in another depending on how you chose to ask the question. You are saying my senses are not part of the physical world, therefore supernatural. Bow down to me, I am your God. I think you misunderstand the question. My original position was that not all beliefs are formed via evidence. The example of "I believe my sense reflect the physical world" is such a belief. People hold this belief basically. You could well be experiencing hallucinations, inaccurate understanding of reality or any of a hundred natural variants, but you hold that your senses report the natural world. That is a belief not based upon evidence. Right? Side: False
I didn't say your entire argument was fallacious. I said that statement represented a fallacy. The argument you made directly committed a different fallacy. So, you agree with my statement of fact. You could just say agreed. My point seems to have been unclear, sorry. I'm proposing those as two separate questions to highlight that the way you are asking the question means that an individual could be both theist or atheist depending on how you phrase the question. Agreed. You are the one who said for sure that you could tell someone was Atheist even though they could be either. Clearly that is problematic unless you are holding that theist and atheist are not mutually exclusive positions. I wasn't the one drawing false conclusions, you were. The fact that this contradiction arises shows that the manner in which the question is being framed in incorrect. So, maybe you shouldn't have drawn conclusions from an improperly framed question. Rather, we should frame a question in a manner that produces the same response regardless of the specific phrasing. For example: Does God [not] exist? Regardless of which variant you choose there the outcomes are the same. Theists will answer opposite to Atheists and agnostics will answer different from both (I don't know). Yeah, I went over this in my argument. Except, you are still trying to do the witch hunt on the agnostics. If you ask 2 questions you can get all the information you want. Try avoiding the one super question. Given those definitions we can see that the way you originally framed the question is problematic as that agnostic category would answer as atheists in one variant or theists in another depending on how you chose to ask the question. So why did you say that you were 100% sure that they were Atheists? I think you misunderstand the question. My original position was that not all beliefs are formed via evidence. The example of "I believe my sense reflect the physical world" is such a belief. People hold this belief basically. You could well be experiencing hallucinations, inaccurate understanding of reality or any of a hundred natural variants, but you hold that your senses report the natural world. That is a belief not based upon evidence. Right? Not all evidence is perfect. Not all evidence leads you to correct conclusion. Doesn't mean that belief isn't based on evidence. Having a bunch of possible scenarios that make my belief wrong doesn't mean that my belief wasn't formed from evidence. I touch a rock and it moves, therefore my senses must be in physical realm. If it turns out I am hallucinating my belief is still formed from evidence even though the evidence was screwed up. I agree that there are things that shouldn't be counted as evidence, though. And I agree that some beliefs aren't formed from evidence. Side: True
1
point
Agreed. You are the one who said for sure that you could tell someone was Atheist even though they could be either. You still seem to be missing the argument. My point was if you ask a question of the frame the question used to determine philosophic position (theist, agnostic, atheist) as "do you believe in X" you are creating a bias in the answer set based upon how you ask the question. This can be seen because a person who is agnostic can be both an atheist and a theist at the same time based on how you phrase a question. Clearly you don't think someone can be both an atheist and a theist right? So why did you say that you were 100% sure that they were Atheists? I think you might be confusing me with someone else. I don't think agnostics are atheists. I think they are a separate, third, category between atheist and theist. Doesn't mean that belief isn't based on evidence. So what evidence, specifically, are you using to form the belief that the sensory inputs you are getting are receiving reflect the physical world? It would seem a bit circular to claim evidence from your senses as evidence for your senses right? Side: False
You still seem to be missing the argument. My point was if you ask a question of the frame the question used to determine philosophic position (theist, agnostic, atheist) as "do you believe in X" you are creating a bias in the answer set based upon how you ask the question. This can be seen because a person who is agnostic can be both an atheist and a theist at the same time based on how you phrase a question. Clearly you don't think someone can be both an atheist and a theist right? This bias only exists if you are trying to find out who is an Atheist. If you are just trying to find out who the Theists are, than there is no bias. So, which one of us decided that question could be used to determine who Atheists are? You. You have the bias not me. I told you from the beginning that question can't be used to determine which ones are strict Atheists. My argument is that that question is not a good question. You can't come in here and tell me I miss the point because I fail to see that that question is a bad question. I think you might be confusing me with someone else. I don't think agnostics are atheists. I think they are a separate, third, category between atheist and theist. You aren't the one who laid out the options and said that whoever said no was an Atheist? You: When you ask a person (as you suggested) if they believe that God exists, they could answer Yes (theist), No (atheist) or I'm not sure (agnostic). See? You labeled all "no" as Atheist. So what evidence, specifically, are you using to form the belief that the sensory inputs you are getting are receiving reflect the physical world? It would seem a bit circular to claim evidence from your senses as evidence for your senses right? You are trying to claim that sense aren't evidence because you can't verify that they reflect the physical world. I am saying that even if you can't confirm that your sense reflect the physical world your senses still count as evidence. Evidence is not guaranteed to be unflawed. You are asking 2 different questions and mixing the answers together. I don't think you really care about whether I can show that my senses represent the physical world. You are trying to show that if I can't prove my senses are from the physical world then I can't claim senses are evidence. What I am saying is that doesn't matter. The fact that I can claim that my senses told me something qualifies as evidence. If you are able to demonstrate that my senses don't have anything to do with the physical world, then you can show that my evidence is worthless, but that only changes my evidence to weak evidence. It still remains evidence. Side: True
1
point
This bias only exists if you are trying to find out who is an Atheist. This argument is incoherent. Essentially you are arguing that someone could hold two different religious positions at the same time. That they could both maintain that there is no God and that they are unsure if there is a God. The only way to rationalize these two positions, as I pointed out earlier, is to change Atheism from a philosophic position to a psychological state (the state of non-belief). In which case trees and rocks are atheists as well since they are incapable of being in the state of belief. If the latter is actually your definition of atheism, the psychological state, then the necessary conclusion is that the condition of being an atheist is not a rational position, it is a position based upon a psychological state. See? You labeled all "no" as Atheist. Which is a different position than what you offered in your last post. The no there obviously refers to those people who maintain that God does not exist. Please see the above for a further distinction between holding a rational position and having a psychological state. You are trying to claim that sense aren't evidence because you can't verify that they reflect the physical world No, I'm saying that using your senses as evidence that they constitute evidence is a begging the question fallacy. That would be like arguing that a computer model of a building is accurate because the computer model tells us it is. Including your conclusion (senses represent evidence) in your premise (senses provide evidence) is a classic begging the question fallacy. http://www.nizkor. Side: False
