Since atheism is a belief

Originally posted by C Hess
Belief in the loch ness monster is very different than not believing the claim that the loch ness monster exists, and therefore believing that the loch ness monster doesn't exist. It's the exact same thing with theism and atheism.

Animals very much like the descriptions of the loch ness monster did once exist. They can actually exist. Not believing that there "must be one there" now is rational. Believing that "there must be one there" or that "there must not be one there", this irrationally belongs grouped together.

Originally posted by JerryH
The concept of tea pots is in the natural realm. Tea pots can exist as real objects. We can also imagine tea pots and imagine them orbiting mars. If however one should assign a supernatural property to a natural object or concept we now have a new object or concept, a new supernatural object or concept. There are no undetectable tea pots. If you imagine the t ...[text shortened]... are saying that something that you imagine actually exists. This now is a supernatural tea pot.

No, that's not how it works.

There is a nice explanation of my favourite definition of the supernatural in the video I linked earlier...

here it is again:

Heuristics and Biases, Skepticon 4 Eliezer Yudkowsky

YouTube

Relevant part is 12:40 in to the video.

Which is explained in some detail here http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html

The basic idea being that "supernatural explanations contain ontologically basic mental elements."

Basically that some [or all] of your explanation will be based upon fundamentally mental building blocks
that do not themselves reduce to any physical/mathematical processes that underlay those mental building blocks.
That those mental building blocks are themselves somehow fundamental.

In the case of the hypothesised teapot orbiting Mars, there are no ontologically basic mental elements and
everything can be reduced to basic 'natural' laws of physics.

Therefore, the teapot around Mars is not supernatural.

Originally posted by JerryH
Animals very much like the descriptions of the loch ness monster did once exist. They can actually exist. Not believing that there "must be one there" now is rational. Believing that "there must be one there" or that "there must not be one there", this irrationally belongs grouped together.

This is wrong on many different levels.

Firstly 'irrationality' is not what is being distinguished, it's belief.

If you want to categorise people based on holding rational or irrational beliefs, then fine, go ahead.
Just don't try to use the same terminology as people use for classifying people based on different
criteria.


Secondly, you are asserting that certain claims and positions are irrational when they are in fact anything but.

It's perfectly rational to not just lack a belief in god/s but to believe in a lack of gods.

It's also perfectly rational to believe that the Loch Ness Monster is not in fact a member of a long extinct
species of large marine reptiles from the age of the dinosaurs that somehow managed to maintain a large enough,
but almost completely undetectable, breeding population for 65 million years... But is instead a myth based on
legend and a grainy photo of a circus elephant going for a swim.

You simply claiming that it's irrational to actively dismiss such claims does not make it so.
That's a claim you must demonstrate, which will be hard to do given that you keep picking targets where it is
perfectly rational and reasonable to think that we do in fact know the answer to these questions, sometimes above
and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that's not how it works.

There is a nice explanation of my favourite definition of the supernatural in the video I linked earlier...

[b]here it is again:

Heuristics and Biases, Skepticon 4 Eliezer Yudkowsky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwqYB1uzcU4

Relevant part is 12:40 in to the video.

Whi ...[text shortened]... ed to basic 'natural' laws of physics.

Therefore, the teapot around Mars is not supernatural.[/b]

I've just imagined tea pots ringing every planet in the universe. They are there. They are not the tea pot sitting on your table. How are they different? Are they supernatural now?

Originally posted by JerryH
I've just imagined tea pots ringing every planet in the universe. They are there. They are not the tea pot sitting on your table. How are they different? Are they supernatural now?

No, they are imaginary, but imaginary =/= supernatural.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, they are imaginary, but imaginary =/= supernatural.

So now do you agree that if an imaginary object is said to exist it becomes supernatural?

Originally posted by JerryH
So now do you agree that if an imaginary object is said to exist it becomes supernatural?

No.

If I make a claim that an imaginary object exists, that object does not magically become supernatural,
it remains imaginary.
My CLAIM about that object however is false.

Imaginary objects do not exist pretty much by definition.

Now I can of course imagine a real object and that doesn't make that object disappear into non-existence.
The crucial point is that what matters is whether the object is real or imaginary, and not whether it's being
imagined or not.

Teapots are real existent, non-supernatural, objects.

The question is whether or not one should believe my claim that one of these real non-supernatural objects is
orbiting Mars.

You can analyse the likelihood of this being true [there are Mars orbiters, one of them could have dropped off a
teapot] and decide whether or not its reasonable to:
A, believe my claim is true.
B, believe my claim is false,
C, lack a belief either way.

Position C is the default tarting position you take/start off holding until you decide to move from that position
to either believe or disbelieve my claims [or any claims]. You may not decide you have sufficient reason to move at all.

When the claim in question is "god/s exist", then holding position A, believing the claim to be true, makes you a theist.
And holding positions B and C makes you an atheist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

If I make a claim that an imaginary object exists, that object does not magically become supernatural,
it remains imaginary.
My CLAIM about that object however is false.

