8 ms·

A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god doe

A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
> You're claiming a belief and a lack of belief are the same things. Am I? That's news to me. What I'm actually doing is making claims about grammar, the semantic evaluation of sentences, the the potential existence of multiple valid definitions of the same word.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief. You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways. I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just don't, I'm sorry.
    - Latty 8y ago
      Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent? > They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. > "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say. Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by reading them in yourself.
        Latty 8y ago
        We don't walk around expecting gravity to suddenly change, or for elephants to suddenly appear around us. We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is true. The reason this distinction isn't clear is because no one needs to make it in the real world. Atheists don't believe in god. This doesn't mean that - if provided proof, they wouldn't change that belief. That's how normal people use "belief" in the real world, the only way that the weird definition twisting of "Atheist" makes sense here is trying to claim "belief" has to mean unwavering absolute truth. You can either be talking in absolute logic, and allow for "not false" to mean more than "true" because this isn't a boolean, or you can be talking in natural language where the central debate doesn't hold because no one uses belief like that. You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        Even taking that perspective, the definitions are still semantically equivalent. > You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions. I never did that.
        amazingman 8y ago
        You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`? `(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. No, stating that atheists believe something is not stating that they have evidence. Evidence may support a belief, but it is not equivalent to having a belief, or required for having a belief. It may, depending on ones epistemological viewpoint, be required for justified belief, but the claim being examined is that atheism is not merely unjustified from a scientific perspective but actually incompatible with it, which would require it to actually contradict some belief justified by science, which it absolutely, even for classic “hard atheism”, positive belief in the non-existence of God, do; you'd need an ultra-hard atheism which not only has positive belief in the non-existence of God but also does not view that belief as contingent and subject to reevaluation should new evidence arise to actually be incompatible with science—this view may exisr somewhere, but if so it is still, at best, atypical of atheists.

A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.

CharlesColeman 8y ago

> You're claiming a belief and a lack of belief are the same things. Am I? That's news to me. What I'm actually doing is making claims about grammar, the semantic evaluation of sentences, the the potential existence of multiple valid definitions of the same word.

rgbrenner 8y ago
You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief. You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways. I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just don't, I'm sorry.
  - Latty 8y ago
    Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent? > They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. > "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say. Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by reading them in yourself.
      - Latty 8y ago
        We don't walk around expecting gravity to suddenly change, or for elephants to suddenly appear around us. We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is true. The reason this distinction isn't clear is because no one needs to make it in the real world. Atheists don't believe in god. This doesn't mean that - if provided proof, they wouldn't change that belief. That's how normal people use "belief" in the real world, the only way that the weird definition twisting of "Atheist" makes sense here is trying to claim "belief" has to mean unwavering absolute truth. You can either be talking in absolute logic, and allow for "not false" to mean more than "true" because this isn't a boolean, or you can be talking in natural language where the central debate doesn't hold because no one uses belief like that. You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        Even taking that perspective, the definitions are still semantically equivalent. > You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions. I never did that.
        amazingman 8y ago
        You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`? `(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. No, stating that atheists believe something is not stating that they have evidence. Evidence may support a belief, but it is not equivalent to having a belief, or required for having a belief. It may, depending on ones epistemological viewpoint, be required for justified belief, but the claim being examined is that atheism is not merely unjustified from a scientific perspective but actually incompatible with it, which would require it to actually contradict some belief justified by science, which it absolutely, even for classic “hard atheism”, positive belief in the non-existence of God, do; you'd need an ultra-hard atheism which not only has positive belief in the non-existence of God but also does not view that belief as contingent and subject to reevaluation should new evidence arise to actually be incompatible with science—this view may exisr somewhere, but if so it is still, at best, atypical of atheists.