This argument is incoherent. It is not incoherent, it just doesn't sound right to you. Essentially you are arguing that someone could hold two different religious positions at the same time. That they could both maintain that there is no God and that they are unsure if there is a God. Just for one argument assume that I don't mean this because it is an obviously stupid position to take. Interpret what I say in a way that does not mean that I think that someone can have 2 religious beliefs. If you ask someone if they believe in God, a yes answer means for sure that they are a theist. Got it? BUT, ANY OTHER ANSWER IS INCONCLUSIVE. You cannot figure out what someone believes with a no answer. That's what I am saying. So, if you ask that question in hopes of finding out who is an atheist you will have a bias. The only way to rationalize these two positions, as I pointed out earlier, is to change Atheism from a philosophic position to a psychological state (the state of non-belief). In which case trees and rocks are atheists as well since they are incapable of being in the state of belief. If the latter is actually your definition of atheism, the psychological state, then the necessary conclusion is that the condition of being an atheist is not a rational position, it is a position based upon a psychological state. I will ignore this part because you didn't understand what I said. Which is a different position than what you offered in your last post. The no there obviously refers to those people who maintain that God does not exist. Please see the above for a further distinction between holding a rational position and having a psychological state. I am confused. You say that the no doesn't mean that they are Atheists and that the no means that they are Atheists. I have only maintained that no means they aren't Theists, nothing more. You are the only one here who says that the no means Atheist, and you also agree with me that the no doesn't have to be Atheist. Stop accusing me of saying the no means Atheist, that's only you. No, I'm saying that using your senses as evidence that they constitute evidence is a begging the question fallacy. I wasn't discussing this issue. That would be like arguing that a computer model of a building is accurate because the computer model tells us it is. True, too bad I never talked about this at all. Including your conclusion (senses represent evidence) in your premise (senses provide evidence) is a classic begging the question fallacy. And, you are wrong, I am not claiming that senses provide evidence for senses. You are mistakenly assuming that I said senses provide evidence. All I was saying was that if senses do not represent the physical world, senses are still evidence. Side: True
1
point
If you ask someone if they believe in God, a yes answer means for sure that they are a theist. Got it? BUT, ANY OTHER ANSWER IS INCONCLUSIVE. Exactly, a "No" answer only reveals them to be an apatheist, a sub-set of which is agnostic and the other sub-set is atheist. You cannot figure out what someone believes with a no answer. That's what I am saying. So, if you ask that question in hopes of finding out who is an atheist you will have a bias. Which has been my point from the beginning. I'm not sure how we are disagreeing. Graphically, we might say something like this: "Do you believe in God?" [Yes ] [ No ]
[Theist ] [ Apatheist ] [Theist ] [ Agnostic or Atheist] I think our confusion stems from your original statement to which I responded: "Everyone is born an Atheist." This would seem to indicate that Atheism implies both active disbelief in God and a passive non-belief. A baby would answer "no" (if he were capable of answering) because he is incapable of forming belief sets yet, but that wouldn't make him an atheist, it would make him an agnostic right? And, you are wrong, I am not claiming that senses provide evidence for senses. You are mistakenly assuming that I said senses provide evidence. All I was saying was that if senses do not represent the physical world, senses are still evidence. Fair enough, I was attempting to tie these response back to the OP, which was asking whether we hold any belief sets without evidence. My position being "yes" I was attempting to understand what your position was. Side: False
Exactly, a "No" answer only reveals them to be an apatheist, a sub-set of which is agnostic and the other sub-set is atheist. So, when you labeled the no answer as Atheist you were wrong. :) Which has been my point from the beginning. I'm not sure how we are disagreeing. This has only been your opinion after I pointed out that you were wrong for saying the no answer meant Atheist. Instead of just agreeing with me you tried arguing that I made the mistake. I think our confusion stems from your original statement to which I responded: Our? You are the only one confused. This would seem to indicate that Atheism implies both active disbelief in God and a passive non-belief. A baby would answer "no" (if he were capable of answering) because he is incapable of forming belief sets yet, but that wouldn't make him an atheist, it would make him an agnostic right? I would be fine with calling him an agnostic but I notice many many Christians would call him an Atheist. Then to prove my point you called him an Atheist. Then you tried to claim over and over that I was the one who did it, all the time agreeing with what I said. Fair enough, I was attempting to tie these response back to the OP, which was asking whether we hold any belief sets without evidence. My position being "yes" I was attempting to understand what your position was. And, I agree with you, I just disagree that your reason for believing that is correct. Side: True
1
point
So, when you labeled the no answer as Atheist you were wrong. :) If that makes you feel better, sure. ;-) What I was trying to point out, rather, is that there are three philosophic positions concerning the existence of God. Does exist = Theist, Does not exist = Atheist, Unknown=Agnostic. As such, the original question you asked concerning when you ask people "Do you believe in God?" doesn't answer the atheist/theist/agnostic question. I would be fine with calling him an agnostic but I notice many many Christians would call him an Atheist. That certainly has not been my position, few Christians would call a baby an atheist, that has been an argument floated by atheists like Lawrence Kraus, Anthony Flew, and Peter Atkins. Regardless, from a philosophical point of view there are three positions (outlined above), to the extent we agree on that and what those positions entail is what is important. Sorry for any confusion. And, I agree with you, I just disagree that your reason for believing that is correct. How so? What reason do you hold some belief sets are formed absent evidence (if that is your position)? Side: False
If that makes you feel better, sure. ;-) It isn't about making me feel better. You agree that I am right as well. As such, the original question you asked concerning when you ask people "Do you believe in God?" doesn't answer the atheist/theist/agnostic question. You were the one who said it did. I was the one who said it didn't. At least you realize what side is correct even if you aren't big enough to admit you are wrong. That certainly has not been my position, few Christians would call a baby an atheist, that has been an argument floated by atheists like Lawrence Kraus, Anthony Flew, and Peter Atkins. Way to go. You totally don't understand the argument. I wasn't talking about the baby, I was talking about the adult that was asked the "Do you believe in God?" question. You like to claim that you don't believe babies are Atheists, but you consider adults Atheists if they have the same viewpoint as the baby. How so? What reason do you hold some belief sets are formed absent evidence (if that is your position)? I think it is possible to have beliefs without basing it on evidence, like the guy who predicted the end of the world last year. He came up with a prediction then looked for explanations for his belief. But, regardless of whether someones senses are working correctly, I believe they can be used as evidence. If someone says they felt someone touch them, I would conclude that their belief is based on the data gathered from their senses. They used their senses good or bad and formed a conclusion. Side: True
2
points
I wasn't talking about the baby, I was talking about the adult that was asked the "Do you believe in God?" question. You seem to have forgotten your own post. In response to: "and also why so many people consider themselves atheist without doing a lick of investigation on their own" You said: "This is sort of a weird statement. Atheism is really the default position. Everyone is born an Atheist. Maybe I am not sure what you mean." You seem to be backing off of that statement now, which is fine. Side: False