Imaginary objects do not exist pretty much by definition.

Now I can of course imagine a real object and that doesn't make that object disappear into non-existence.
The c ...[text shortened]... g the claim to be true, makes you a theist.
And holding positions B and C makes you an atheist.

"Teapots are real existent, non-supernatural, objects."

googlefudge, we aren't talking about teapots. We are talking about unobservable, creator-less teapots.

I said in my first reply,

"Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the china and no observation possible of the china, you've got a supernatural bone china tea pot."

Starting with position C sounds good to me. Can you explain moving from C to either A or B when thinking about God? Can you explain how a move in either direction is more valid?

Why should the "You may not decide you have sufficient reason to move at alls" be grouped together with either A or B people?

Originally posted by JerryH
"Teapots are real existent, non-supernatural, objects."

googlefudge, we aren't talking about teapots. We are talking about unobservable, creator-less teapots.

I said in my first reply,

"Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the ...[text shortened]... ecide you have sufficient reason to move at alls" be grouped together with either A or B people?

We are talking about unobservable, creator-less teapots.

Says who?

Did I say anything about how the teapot got there?
Did I say it was impossible to observe?

"Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the china and no observation possible of the china, you've got a supernatural bone china tea pot."

Again, who said it was impossible to observe?

Moreover, even I had said all that, it's still not supernatural according to the definition of the supernatural I gave you.

Now you can argue with that definition if you like, [unlike atheism/theism it's not a well established internationally
accepted definition you can't reasonably argue with] but you need to give me a good reason why I should think it's
wrong [better than the arguments of the experts who came up with it] and why I should accept yours... whatever
yours is.

Starting with position C sounds good to me.
Can you explain moving from C to either A or B when thinking about God?
Can you explain how a move in either direction is more valid?

Yes.

There are many ways you can do this, the valid ways all boiling down to Bayes Theorem.

Basically it comes down to three numbers.

The prior probability that the claim is true given all our background knowledge of the world/maths/logic.
The likelihood of the observed evidence IF the claim were true.
And the likelihood of the observed evidence IF the claim were false.

Plug those [or reasonable approximations of them] into Bayes Theorem and you get the probability that the claim is true or false
based on the presently available evidence.

IF the probability is sufficiently high [in whatever direction] then you move your belief in that direction.

In the case of the existence of god/s....

The prior probability will be related to Occam's razor [which Bayes Theorem proves is correct] which states that the simpler explanation
will be more likely. Intelligent beings [let alone gods] are inherently complex, much more so that naturalistic mathematical
explanations] and so god's as an explanation is inherently less probable a priori.

The likelihood of the observed evidence if god's did exist is very low, because 'the god hypothesis' can explain anything which
means that the probability mass ascribed to any given observation tends towards the infinitesimal.

The likelihood of the observed evidence if the god hypothesis is wrong is much much higher, because alternate explanation make
concrete predictions that rule out huge swaths of possibilities and thus apply significant probability mass to the observed evidence.

The result when you plug all that is is that the probability that supernatural creator gods exist is infinitesimal.

It is therefore not only irrational to believe that they do exist, but rational to believe that they don't.


YouTube

Richard Carrier on Bayes Theorem.

Originally posted by googlefudge

We are talking about unobservable, creator-less teapots.

Says who?

Did I say anything about how the teapot got there?
Did I say it was impossible to observe?

[quote]"Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the ...[text shortened]... hey don't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIz-gR4xHo

Richard Carrier on Bayes Theorem.

"Says who?

Did I say anything about how the teapot got there?
Did I say it was impossible to observe?"

We were discussing God and if he is or isn't supernatural. You said, "I postulate the existence of a bone china teapot orbiting Mars."

You assert that a bone china teapot exists and is orbiting Mars. You then asked, "Is this object real or fictional?" In other words, you are asking me to consider what it means when an object is both existing and fictional.

I replied, "Now if you can observe or explain who made the china and how it got into orbit around mars it's not supernatural. If however you are saying there is no maker of the china and no observation possible of the china, you've got a supernatural bone china tea pot."

Bayes Theorem, so you want to group people that think one can apply Bayes Theorem to the supernatural, or even that it needs to be applied to the supernatural, with people that don't.

Shouldn't the people in groups A and C be grouped together as not yet excepting Bayes Theorem application. Yep, we are the ABayes Theorem applicationists. But I don't want to be grouped with people in A. We believe fundamentally differently. We believe that there is no reason to move from C. Some of us even believe that there can be no reason to move from C.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wa... hang on, your now going too far the other way...

If you are completely unconvinced by the claims for X then I would expect you to lack a belief that X is true.

Ok, take this example.

A political party is proposing a new policy to tackle some issue.

You review their arguments FOR this policy and decide that those arguments are flawed and ...[text shortened]... pro, nor strongly anti this policy.

