Knowledge is a Subset of Belief - The Atheist Experience
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Experience # 808 Clip.
Hosted by Matt Dillahunty & Jeff Dee.
April 7, 2013.
Meet Brian from Boston, Ma. Brian calls the show to take Matt to task about classifying himself as an Agnostic Atheist. Bryan is a fan of philosophy, yet he seems to have a clear misunderstanding of belief and knowledge. Matt tries to explain the difference, but initially he doesn't make much progress. Matt delivers one of the finest explanations of belief vs knowledge I have ever heard, using gum balls of all things. In the end Brian finally sees the light, and we welcome a new Atheist to the World. Enjoy.
TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims Debunked: www.talkorigins...
Iron Chariots: An excellent resource for Counter-apologetics.
wiki.ironchario...
This video upload is in support of the Atheist Community of Austin and its Secular goals.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES:
www.atheist-com... -
The Atheist Community of Austin
www.atheist-exp... -
The Atheist Experience TV Show
"The Atheist Experience" is a registered trademark of the ACA.
How can this guy claim to be a philosopher when it took 16 minutes to convey an idea of which he should have known for the last 15 years?
Not everyone is up to date
He was probably lying (but he did appear to be honest).
Some people just hate to admit they're Atheists. If you don't believe in a God, you are an Atheist. There is no middle ground.
Ken McNutt II "There is no middle ground."
That's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter if you call the position "agnosticism" or "weak/negative/broad atheism", it's a position that doesn't believe the proposition "gods exist" and doesn't believe the proposition "gods do not exist". Just because some atheists like to call two different positions "atheism", doesn't mean you've excluded the middle. A rose, by any other name...
Most self-identifying agnostics just use a broad definition of agnostic and a narrow definition of atheist. Many self-identifying atheists, on the other hand, use a broad definition of atheist and a narrow definition of agnostic.
"broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
"one who believes that there is no deity"
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
nothinheavy Those might be definitions that people commonly use, but those definitions are not the proper ones when the word is broken down. A Theist is an individual that has a belief in a God or Gods. Placing an "a" in front of that means "without". So an Atheist means an individual without the belief in God or Gods. Gnostic is based on the word "gnosis" which means "knowledge", so a Gnostic is an individual with knowledge of God. Again, placing an "a" in front of that gives the word Agnostic which means an individual without knowledge of God. Theist/Atheist answers the question of belief, while Gnostic/Agnostic answers the question of knowledge. Those two questions are completely independent and separate. A person can be any combination. I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in God due to the lack of evidence and that makes me an Atheist, and I don't claim to have knowledge of God so that also makes me an Agnostic. The dictionary is stating common usage not proper usage.
Ken McNutt II The root word is "atheos", not "theist". "Atheos" (no, not, without gods) + "ist" (someone who believes, a believer) = someone who believes there are no gods. The word is constructed exactly the same way the word theist, root word "theos", is.
nothinheavy Yes, but believing there are no Gods is different than knowing.
+nothinheavy Even if your definition of atheism as a claim of the nonexistence of is true, it's not *useful*.
If you want to use that definition then nearly no atheists exist. Words are only given meaning by consensus, so they don't have any sort of true meaning which makes semantic arguments silly.
The real problem with that definition of atheism is that it doesn't actually include *any* of the people who call themselves atheists,
otherwise we have to distinguish between between people who are
a-theists and people who are atheos-ists, with the latter group not actually existing.
That was painful.
Exactly, this shows why I just tune people out who identify themselves as 'philosophers', in my experience that pretty much just means they're idiots who think they're smarter than you.
davids11131113
Yeah... One of the first things that guy said was proclaim himself a philosopher
I think wisdom has more to do with it than intelligence, though.
At the very least, they think they're smarter than _they really are._
Ernie Velveeta, just wanted to writé down the exact same words when I saw your post - it's like I'm exhausted.
davids11131113 agreed!!
He's so close. I'm sure he will realize he's been an atheist the whole time.
What a wonderful lesson, and display, of logic, linguistics, communication.
That was such a concise and well-crafted explanation. Thanks, Matt (and Jeff).
Agnosticism is a knowledge position. Most commonly the position that you don't know that you are in fact an atheist.
That's how I view 'agnostics', they're atheists who want a hedged bet, which is ridiculous because now they're saying they can fool a God.
You can also be an Apatheist. Do you know what that is?
TheRealJacob98 One who cares not if a god exists is the least important position to consider, the opposite of an antitheist. I sincerely hope there is no god or gods, and if I find there may be, I will discover deicide.