You seem to be backing off of that statement now, which is fine. No, I am drawing a conclusion of how you really feel about the baby based on how you treat the adult who gives the same response. You claim that Atheism is not the default. I only claim that Atheism is the default position because that's how you guys portray it. You treat an adult with the same properties as a baby as an Atheist. You try to claim that Atheism is not the default for babies only, but when faced with the actual situation in adults you immediately label them an Atheist. That's what I am referring to. Sorry that wasn't clear. Side: True
1
point
I only claim that Atheism is the default position because that's how you guys portray it. There is some impressive intellectual gymnastics going on here. You argued that the baby was an atheist by default prior to me even being in this thread, and you seem to imply here that you hold that position based upon my statements. That is discordant intellectually. You rely rather, on misinterpreting my statement to argue that an adult who says "no" means they are an atheist. Rather, I was trying to show how the question you posed (Do you believe in God) was unsatisfactory for determining philosophic positions. I've since pointed that out to you twice. Regardless, to clarify again. When asked "Do you believe in God?" a "no" answer would imply an apatheist, not an atheist. Babies, by definition, are agnostic, since they lack the faculties to make a positive claim and as such be either a theist or an atheist. So a baby could only answer "no" to that question, just as they would have to answer no to the reciprocal "do you believe that God does not exist?" Side: False
There is some impressive intellectual gymnastics going on here. You argued that the baby was an atheist by default prior to me even being in this thread, and you seem to imply here that you hold that position based upon my statements. That is discordant intellectually. This wouldn't be the first accusation you were completely wrong about. Let me clear up my position. If you want to call the baby an agnostic that's fine, it can be accurate. I asked the question to find out what the OP was trying to say. If you want to call the baby agnostic though, you better treat adults with the same position as agnostic. You rely rather, on misinterpreting my statement to argue that an adult who says "no" means they are an atheist. Rather, I was trying to show how the question you posed (Do you believe in God) was unsatisfactory for determining philosophic positions. I've since pointed that out to you twice. NO! I was telling you that my question was unsatisfactory for determining philosophical positions. That has always been my stance. You may have pointed that out twice, but I agreed with you both times and told you that was my original stance. Of the 2 of us, you are the only one to misinterpret the question. Regardless, to clarify again. When asked "Do you believe in God?" a "no" answer would imply an apatheist, not an atheist. Then, just say you made a mistake the first time when you labeled them an Atheist. Babies, by definition, are agnostic, since they lack the faculties to make a positive claim and as such be either a theist or an atheist. So a baby could only answer "no" to that question, just as they would have to answer no to the reciprocal "do you believe that God does not exist?" Babies are only agnostic if you label the "no" answer as apatheist. When you labeled it Atheist you killed your argument. Now that you are saying that the "no" answer means apatheist I can agree to your claim that babies are agnostic. Side: True
1
point
1
point
Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms. Atheism is personal belief, Agnostism is claimed knowledge. Think of this in terms of of this: Theism is the assertion that there is a god, Atheism is the rejection of theism (the lack of belief in a God). Gnosticism is the claim of certainty, Agnosticism is the admittance of uncertainty. You can be: Gnostic Theist: you believe there is a God and you claim that you KNOW that there is a God Agnostic Theist: you believe there is a God but your not claiming for certain that there is one. Gnostic Atheist: You don't believe there is a God and you claim to KNOW that there is no God Agnostic Atheist: You don't believe there is a God, but your not claiming for certain there is no God I am an Agnostic Atheist; I personally don't believe (and am very confident) there is a God, but I do not claim to know that God doesn't exist. I am also Agnostic towards any spectacular claim (like bigfoot, fairys, leprechauns, etc.) If you read the "God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, he gives a rating scale for this. Agnostism isnt a belief, its a claim of knowledge. There cannot be somewhat of a God, there either is one, or there isn't. And due to lack of current evidence, Im leaning toward the latter. Side: False
1
point
I have read "God Delusion," and, frankly, I think Dawkins' lack of training in philosophy shows in the error being repeated here. I believe you are confusing two claims about the same thing as separate things. This is usually known as a divisional fallacy. If I hold a strong believe (gnostic theist) or a weak belief (agnostic theist), that represents a sliding along a certain scale, not separate categories of philosophic claims. For example, some string theorists are avowed supporters, some are less certain. Do they represent different categories? Dawkins is simply misusing commonly understood and defined terms to avoid an implication (in the book he uses this scale to argue atheism is more popular than it currently is). In philosophy we call that sophistry. When someone says "I'm agnostic about that" they aren't claiming they have a position, but aren't sure. They are arguing no position. You wouldn't interpret "I'm agnostic about where to go to lunch" as "I want to go to the Italian place, but I'm not sure" you would read it as "I don't know where I want to go to lunch." Notice that Dawkins' criteria leaves out an entire field of belief sets normally ascribed to agnosticism (which is a good hint that he has committed a fallacy). True agnostics don't fit into that category anywhere. They don't know if there is or is not a God either because they are unconvinced or they believe such knowledge is impossible. Neither group would be represented here and as such you can see that the scale you've established falls short of describing a true full set of philosophic positions. Side: False
1
point
I'm referring to the camp of atheists who believe there are no gods, as opposed to simply not believing in any particular god or gods; the difference is not merely semantic. More specifically, I'm referring to those who simply echo what others have told them without even the slightest attempt at analysis or investigation of their own. Anyone can review the parameters of an experiment and the raw data from the results. Anyone can review the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiment, the writings of peers who review the data and conclusions and support the original conclusion, the writings of peers who review the data and conclusions and dissent. Most don't. Side: True
More specifically, I'm referring to those who simply echo what others have told them without even the slightest attempt at analysis or investigation of their own. Yeah, those guys are bad, seeing as they sound like Christians. Anyone can review the parameters of an experiment and the raw data from the results. I guess, but they are somewhat difficult to get to sometimes, and written in a way that is hard to read, but that is true. Anyone can review the conclusions drawn by those performing the experiment, the writings of peers who review the data and conclusions and support the original conclusion, the writings of peers who review the data and conclusions and dissent. My experience has shown that having this information doesn't help at all. Most don't. Wow, a blanket statement based on flawed data. And, you have now vilified people for not doing a lot of work to better understand the experiments that other people have done and completely ignored the fact that their opponents don't have anything to go and research and they get a free pass. Seems kind of unfair. Somehow it is not as bad to brainlessly follow religion. Maybe you aren't saying that though. Side: False
1
point
Even Christians can think for themselves and do their own investigation, question the interpretation of others, and find their own 'truth' as it were. Most of them don't either; thats kind of my point. I acknowledge that experimental data can be difficult to come across at times, but that at other times it isn't. That wasn't exactly my point. I was going for the specifics of the debate; the fact that what constitutes evidence is a hazy matter and to most people (regardless of religious standing) the word of others is simply enough. In that regard, if a higher standard for evidence is aspired to, the information I noted would in fact help; it would certainly allow for a better understanding as well. I'm not sure what experience you've had that suggests the contrary, because none of mine has. "Most don't," while a blanket statement, is hardly based on flawed data. And I'm not vilifying anybody either- pointing out a fact isn't vilification by any stretch of the imagination and I have not spoken of them in a derogatory fashion either. I'm not comparing putting trust in scientists to brainlessly following religion as if either were evils, or equal evils if they were; thats hardly fair on both counts! I think you've just misunderstood me. I'm addressing the debate topic itself, that 'no beliefs are formed without evidence' and exploring the fact that what constitutes evidence is different for different people, and that's all I'm doing here. Edit: I meant to clarify and disputed instead. Downvoted my own argument. Side: True
