Logic

Originally posted by Suzianne
Let me step in here with something that I think may be a legitimate definition of Free Will.

One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.

No, no, let me explain.

This is why Free Will is uniquely human. A robot is programmed to make a choice contingent upon which choice results in a more hi ...[text shortened]... So go ahead and use your free will to choose from the equally valid choices presented here. 😀

One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.

I do not understand your account of free will. 'Validity' here means what exactly? An invalid choice differs from a valid choice how exactly? Further, a less valid choice differs from a more valid choice how exactly? Two choices are equal in validity under what conditions? I do not understand how you intend the term 'valid' throughout.

Further, your account is just confusing on the surface, since having "equally valid" just summons an idea of disinterest or indifference on the part of the agent. But free will is supposed to encompass also those options that matter to us. In fact, that's basically the point of agency: an agent is one who intentionally acts and those actions characteristically matter to the agent; otherwise, what would be the point of carrying them out? This is about acting from reasons, and considerations are typically reason-giving in this sense only if they accord with the agent's values and matter to that extent.

Sorry, but your account here makes virtually no sense to me. I don't get it.

This concept of 'equally valid choices' also applies to more metaphysical things. Do I believe in God or do I not believe in God? Because we have no proof (evidence is not proof) of God or not-God, both choices are equally valid, therefore free will exists.

Regardless of how you intend the term 'valid', this is all surely notionally confused. You are confusing theoretical reasoning with practical reasoning. The question of whether or not I believe in God is not a matter of what I choose to do, for I do not pick and choose such beliefs. It is an appointment with theoretical reasoning and it is a matter of what doxastic states have formed, or not, in me based on a reading of the relevant evidence available to me.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I was brought up a Christian, I am now an agnostic - and this, at least for
me, in regard to the question of the existence of God, puts Atheism on a par with
Christianity.

I'm not looking for a big fight on this... But...

Atheism is most broadly the lack of belief in gods and not merely the belief in the
lack of gods.
Thus any ...[text shortened]... have a belief that gods exist.

Contextually this means that your sentence doesn't make sense.

I have to respond to this. No I am not an atheist. I do not believe in "not god". I just happen to not believe in God either. If the word is to have any meaning then atheist should refer to those who believe in "not god". An atheist would normally regard the existence of God as impossible, which I do not. This particular discussion has been had before in other threads and carries on as a rather pointless flame war.

Regarding the stuff earlier about Bayes (who was a Churchman ironically enough) and his approach to probability. This stuff really came to the fore in the 1980's and therefore the was no course on Bayesian method in my theoretical physics degree. Which for one thing means it is possible to do science without it. In accelerator physics they compare measured cross-sections with predicted cross-sections and then do a chi-squared test to check significance. In medical trials they do not have prior distributions - specifically because they would introduce a strong risk of bias because the drugs companies would bribe the experimenters to rig the starting distributions. In both cases the statistical method is frequentist not Bayesian.

I'm not going to watch an atheist who thinks he can disprove God's existence on YouTube, for essentially the same reason that I don't watch RJ's suggested viewings of creationists who think they can prove the existence of God. I suspect what he actually did in your suggested video was to show that God is an inadmissible concept in Bayesian reasoning and then claimed that inadmissible constructs do not exist. This is not a proof of non-existence, but a proof on non-testability.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If the word is to have any meaning then atheist should refer to those who believe in "not god".

That is just ridiculous. Why can a word have only one possible meaning? And for some reason that one possible meaning is the one you prefer.

This particular discussion has been had before in other threads and carries on as a rather pointless flame war.
I don't see why it has to be a flame war. Definitions of words are important, but never 'right' or 'wrong'. But it remains important for us to know what we mean by them when we use them. I, for one, do not have the same definition as you do for the word 'atheist' so when I use it, you will probably misunderstand me. Therefore it would be appropriate for you to take the time to understand my definition, as I have taken the time to understand yours. And we must just keep in mind in future that we may not mean the same thing when we use the word, and thus, when it is important to do so, we should highlight this fact.
My definition is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god/gods. I would refer to you as an atheist in normal conversation. I use this definition not because it is 'right' but because I find it more useful than your definition.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I think there is an agenda from the atheists here to attempt to create a false dichotomy between Science and Religion. I do not see how you can claim that belief in a moderately interventionist God is anti-science. For one thing you are focusing on meta-physics, the bulk of scientific effort does not address such large questions.

Hopeful ...[text shortened]... us in virtue of silly ad hoc stipulations that provide for a lack of disconfirmation conditions.

I've read your posts. They are quite interesting, when I was originally writing the post about the problem of direct evidence of God's existence my main point was that faith becomes irrelevant in the face of such evidence. One can hardly not believe in what is under one's nose. The stuff about free will was an afterthought.