Agnosticism is a position on knowledge about God specifically. I'm not sure where you got your definition from.
@@RebornLegacy you're making a distinction without a difference.
Theist: one who believes in a god or gods.
Atheist: one who does not believe in a god or gods.
Gnostic: one who 'knows' there is a god or gods.
Agnostic: one who does not know if there is a god or gods.
That's as complete as it needs to be, but if someone else defines terms less precisely, that does not make them wrong.
Atheism is about what you claim to believe about deities, and agnosticism is about what you claim to know (not limited to deities).
It's all explained in the words.
Let me break it down:
A+Theism = Without+god(s).
So an atheist is someone who is without god(s). Hence, that person doesn't believe in gods.
A+Gnostic = Without+Knowledge
So an agnostic is someone who is without knowledge of god(s).
Agnosticism is not a position of doubt or uncertainty. It is simply a response to the claim of knowledge about gods...if you are agnostic, you don't claim to know in matters of gods.
You can identify as both agnostic AND atheist, since the positions are not mutually exclusive.
I know I believe you.
This is the correct usage for both terms, just so everybody knows.
Oggy Oggy What do you believe, EXACTLY????
Love your style, girl ❤️
'I've been a philosopher for about 15 years' - yeah, and I used to be god.
I was fired for failing to exist
I was fired for failing to exist
Me too, but only part-time ..................
@Uriah Heep Fired, I guess ..................
@@garystevens5015 So WHO got fired, "god" or something else non-existant ? ................
i learned good way to explain atheism to people. gum ball analogy
Brian is trying to crawl up his own nether orifice.
That was an awesome clip actually. Was cool to see it worked down and reduced and resolved....Now we just need to get the theists to open their minds to a fraction of this rational thinking and problem is solved...Face palm, just realized that I said "theist" and "rational thought" in the same sentence...damn, it sounded like such a good idea too.
That's Brian Callen from Joe Rogan's podcast
He's still in the "fear" stage of becoming unconvinced, he'll get over it.
Exactly. I used to think, when I was younger, that agnosticism means sitting on the fence - or the middle ground. Which is a complete myth. It relates to something different. Atheism can in fact be the 'middle ground'. Many people just don't like to define themselves as atheists.
And the reason is because bigoted theists vilify atheists.
"I've been a philosopher for 15 years"
"Socrataic thinking" (It's "Socratic"; a first year philosophy student would know that; or should.)
NOT an Ignorant american .................
I use the term socrasmic
I love epistemology! This was a great call and response from both hosts.
One of the most productive calls on the Atheist Experience still
Some guy tried arguing with me when I used the gumball analogy that it makes more sense for him that theist = even, agnostic = neutral, atheist = odd. I tried to explain how agnostic doesn't deal with belief and that it's knowledge. I just could not get the guy to accept that atheists don't believe in God and don't necessarily say that no Gods exist...
Because religions actively vilify atheists, the agnostic label becomes more attractive to many atheists.
Come on baby,
Let's do the twist.
gspendlove 😂😂
Very twist ..............
I cannot understand why some have such a hard time understand such as simple concept as a rejection of the proposition that a god exists, does NOT equate to taking the position that a god does not exist. I can fully appreciate Matt's frustration with these callers.
Sure it took him a bit to be able to hear the point, but when he did he demonstrated the ability to change his mind. That's some good shit right there. Good job caller 😉
Philosopher, huh?? Well Socrates also said 'huh!??'
My main point is nobody knows what to believe or disbelieve until he evaluates a given situation with some methodology, justification, or simply accepts it by faith. Belief and disbelief are a subset of cognitive experience.
It is remarkable to me how many Socrates quoting philosophers that decide athiesm is something that it is not, they seem to generally think that there is something valuable in calling yourself an agnostic, even though knowledge and belief are different things.
knowledge debat was great one of the best calls ever.
If u want to look at it as a goal, the goal is to have reasons for your believes the more reasons u have the closer they are to knowledge.Another way to look at it is everything u can think of for an explanation of something happening is a guess but one of those guesses is the truth and u find out which one with evidence and other stuff. Matt is explaining it on many occasions it's quite complex so keep watching episodes or look up info on epistemological stuff.
There are four options.
1. I believe at least one god exists.
2. I do not believe any gods exist.
3. I can't count.
EXCELLENT!!!!
There are three positions, really. Theist: believe that God(s) exist. Atheist: don't believe that God(s) exist. Antitheist: believe that no God(s) exist. This caller sounds like he's an Atheist, being the neutral position.