Even Christians can think for themselves and do their own investigation, question the interpretation of others, and find their own 'truth' as it were. Most of them don't either; thats kind of my point. Ok, good. I acknowledge that experimental data can be difficult to come across at times, but that at other times it isn't. That wasn't exactly my point. I was going for the specifics of the debate; the fact that what constitutes evidence is a hazy matter and to most people (regardless of religious standing) the word of others is simply enough. In that regard, if a higher standard for evidence is aspired to, the information I noted would in fact help; it would certainly allow for a better understanding as well. I'm not sure what experience you've had that suggests the contrary, because none of mine has. A higher standard of evidence hasn't helped win arguments, so I don't see that as important. "Most don't," while a blanket statement, is hardly based on flawed data. And I'm not vilifying anybody either- pointing out a fact isn't vilification by any stretch of the imagination and I have not spoken of them in a derogatory fashion either. I'm not comparing putting trust in scientists to brainlessly following religion as if either were evils, or equal evils if they were; thats hardly fair on both counts! I think you've just misunderstood me. I'm addressing the debate topic itself, that 'no beliefs are formed without evidence' and exploring the fact that what constitutes evidence is different for different people, and that's all I'm doing here. Yes it is flawed data, you can't possibly know that it is most of them. And you sound remarkably positive about your stance on them just accepting what other people say. Side: True
1
point
Right, I'm not proposing it as a tool for winning arguments, I'm addressing this specific debate. It isn't flawed data, it's statistical data. Put bluntly, most people don't spend what free time they do have that way. TV ratings, amongst other metrics, are clear indicators of this. Our culture itself, in the US, is a clear indicator of this. If I show some disdain for this type of individual, maybe it's because I'm somewhat elitist, but I don't intend to vilify anyone. Side: True
It isn't flawed data, it's statistical data. Put bluntly, most people don't spend what free time they do have that way. TV ratings, amongst other metrics, are clear indicators of this. Our culture itself, in the US, is a clear indicator of this. If I show some disdain for this type of individual, maybe it's because I'm somewhat elitist, but I don't intend to vilify anyone. Thanks for clarifying I guess. You have a wonderful way of talking so much and still not saying it right. Side: True
1
point
You're right. I'm often wordier than necessary and pretty long-winded, and it's mainly because I have such difficulty conveying what I'm trying to say. Language seems a pretty crude tool for communication in some ways, but it's not like we really have better alternatives. Side: True
|
Some people believed that the world would end because of the Mayan calendar and people like Nostradamus saying it would end. They considered that as evidence, so they believed it. People use things like alleged demon possession, so-called miracles, and hearing "God" speak to them as evidence for the existence of God and the correctness of Christianity. All religions had documents that recorded "spectacular" events that become the root of their beliefs. Even Mormonism has a root of belief (Joseph Smith, I think that's his name, and received some golden plates from God, and apparently some other people were there to witness it). As it said in the debate info, what you may believe to be acceptable as evidence may not be the same for others. Side: True
Perhaps I'll try salvaging that analogy, but first I think it might be helpful for me to reiterate that evidence is whatever we witness that appears (subject to our interpretive skills) to confirm one belief or another. When you say that some beliefs form sans evidence, it's like saying that some rectangles and squares have no right angles. Side: False
Dropping the analogy because upon reflection it is rather clumsy and proceeding to the more immediate matter... I am not saying that a belief forms absent sensory input and interpretation. My argument is that such input and interpretation do not themselves constitute evidence. Particularly where for many beliefs, the input is hearsay and a secondary/tertiary/etc. source. I think we are likely becoming mired in semantics, but to me evidence requires some degree of verifiability and reproductive potential that can be withstand critical observation. Lacking such standard, evidence merely becomes synonymous with input and anything observed is proof... so an hallucination is proof, a piece of fiction is proof, an inherited family story is proof. That being the case, I think evidence loses all meaning and value. Side: True
I do maintain that proof consists merely of that which is convincing, I also hold that any witnessed event can serve as evidence, so long as it is interpreted in such a way that it's referred to in the justification of belief. Gullible people generally have less strict standards of evidence than skeptics, but whether it is worse to err to the gullible, or skeptic side, might make for interesting debate. It looks to me like you want only certain types of evidence to actually be considered evidence. I personally see no problem looking at some evidence as weak and some as strong, false, hearsay etc.. So it's not bothersome at all for me to accept the statement "All belief is evidence based". Side: True
I find skeptics to be far more grounded in reality, but indeed that is another debate (see my post there). As far as our semantic disagreement, you are correct. I view language as a tool, and thus assess it based upon its utility. Evidence as a diluted umbrella term holds little relative utility to its having a specific meaning to me; let hearsay and the like be called what they are and not lent the legitimacy of a word like evidence. Clearly, we disagree. I sense perhaps that you view language differently (i.e. not in terms of utility); is that an accurate assumption? Side: True
No, it is possible to form an opinion and then look for evidence. That's basically how the scientific method works. You come up with an idea, then you get evidence. The only difference is that scientists don't actually believe the idea is true until they have retrieved that evidence. For example, the guy who thought the rapture was going to happen in 2012 had that belief, then went through and justified it. He had justification, not evidence. Side: False
1
point
I think this forgets what most philosophers call "Properly Basic Beliefs." While many beliefs are formed based upon some evidence set (that flower is red based upon my observations, etc), not all are. Beliefs such as "I have the capacity for memory" and "my sensory input is real" are properly basic beliefs, beliefs necessary in order to gather evidence or conduct reason are properly basic by definition. So while I agree that some beliefs (probably the vast majority) are based upon evidence, it is improper to conclude that no belief is formed without evidence. Side: False
1
point
The evidence that forms this belief is direct experiential. We run tests on this function all the time hoping that the evidence continues to prove it reliable. If you begin to find evidence that your memory does not represent past events, and you start doubting yourself more, would you still consider your "my memory represents past events" belief to be "properly basic"? Side: True
Dude, I was just messing around. I did think your example was bad though. The people (children) who believe in the tooth fairy actually have evidence to back up their claim. The problem is, they haven't factored in the much more likely scenario. Since they are children (mostly) it makes sense. But, I was also trying to point out that the children that believe in the tooth fairy see their teeth turn into money which is what the tooth fairy is supposed to do. People who believe in God think that after they die they will have God proven to them, and obviously can't verify that while living. Side: False