Regarding the sanctions available, I think, at least in Anglican thinking, the punishment is not pain or the traditional view of Hell, but banishment, so one cannot commune with the God. This would hardly be a punishment for googlefudge but may be for others.

I'm curious as to why indeterministic libertarian views are incoherent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is just ridiculous. Why can a word have only one possible meaning? And for some reason that one possible meaning is the one you prefer.

[b]This particular discussion has been had before in other threads and carries on as a rather pointless flame war.
I don't see why it has to be a flame war. Definitions of words are important, but never 'righ ...[text shortened]... his definition not because it is 'right' but because I find it more useful than your definition.[/b]

That is just ridiculous. Why can a word have only one possible meaning? And for some reason that one possible meaning is the one you prefer.

Because it refers to people's self-identity. In the traditional categorisation agnostic refers to proof rather than belief. There is no contradiction in being an Agnostic and a Christian, and there is no contradiction in being an Atheist and an Agnostic. I do not see any reason to go around believing in either the thesis or the antithesis on the basis of no evidence, so I am an Agnostic who isn't an Atheist or a Christian.

I don't see why it has to be a flame war.

Because the last time I had this discussion a bunch of Atheists started insisting I was a sort of weak minded Atheist. This was an affront to both my identity as an Agnostic and my intelligence.

Apologies to members of religions other than Christianity, since I regard Atheists as believers I could not use the term believer to cover all members of all religions, so the best option was to say Christian and then add this sentence.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I have to respond to this. No I am not an atheist. I do not believe in "not god". I just happen to not believe in God either. If the word is to have any meaning then atheist should refer to those who believe in "not god". An atheist would normally regard the existence of God as impossible, which I do not. This particular discussion has been had bef ...[text shortened]... constructs do not exist. This is not a proof of non-existence, but a proof on non-testability.

Your definition of atheism does not match the definition in common use by all
major atheist organisations, or the definition you could find on [say] wikipedia.

At root the construction of atheist is a-theist, ie not-theist.
Given a theist is someone who has a belief that gods exist then atheist means
someone who lacks a belief that gods exist.

You lack a belief that gods exist, thus you are an atheist.

If you want to use a non-standard definition of the word then that's up to you.
But you will be frequently misunderstood and corrected.

By me for starters.


As for the Bayesian stuff...

I linked to the youtube videos which are of lectures given at conferences on skepticism,
not atheism, because it's bloody difficult and time consuming to explain the concepts
adequately trying to type things out longhand on these forums.
It's much easier to explain them with visual aids with a power point presentation.

They were not links to rants by random people on the internet but experts giving lectures.

If you don't want to watch them that's fine, but don't assume a bunch of crap about the
content which is all incorrect. Which is what you just did.

Originally posted by DeepThought

That is just ridiculous. Why can a word have only one possible meaning? And for some reason that one possible meaning is the one you prefer.

Because it refers to people's self-identity. In the traditional categorisation agnostic refers to proof rather than belief. There is no contradiction in being an Agnostic and a Christian, and there i ...[text shortened]... ll members of all religions, so the best option was to say Christian and then add this sentence.

The problem here is that you are denying agency to all of the majority of
atheists who identify as such who do not believe not-god, and who don't
claim god is impossible, and who don't claim to know not-god.

It doubly pisses us off because the idea that atheists must believe not-god,
or claim to know not-god is a theistic strawman attack on atheism.
It's theists trying to make out that anyone claiming to be an atheist has
a burden of proof just like they do, and they try to make it out as a bigger
burden of proof because of the difficulties in proving a negative.

And then a certain class of self identified agnostic comes along and buys in
to the theists crap and perpetuates the fallacy all the while trying to make
out like they have the high ground over both atheists and theists because
they are the only ones who haven't rushed to judgement without evidence.


Gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge. do you, or can you know if god exists.
Theism/atheism is about belief. do you believe in gods, lack belief in gods, or believe
in the lack of gods.

The two labels are about different questions.

If I ask "do you believe in the existence of god?" and you say "no, I'm an agnostic" then you
didn't answer the question I asked.
"no I'm an agnostic" is your answer to the question "do you/can you know if god exists?"
The answer [in your case] to the question "do you believe in the existence of god?" is
"no, I'm an atheist".

Now if you really don't want to identify as an atheist then that's fine.

But don't try to tell the atheist community at large what the requirements of
being an atheist are simply because you don't like the term.

If you want more info, read my bio.

You are always going to get smacked down for claiming that being an atheist
requires belief in gods non-existence because that's a theistic strawman attack
on atheism that we are constantly having to fight, and it pisses us off when people
who should be not just allies but members perpetuate that fallacy.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Because it refers to people's self-identity.

I don't see how this, or anything else you said demonstrates that only one possible meaning of the word exists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is just ridiculous. Why can a word have only one possible meaning? And for some reason that one possible meaning is the one you prefer.