You are somewhere in the middle, unconvinced either way.

I think it's safe to say that there's always the possibility that X may be true, even if there's no evidence for it, as long as there is no definitive evidence against it. And there is always the probability to consider, that the more evidence you collect, and still none that supports the existence of X, the less likely it is that X should exist. So if I haven't looked very hard for evidence, absence of evidence is weak, but if I've collected a lot of information pertaining to the claims of X's existence, and still see no convincing evidence, absence of evidence is a strong indicator that X does not, in fact, exist. So strong that not believing in claims of X, in practice equals believing in not X. But, yes, it is assumed that I have at that point seriously and honestly investigated (to the best of my abilities) every possibility for X's existence, and it's always with the reservation that I could be wrong as long as I don't find definitive evidence against it.

Originally posted by JerryH
"Says who?

Did I say anything about how the teapot got there?
Did I say it was impossible to observe?"

We were discussing God and if he is or isn't supernatural. You said, "I postulate the existence of a bone china teapot orbiting Mars."

You assert that a bone china teapot exists and is orbiting Mars. You then asked, "Is this object real or ficti ...[text shortened]... is no reason to move from C. Some of us even believe that there can be no reason to move from C.

In other words, you are asking me to consider what it means when an object is both existing and fictional.

Ah, no. I was asking you to consider whether the teapot was existing OR fictional. not and.

Bayes Theorem, so you want to group people that think one can apply Bayes Theorem to the supernatural, or even that it needs to be applied to the supernatural, with people that don't.

Shouldn't the people in groups A and C be grouped together as not yet excepting Bayes Theorem application. Yep, we are the ABayes Theorem applicationists. But I don't want to be grouped with people in A. We believe fundamentally differently. We believe that there is no reason to move from C. Some of us even believe that there can be no reason to move from C

No. and I am really going to say this [to you] for the last time.

It is an important and relevant distinction for conversations on this forum and in life generally between people
who do believe in the existence of gods, and people who don't believe in the existence of gods.
We do this by labelling the first group theists, and the second group atheists.

WHY any of those people belong to these groups is really kinda irrelevant.

If you want to group people into any random groupings you want then you are free to do so.

But what you cannot do, and expect anyone to understand or agree with you, is use terms used for something
else and just redefine them to your own personal meanings.


As we say all the time on this forum, the ONLY thing atheists all have in common is that they lack a belief in the
existence of gods.


However AS THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF, AND ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR being an atheist, that's all it takes.

You can point out differences between atheists, and their reasoning and secondary beliefs till you are blue
in the face, but it will not change that one jot.

We KNOW that atheists do not all agree, we say so almost daily, this is not news to us.

It's also utterly irrelevant to the question of who is an atheist.

Originally posted by C Hess
The commandments that means nothing to me, being an atheist, are the ones that has to do with blaspheming, having no other gods and honouring sabbath. How do you think it affects my world view that I don't find any reason to uphold those commandments?

You have a Law giver that created the universe and laid out how it should be given?
You have Laws that were not man made and therefore not up for debate?
You have someone who tells you if you do this, that will happen, and if not something
else will occur?

Your world view isn't affected by this because you reject it, so it is void of them. The ones
you agree you get to pick, the ones you don't, you get to pick. Your choices color your
world without or without God to suit you. That is your belief, your faith.

Originally posted by JerryH
The concept of tea pots is in the natural realm. Tea pots can exist as real objects. We can also imagine tea pots and imagine them orbiting mars. If however one should assign a supernatural property to a natural object or concept we now have a new object or concept, a new supernatural object or concept. There are no undetectable tea pots. If you imagine the t ...[text shortened]... are saying that something that you imagine actually exists. This now is a supernatural tea pot.

No, it's an imagined tea pot. A supernatural tea pot would be one that exists outside the natural world, what we'd call a "super" natural world. If it's supposed to orbit a planet, real or not, as of yet undetected, it's an idea of a natural object, not a supernatural object, surely?

Originally posted by C Hess
This sounds suspiciously like Pascal's wager. If you don't believe in god, you run the risk of eternal damnation, so it's better to act as though it's true, even if you doubt that it is. In the case of gas-filled rooms, they're part of the natural world, so you can easily test for their existence and probability. You can't do the same with god claims, thus, y ...[text shortened]... eve is not a matter of consequences, but how convinced you are by claims made for or against it.

The claims in all of this I find telling are in my opinion. If you don't want God in your life
you are blind to the realities of God, if you do have God in your life you see Him in life. So
we have two different groups of people who can look at the same thing and come back
with different responses. Eternal damnation I aside the fact that you can plunge your life
into things that would make you life worse or better by rejecting and standing against life's
Author will and can alter your life and those around you. The faith of an Atheist is placed
in themselves those others they choose to trust, the choices they make are centered
around them in how they want to fit in, all of it subject to change.