On the face of it I think it's false. But if we extend the notion of evidence to include good arguments then we might consider it true. Take free will as an example. Do we have evidence of free will? No we don't. Yet most people believe we have free will. It's possible that this is the common assumption because it true, but it we might also say that we believe in free will because we have no convincing arguments to the contrary. In either case, some believe in free will but it's not because of evidence. Side: False
Quite the contrary. There is significant scientific research demonstrating the strong and pervasive influence of genetics and environmental stimulation/triggers upon human behavior. Admittedly, my view of total determinism is an extrapolation from the available research however it remains a view formed by evaluation of what evidence is currently available on the subject. By contrast, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that I have encountered which supports the belief in free will. Side: True
Naturally I recognize the distinction between weak and strong evidence, however I also hold an appreciation for the distinction between evidence and hearsay, circular reasoning, assertion, etc. Just because something is used to justify or defend something does not make it evidence. If I say the sky is lime green because my cat told me so, my cat telling me so is not evidence. If someone says god exists because the Bible/Qur'an/Torah/etc told them so, that is not evidence. The proclaimed "evidence" must have some basis that is externally verifiable through a process of logic, otherwise it is nothing but assertion. Weak evidence is based in logic but is perhaps subject to a greater margin for error, or lacks complete data, etc. You see my distinction? Side: False
If you dilute the standard for what constitutes evidence to include every possible justification or excuse for a belief then the word loses its meaning entirely. The very reason the word "evidence" exists is to create a distinction between unfounded belief and founded thought. Side: False
Explain more about this pure undiluted standard of what constitutes evidence, and what doesn't. What witnessable event isn't evidence of some sort? You talk of a distinction between "unfounded belief and founded thought". What you call unfounded, would be better explained as poorly founded would it not? Some people have more lax standards than others in terms of what evidence they find compelling, but it's not like they base their belief on no evidence at all. We could say that some types of evidence should be weighed more heavily than other types and that would be a whole lot smarter than assuming people can form beliefs without evidence. There is no such thing as belief without evidence. Side: True
I never said that my standard was a bright line or even entirely pure, and indeed I readily acknowledge that some forms of evidence are stronger and others weaker. Rather, my point was that if you dilute any concept too much it ceases to have meaning. To me, what you describe is not evidence but rather a causal reason. Of course every belief is founded in some causal factor that prompts it- a book you read, an experience you had, etc. - but that factor is not necessarily evidence. Evidence requires some process of logic that controls for the innate subjectivity of human interpretation of reality. Side: False
2
points
I would argue that evidence doesn't necessarily require a process of logic or any kind of control. Evidence, proof, whatever you wish to call it, predates the basic concept of logic (much less its formalization), the scientific method, the concept of controlling variables, and even the idea of subjective reality. Side: True
I am truly uninterested in having a semantic dispute across ancient languages tracking back the origins of the original and "true" meaning of evidence relative to other terms with which it is frequently associated. My concern is that evidence be a word with a minimal degree of utility, and this requires differentiation from other, more general words such as input or experience. Clearly, you do not care that any criteria be met for something to constitute evidence. To you evidence can be a childhood story, an hallucination, a piece of fiction, any secondary source, hearsay, and so forth. If "evidence" is truly so inclusive, then that beliefs are formed upon evidence is a rather empty statement anyways and the overall debate moot. Side: False
1
point
If you'll excuse me and reread what I've said, I haven't asserted that I hold such as evidence, and in fact have stated the contrary several times. As I said in my original post here, I was going to vote false initially, but then considered that different individuals have different standards for what constitutes evidence, and if we're allowing for a hazy definition of evidence, it is true. The point you are trying to make here is exactly the point I was trying to make in my initial post. You've got the wrong guy, man! Side: True
Then for what reason did you dispute my statement to begin with? I accept that I may have misunderstood your stance on the matter as I did not thoroughly reread your week to two week old posts with another person, but to be fair you have hardly made yourself quite so explicitly clear as you appear to think. My original post observed that evidence only has utility if it is associated with reason, logic, and other such criteria. You disputed this on the basis that "evidence" may once have been something different, and presumably could not be something else now. The implication being that evidence is not associated with reason or logic ("evidence doesn't necessarily require a process of logic or any kind of control") but is necessarily hazy in the absence of such clarifying criteria. Perhaps it was your intention to indicate that this is how others view it and thus evidence is ambiguous, but popular misconception does not make a thing correct so I do disagree with you there. At any rate, my response to your rebuttal was a re-explanation and defense of a point you countered (yet now claim to support). What should I have done? Not defended a point you disputed? Perhaps I have the wrong man, but given the circumstances that is rather understandable I think. Side: False
2
points
My apologies for that; I was responding to the argument activity and for whatever reason I thought this was part of my thread on the other side, so my note to read what I previously wrote was somewhat out of place. I should have checked it out more before I posted, and it should have been a clarification rather than a dispute. I'm usually pretty good about that, and I'm not sure whether it was a case of a misclick that I chose dispute or if I knee-jerked at the time. My memory is somewhat lacking sometimes :/ My intent was to acknowledge that what constitutes evidence varies from person to person; not just in terms of the average citizen but in terms of legal institutions as well; witness testimony, for example, is considered by most people and legal systems to be evidence in and of itself- I disagree with this stance, but it does need to be acknowledged. The overall point was to address the debate itself, that 'no beliefs are formed without evidence-' which I think is correct generally speaking. Many may disagree on what constitutes evidence, but people believe in things due to what they consider evidence. I really wanted to vote against it, but I feel allowances need to be made for that. Language in general is a fluid thing, and by it's very nature I have to disagree with the notion that a different take on what the word 'evidence' means; one has to remember that the meaning of a word, in practice, is not set in stone but is in fact a consensus among all who speak the language/dialect in question. I really should have chosen clarify rather than dispute for that overall, as my intent wasn't to overtly disagree with you on this so much as to disagree with a single statement. You're right in that it's understandable, and your take on it is definitely reasonable having re-read the thread; I do tend to overthink things and I am definitely prone to being overly wordy. Sorry for the mix-up and miscommunication- I like to think I'm always right (as if that isn't clear to anyone who bothers to read my crap) but I make mistakes and get mixed up every bit as often as others, and this is a prime example of that. Side: True
Mistakes happen, and no question that I have made my own on here. That misunderstanding cleared up though, I still rather disagree with you. Certainly, some people will believe that their lower or absent criteria for evidence still constitutes evidence. That does not make them correct. If it is true that majority/popular consensus determines true meaning of words and that said consensus defines evidence as anything and everything (both tenuous claims in my opinion)... then I find this debate to be utterly pointless. The affirmative is effectively supporting this statement: beliefs are caused by something. Duh. Who cares? What weight does that bear? None at all. Side: True