[b]This particular discussion has been had before in other threads and carries on as a rather pointless flame war.
I don't see why it has to be a flame war. Definitions of words are important, but never 'righ ...[text shortened]... his definition not because it is 'right' but because I find it more useful than your definition.[/b]

Minor quibble.

Definitions of words are important, but never 'right' or 'wrong'.

I know what you are getting at... But this is wrong.

In a very meaningful sense definitions CAN be wrong.

For example;

If I were to define the word 'explain' to mean "The process of making cheese in a rotary oven"
then my 'definition' would be just plain flat out wrong.

In the English language there is flexibility and variation in the meaning of words
and they drift over time. BUT... that flexibility is not infinite. If you cross the line
then you move past the point of debate-ability and into 'just plain wrong' territory.

This becomes even more so in technical fields where technical terms have very precise
and pinned down definitions.


We do not have a system where when two people meet they define all the words they
are going to use. Words are already pinned down enough that we can communicate without
having to go to all that trouble. And that necessitates the possibility of a persons definitions
being so out of whack that they can indeed be considered to be wrong.


/little quibble over 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I were to define the word 'explain' to mean "The process of making cheese in a rotary oven"
then my 'definition' would be just plain flat out wrong.

But if it became common usage, it would start to be right.

Also consider Cockney Rhyming slang.

And that necessitates the possibility of a persons definitions
being so out of whack that they can indeed be considered to be wrong.
I agree that definitions may be considered wrong for the sake of communication, but it is not as simple as you seem to suggest.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem here is that you are denying agency to all of the majority of
atheists who identify as such who do not believe not-god, and who don't
claim god is impossible, and who don't claim to know not-god.

It doubly pisses us off because the idea that atheists must believe not-god,
or claim to know not-god is a theistic strawman attack on athe ...[text shortened]... t pisses us off when people
who should be not just allies but members perpetuate that fallacy.

You are always going to get smacked down for claiming that being an atheist requires belief in gods non-existence because that's a theistic strawman attack on atheism that we are constantly having to fight, and it pisses us off when people who should be not just allies but members perpetuate that fallacy.

Well it does. Sorry but the theists are right about this. For me the word atheist connotes a belief in "not god". Since I wish to avoid people regarding me as an atheist I describe myself as an agnostic, because to me that connotes a state of non-belief rather than disbelief. I particularly take issue with the sentence fragment:

people who should be not just allies but members

Why should I be a member? This is tantamount to: "Either you are with us or you are against us.", your hegemonic attitude repels me. You seem to have little toleration of the ideas of others. Frankly I get more courtesy from the YEC's here, who are at least polite, even if they are illogical.

Since you are so fond of Wikipedia as a source, maybe you should read the first paragraph of the page on Agnosticism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see how this, or anything else you said demonstrates that only one possible meaning of the word exists.

Words mean what I want them to mean.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if it became common usage, it would start to be right.

Also consider Cockney Rhyming slang.

[b]And that necessitates the possibility of a persons definitions
being so out of whack that they can indeed be considered to be wrong.
I agree that definitions may be considered wrong for the sake of communication, but it is not as simple as you seem to suggest.[/b]

In what way did I, or am I, suggesting that the process is either simple,
or that words cannot change their meanings as common usage changes?

Particularly given that I specifically mentioned that words can change their
meanings over time.

The fact that a word might mean something different next year/decade/century
does not mean that you cannot say in there here and now, that a suggested
definition is wrong... And for what other purpose than 'the sake of communication'
do words have?


My one and only point is that it's simply not true to say that a suggested definition
cannot be wrong. This in no way suggests that the process of delineating the lines
or dealing with grey area's or agreeing meanings is simple or easy.

It's just not true however to say that you cannot actually be wrong when you try
to define a word.

Originally posted by DeepThought

You are always going to get smacked down for claiming that being an atheist requires belief in gods non-existence because that's a theistic strawman attack on atheism that we are constantly having to fight, and it pisses us off when people who should be not just allies but members perpetuate that fallacy.

Well it does. Sorry but the theist ...[text shortened]... of Wikipedia as a source, maybe you should read the first paragraph of the page on Agnosticism.

This is the problem with making up your own definitions for words.

You loose the ability to understand plain English.

I don't have a hegemonic attitude, and I wasn't impolite.

The vast majority of self identifying atheists and members of atheist
organisations are 'weak atheists' in that they simply lack a belief in
the existence of gods.

Your trying to tell them they are not really atheists is arrogance and
stupidity on your part.

And the fact that you find the idea of 'people regarding you as an atheist'
to be something to be avoided, says a lot more about you, than it does
about us.

You can make up all the definitions you like. You are still going to be wrong.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Words mean what I want them to mean.

When you get made into the ruler of the world and decider of meaning I'll give a damn.

Till then, you'll have to deal with the fact that you don't get to define the words everyone
else are using.