2
points
I think you're exaggerating my point here. I don't believe that anybody believes that just anything can be evidence. I'll hold to my statement that languages are fluid things, though. I agree with you though, that this debate is largely pointless because different individuals hold different criteria for evidence. Really, for a debate to be useful at all there needs to first be an agreement on what the terms in use actually mean, otherwise the two sides don't just disagree, they're participating in a completely different debate. As I said though- the vast majority of people are willing to accept witness testimony as evidence. The legal system in the US is one such entity. I'm not willing to accept witness testimony alone as evidence, personally, because people are fallible. "No beliefs are formed without evidence" isn't a statement as to the quality and objective nature of said evidnece; as the belief is formed in the mind of the individual, obviously the individuals definition of evidence is what matters insofar as the belief is concerned. As the debate is written, I have to agree with it. Were it written 'There is evidence to back every belief' the implication would be more objective and I would have to disagree. Side: True
I do not believe I was exaggerating your point at all, at least not intentionally. My statement was worded to include whatever anyone might consider evidence, which I understood you to be arguing ought to be a consideration. At the point where evidence is subjectively defined by individual understanding of the word and there are people who think a piece of unsubstantiated fiction is evidence, that to me is someone believing that just about anything can be evidence. What lower standard could you possibly set? Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are arguing that you cannot negate because some people define evidence differently and form their beliefs based upon what they consider evidence. I fail to see why their thinking something is evidence actually makes it evidence. If someone believes that the Bible is evidence that does not make it evidence. It makes it the basis of their believing something, a justification at best... but not evidence. Changing the wording of the question as you suggest in fact changes nothing about the debate at all; those people would still consider their belief to be backed by evidence and by your own argumentation evidence is a fluid construct so they would be correct. Side: True
1
point
You were, and still are! You're invoking the slippery slope fallacy as well; you presume that if the idea of evidence is at all fluid, then it holds no meaning whatsoever. You're wrong in that. You have not addressed the fact that witness testimony is considered sufficient evidence not only by most individuals in the world, but most governments as well- and words prove nothing at all, or at least shouldn't. If man does not define evidence, and if governments do not define evidence, who DOES define evidence? The definition for evidence that you tout is not agreed upon either by a consensus of the people using the language or by any kind of government body that uses that language- I understand your point and I personally agree with it, but if you must insist that language is static, rather than fluid, then I insist that you reveal your source that standardizes the language. Right now, we are disputing a belief that you have (that the meaning of 'evidence' [and words in general] are static rather than fluid) that was in fact formed from evidence (your source for said belief). The reason for the dispute is, surprise surprise, disagreement on what constitutes evidence. Am I the only one that finds this amusing? Side: True
You were, and still are! You're invoking the slippery slope fallacy as well; you presume that if the idea of evidence is at all fluid, then it holds no meaning whatsoever. No. I have given you a clear line of reasoning that is an explicit extension of your argument brought to its natural conclusion which you have repeatedly failed to address. Let me reiterate. You claim that every individual's understanding of evidence is equally valid as actual evidence. This means that anything that anyone thinks is evidence counts as evidence. That means that anything can count as evidence. That means evidence is wholly fluid and has no requisite criteria; at this point the word fails to distinguish between the value of things in the formulation of beliefs and knowledge. It is nothing more than another word for "things". You have not addressed the fact that witness testimony is considered sufficient evidence not only by most individuals in the world, but most governments as well Because I did not see it as especially relevant. Just because something exists or is understood a certain way does not make it correct. Arguing that a more fluid or relaxed definition of evidence is correct because the government currently says so would have been like arguing that slavery is good when it is in practice because the government says so at the time. At any rate, while witness testimony is considered evidence it is considered weak evidence and this legally implied distinction in value substantiates my claim that the term evidence derives its value from having some claim to distinguishing merit. If your claim were correct, the legal system would admit anything that anyone thought proved something... including hearsay and other things which the system very explicitly excludes. If man does not define evidence, and if governments do not define evidence, who DOES define evidence? The definition for evidence that you tout is not agreed upon either by a consensus of the people using the language or by any kind of government body that uses that language- I understand your point and I personally agree with it, but if you must insist that language is static, rather than fluid, then I insist that you reveal your source that standardizes the language. I do not insist at all that language is static nor have I ever once claimed that my view on evidence is standard or widely held. I have claimed only that my definition has more utility and is thus preferable and more objectively correct than that which is commonly held. In the context of this debate my definition is preferable because the alternative definition makes affirmation wholly meaningless and negation entirely impossible; why bother engaging in that debate at all? Besides which, while my definition is not textbook the standardized definition of evidence is hardly identical to yours either. While there is disagreement as to what criteria determines if something meets evidence, there is general consensus that evidence is something which proves another thing (not merely anything which someone assumes to prove another thing). Side: True
1
point
Just so I understand you here. Your definition of evidence is: -not the dictionary definition, or rather the definition listed in any dictionary -not the definition in use by the local government or world governments in general -not the definition that the average citizen agrees upon So in what way can it be considered a valid definition of evidence? No offense meant, mind you. I do understand, and I'd be all for raising the standard of what is considered evidencel; I believe we're on the same page insofar as standards for evidence are concerned. But this all comes back to a problem I noted earlier, and acknowledged in my original post here- that without a standardized accepted definition for the term, this debate is hazy at best and not particularly useful. When we're talking about beliefs in a general, blanket sense (No beliefs), then I believe it is necessary to use a general, blanket definition of evidence, and witness testimony would appear to fall under that definition. On an unrelated note, I think I'm going to have to start providing definitions for terms in debates I create, just to minimize the semantic arguments that seem to pop up in every single one. Side: False
Effectively, yes. And no offense taken. I present my definition not as a standard definition, but as that definition which I think serves the greatest utility within this particular debate. It is valid not because it has popular external acceptance, but because I have presented it with an internal justification that has not in my view been successfully deconstructed. I maintain my disagreement that a discussion about beliefs in general requires a general definition of evidence. However, I feel that we have both reiterated ourselves on this point and are not inclined to agree making continued discussion redundant. Agreed? I think providing definitions is an intelligent precaution, as it focuses the debate where the framer intends and is less likely to devolve into semantic disputes. I did high school debate and presenting definitions was an integral part to presenting a case; perhaps that explains my framing of this particular debate. Side: True
1
point
The affirmative is effectively supporting this statement: beliefs are caused by something. Duh. Who cares? What weight does that bear? None at all. It is oriented towards attacking a misconception of what faith is. Namely...Faith being thought to mean "belief without evidence". Side: True
I recognize why the question was posed, obviously. However, if anything is evidence then the essence of the accusation that faith/religion is unsubstantiated codswallop still stands. Which makes the debate moot; it just shifts semantics without addressing the actual accusation levied at religion and faith. Side: False
Those who aim to attack religion and faith in general, (ie without identiifying any specific sects) are wasting their breath. Just as I would be if I was all passionate about how much better off we'd be without government. Government is just like religion... in that it may improve, or get worse, but it's NOT (and I don't seem to be able to emphasize this enough) GOING AWAY. We have some legitimate hope if our focus is to try improving the way it's practiced, but we are deluding ourselves if we don't understand that religion in it's broadest (most appropriate) sense, is something that everyone practices in a more or less organized, more or less unique way. I differ from my atheist peers in that I don't try to hide that my ruling logic (what theists call theology) is based on axiomatic statements that I accept as sufficiently self evident. I am the only atheist I know that's engaged in open public debates, who recognizes the supposed religious/secular dichotomy as seriously illusory. If you think that there are two types of people, those whose beliefs are evidence based, and those whose beliefs are not, you have yourself (IMO) as serious a delusion as any religious nut job. If you would agree to answer a series of yes or no questions, I don't think it would be much trouble at all to reveal a belief you have that was formed in light of inscrutable evidence. The kind you think shouldn't even be considered evidence at all. The kind you would chastise others for accepting. Maybe we could have a 1 on 1 debate if we could come to terms on how our disagreement should be framed? how about ....."Everyone has basic beliefs based on philosophical principles or statements regarded as self-evident?".....with you arguing the "false" side. Game? Side: True
I think you have a few misunderstandings about where I'm approaching this from. To clarify: I hold no delusion that religion is going to go away in my lifetime, and I am not optimistic that it ever will. I consider religion to be a byproduct of human psychological and social evolution. Any possibility that the human mind will evolve beyond its reliance upon religion is so far in the future as to make it of little concern to me. My concerns are more immediate than that. My interest as an anti-theist is not in trying to change religion; I do not think it can be changed in any significant way. The flaws I see in religion I find inherent across all sects. My objective, then, is not to change religion but to alter the way that religion relates to society and to limit its power and influence. I seek to limit the infringement of religion upon personal liberties and freedoms and to promote reason and objectivity in social and legal sectors as much as is possible. I believe that religion is inherently opposed to all of that, and that its claimed benefits are mostly illusory or non-unique. I do not think there are two types of people. I recognize that it is human to have ones reason obscured and to formulate beliefs absent evidence, and I wholly recognize that fallibility within myself for all that I do aspire to reason and objectivity. The delineation that I note is between the type of person who generally can accept challenges to their assumptions and the type of person who is incapable of doing so. To be certain, there are atheists as incapable of addressing some of their assumptions as the theist but I find the condition of defensiveness far more inherent to the theistic perspective. There are certain matters upon which a theist cannot be moved - belief in free will, the soul, an afterlife, universal/cosmic purpose and meaning, etc. Beliefs that in addition to being false, I consider outright harmful. While the theist may have some beliefs in life which are based in evidence, they will inherently and consistently across faiths and sects possess and defend beliefs like the aforementioned against reason and without evidence. The atheist, while still fallible, is not so inherently bound. Those matters clarified, I readily consent to series of yes-no questions. I think you may find that task a bit more challenging than you assume. As a nihilist there is little, if anything, that I hold inherently true; my opinions are generally formulated and held on a basis of probabilistic truth. What thoughts I do hold, I attach little to no value to; they are a means to understanding reality and nothing more. I do not know if the one-on-one debate follows the above yes/no format or not, but I am open to that as well. "Everyone has basic beliefs based on philosophical principles or statements regarded as self-evident." ... I think that should work. I do suspect that this may come down to my defense of nihilism in the context of theism, but that is alright by me if it is by you. Feel free to start it if you like? Side: False
I do my best. ;) And thank you for the exchange; it's quite enjoyable. 4. No. Worship connotes a particular manner of reverential thought and action with respect to a deity or other supernatural force or entity. Such reverence toward a person is not worship but idolization. A person whom others view as a deity, I would consider to be someone idolized while simultaneously conflated with the idea of a god; the person is idolized and the god-idea is worshiped. Side: True
5. Yes/No This one is slightly complicated. I sporadically attended Christian church when I was a kid and went through the motions of worship, but I never really believed in any of it and certainly not in God so I hesitate to say I was ever really a worshiper. More recently, I had a stint of time when I attended a few zendos, usually sporadically and with only partial commitment to the ideas. More than anything I went to learn about meditation and mindfulness, and I have never believed in many central ideas such as rebirth or enlightenment. I have never considered myself a Buddhist, although I briefly identified as someone who practiced Buddhism. I have also attended a couple of Universalist Quaker and Jewish services, and if presented with the opportunity would attend other religious services (out of interest, not belief). I do endeavor to experience things directly where I can to inform my understanding of the views and beliefs of others. Side: True
Agreed. I sent you a PM. Yes, I made a point of exposing myself to different theistic ideas and experiences. I have not been swayed however. I gather perhaps we have that in common... though this Q/A is a bit unidirectional and I don't want to presume. 6. Yes(ish) Once, during a walking meditation when I felt exceptionally in touch with the present and my sense of self dissolved to include the other. I would consider it more spiritual than religious, but even spiritual is stretching it a bit. I consider it more as an altered mind state. I have had similar experiences during my stage performances, and to me it is not indicative of the veracity of Buddhism or anything like that; I just happened to be practicing meditation when it happened. Side: True
What happened with me was utterly euphoric, amazing and LASTED for I want to say about a month, maybe a little longer. This happened in my mid 20's and it was life changing. It was easy for me to see as a result, why people who end up having experiences like I had, interpret it as an experience with the divine. I stopped looking at religious people as stupid but I still don't care much at all for the popular narratives, and I still sense a strong air of phoniness any time I am around people who talk about the supposedly supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, esoteric, religious etc. I have an extreme distaste for people who set themselves up as teachers in these subjects. I can smell a charlatan from a mile away. However, I have more than a slight inkling of how to evoke these "altered states" and it doesn't involve psychedelic substances, like my homie Huxley advocates. I don't want to be a teacher, for fear I may become what I abhor. I just want to build a tool people can use to teach themselves more efficiently. I won't be building it without help. I need to meet people who have skills that I don't, and that is largely why I am engaging here at this site. Yes, I think of myself as deeply religious, but certainly not in the sense that my fellow atheists understand the word. I am just dorky enough to think I have important insights to share. I am not someone to look up to. I have just as much room for improvement as anyone else. I AM inspired, it's just by other fallible people, animals, and beauty yada yada yada I think I am going to stop :) it's late 7. Can you imagine a state like you achieved, occurring in different ways for different people, and even in some cases possibly much more intense and prolonged AND this being completely unsought by the experiencer? ie no real prior interest in meditation, religion, spirituality etc Side: True
I can nominally understand someone interpreting such experiences as divine, but ultimately that attribution still seems assumptive and illogical to me. My experience did not personally alter my view on religion with respect to the level of ignorance and fallacy necessitated on the part of its believers. I would infer some sense of superiority/inferiority from it if I were at all convinced that a greater grasp upon actual reality were more advantageous than not. I should clarify, too, that where I observe superiority/inferiority I do so without attaching the usual judgements; it is strictly an observation of relative evolutionary advantage. I am intrigued that you consider yourself both deeply religious and an atheist; and confess I have a difficult time reconciling that. Presumably I'm lacking some insight into what you understand one or both of those terms to mean. 7. No(ish) I cannot rightly imagine it, no. I can, however, conceive of it as a possibility. The difference to me being that I have no ability to imagine what that experience would be like; I have no real frame of reference. However, I can conceive that someone might experience that and do not consider it outside the realm of human experience. In other words, I do not know what that would look like but I believe it could occur. Side: True
My religion is my source of inspiration. It is how my ideology is shaped through influence from those I deeply respect and admire. I don't agree that religion must be worship based. I, unlike you, believe that people CAN and often are worshiped, I see this as one of the biggest problems with religion in general. It's what stunts it's development. Frankly I have somewhat recently changed my stance, because I now hold that only communicative beings CAN be worshiped. I used to be quite fond of talking about how people worshiped the bible, now I tend to say idolize. I think whenever someone worships, they are putting someone (A person) on too high of a pedestal. This to me is the essence of theism as I see it. Since I equate theism with worship, I rationalize my atheist stance, not by lack of belief in worshiped beings (gods), but that I do not worship. I am atheist and anti-theist. Not only do I myself refuse to worship, I try encouraging others not to worship. 8. Can one be well informed about theism/worship when they have next to no personal experience with it? Side: False
Ha, so basically we use worship and idolize in the opposite fashion. Good to have that established; could have been a good deal more confusing otherwise! I am still a bit hazy, though, if you do not mind further clarifying for me... You equate theism with the worship of people? And while you consider yourself an atheist you find that compatible with a potential belief in a deity or deities? Your stance is more in negation of and against worship than God(s)... yes? 8. Yes Side: True
I am still a bit hazy, though, if you do not mind further clarifying for me... You equate theism with the worship of people? Yes. I think it is normal for people to have extremely pleasant and even at times quite enlightening experiences that I can only think of to describe here as "euphoric schizophrenic episodes accompanied by visions". I expect that people have been having them for quite some time, and have written about them, and tried to make sense of them. I strongly believe that experiences like this are behind what some refer to as holy scriptures, and that such scriptures in turn give (at least seeming) validity to these experiences and then, in sort of a feedback loop the experiences give (at least seeming) validity to the scriptures. Now, since I have had a quite potent experience like this, it's obvious to me why people go theistic. If they hadn't been initiated by being exposed to sacred scriptures, their thoughts about the experience wouldn't be colored by them. I can tell you that upon having such a wondrous experience, certain concerns arise. Among these are..."am I going crazy?"...."Do I want to be treated like a kook by those around me"......."can I find anyone to share my experience with, who has had a similar experience", among a slew of others that would fill a book easily. I am currently inclined to believe that god is a personality complex (usually subconscious) that has been reinforced across generations, and is every bit as real as any other conscious phenomenon. Do I think god should be treated as infallible or somehow not subject to the immutable laws of reality? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If I did, I would be a theist according to the way I understand these things. Am I glad to have an imaginary friend who seems wiser than me most of the time? Ridicule me if you must, but yes I am. Your stance is more in negation of and against worship than God(s)... yes? Yes 9. Do you want me to try convincing you to change your position on #8 ? Side: False
I suppose I disagree to some extent. I think there is certainly room for hallucinations, delusions, or other atypical neurological experiences to have informed the construction of religion and theological scripture. It may even explain some early adherence. At the same time I think that a good deal of religion likely arose independent of such influences (or at least not primarily driven by them), with a good deal more intentionality or awareness. Further, I do consider such experiences as we've been discussing to be aberrant more than the norm for human experience. I think the reason for belief for most people are far more simple: the incongruity between the human conception for mortality and insignificance paired with the human drive for survival and sense of self. As far as ridiculing you, I find no reason to. I personally find no comfort in the notion, but that is just me... 9. Sure That's the point, right? ;) Side: True
1
point
I think most beliefs, even those people think are justified by evidence, are based on feelings, not evidence. Most people hear an argument or an idea, and pick a side based on how they feel, and create reasons to justify the feeling. This is why most debates are terrible. It is reasonable to suggest that someone might choose a belief about something solely based on whether or not they trust a person who has the belief, rather than based on any evidence, because our daily experiences are so limited that it might be impossible for us to have any real experience or understanding of the evidence that justifies a belief, and only the ideas about who is reliable and/or likeable who is not. Have you actually been able to see that the earth is round, and/or understand the math involved in proving it is round, or do you only take the word of many people around you? A good example of how beliefs would need to be created that are not be based on evidence: I am walking down a road with a friend, and we get lost. We cannot go back the way we came. There is a dark cave on the side of the road neither of us have ever seen before. The friend asks, do you think it's a good idea to see if that cave will lead us back to where we came from? My judgement as to whether or not it is a good idea might have more to do with how brave I am, what the lighting in the area is like, and how lost I am 'feeling', but it cannot be based on any evidence if I am truly lost. But if I do decide to go into the cave, I will be operating on the belief that it will lead us back, and can continue walking indefinitely, until my internal feeling or sense, which could be based on tiredness or hunger, will tell me that my belief must be wrong since I haven't found the expected result of my belief. We create belief on a regular basis without evidence to make decisions about things we don't know about, and then test the hypothesis (sometimes the only way to do this is through argument). If I truly believed something, I wouldn't need to talk about it. Hence, the Taoist saying, those who know don't say, those who say don't know. Side: False
1
point
False. beliefs can be instilled in someone before the brain has developed the ability to asses evidence and weigh options. Critical thinking and decision making don't fully develop in most kids until around age 10 and even then they can be persuaded against evidence in most cases. Kids grow up believing what they're told with no evidence whatsoever just because their parents told them. This is how religion survives. It's instilled in kids before they have the ability to asses the evidence and before they even come into contact with opposing viewpoints. Side: False
1
point
|