No knowledge is a subset of belief.. It's quite confusing but heres a good way to look at it. You can BELIEVE something without knowing, but you can't KNOW something without believing. Therefore Knowing is the subset..
knowledge can affect which beliefs you hold and the strength of a particular belief. knowledge doesn't replace belief
I think we found the Boston strangler, (feels like it) ...............
i am not saying it's the absolute way of thinking ...but it is consistent
That's the right definition of disbelief. His is not.
I'd reject both claims as unsupported without further evidence
The only problem with my original statement is that it’s too general.
So let me rephrase, we believe that it is either true or false if and only if we can evaluate it with some methodology, justification, reason, or take it on faith; otherwise, we don’t know whether to disbelieve it or not. The semantic issue is the statement that atheists disbelieve in both possibilities simultaneously.
Matt could have cut to that guy's chase long before. I got his confusion early on.
The confusion here was between the terms "not accept" and "reject".
*****
The better term for atheism is the lack of belief.
***** We do have a term that fits babies actually. Implicit atheism. Lack of a belief in a god because the concept is unknown. Explicit atheism would be rejecting the claims (not believing the claims) of theism.
Belief is an acceptance of a proposition, even if one doesn't truly know it to be true. Cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory beliefs. Atheism is not contradictory in any way.
I 100% agree that there are things in this universe that are beyond human perception / our ability to understand - that does not mean hey there must be supernatural shit out there only that our brains capacity and ability to understand is limited
Good discussion showing why the philosophical rabbit hole also takes you nowhere.
Rejecting the proposition 'God exists' as undemonstrated is not the same thing as accepting that the claim is false in the sense of the opposite claim being true, that God doesn't exist.
You don't have to either believe God exists or believe God doesn't exist, you can also not believe either.
"you can either accept it as true or reject it as false."
More accurately you can either accept it's truth or reject it's truth, then on a separate question you can either accept it's falsity or reject it.
I think this is Brian Callen
Depending on the concept of deity, as an atheist you can either think I don’t know whether to believe or disbelieve it, or you can reject the concept as false. This usually depends on how well-defined the concept of God is. As you said, “I'd say there is sufficient evidence that Yahweh doesn't exist”; in other words, you believe that Yahweh is a false concept.
Disbelief: "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." So, an atheist doesn't accept theism, so they disbelieve. But like you said, they don't necessarily believe it is false. So, semantically and logically, the term "I don't know whether to believe or disbelieve it" sounds impossible to me.
The next huge movement in our society will be people finally admitting they are atheist, which this caller seems to not want to do.
I hear you, but it's the semantics that I'm thinking through. If knowledge is a subset of belief, then belief becomes the goal, more important than knowledge. Matt even said, believe something first then go find the knowledge to back it up. Doesn't make sense to me.
Brian is an agnostic atheist... In denial.
That dude sounded just like razorfist.
I suspect he thought he was getting Matt to "admit" something he thought was detrimental to atheism. There was a response video posted on the uStream channel saying the show had been "destroyed" because Matt "admitted" something that got cut off by the formatting.
Jeff: "If you can't define what the thing is, then how can you say that you believe in it?"
Well, because knowledge is a subset of belief, one doesn't need to know anything about the shmaggeggie he believes in. And the acceptance of that shmaggeggie later becomes knowledge. So the answer to Jeff's question could be like this: "I define that shmaggeggie as _that in which I believe_. That should be it. Explaining what it is would mean that I have knowledge about it, while the damn shmaggeggie is not knowable."
Matt "Logic101" Dillahunty does it again.
hypothesis that the person is on a diet--------------belief.....Until/before
checking evidence....like questioning .....after that
it's knowledge
therefore belief turns into knowledge when u have reasons
justified true belief
this depends on many many many definitions standards of evidence and degrees of certainty
I think you have a construed definition of "disbelief". It simply means lack of belief. Or lack of acceptance. Or rejection.
Well, we could quibble on definitions ad infinitum, but we just have slightly different notions of disbelief.
To disbelieve in a god's existence is the thought that a particular god doesn't exist; an atheist doesn’t necessarily assert this thought as an absolute. In addition, to be unaware of a theistic proposition is not the same as disbelieving it. One has to be aware of a proposition to disbelieve or believe in it.
basic logical , for some it as hard as calculus
I used to identify as an agnostic instead of an atheist as a way to convey a level of uncertainty over human consciousness being able to perceive or detect any consciousness or lifeform that is vastly more advanced or otherwise superior to us. This was before I understood that atheism takes a rigidly logical approach to the issue where the God Claim is pulled away from the issue of knowledge or lack thereof to be addressed as an either or on the validity of the claims. So I don't need to use a qualifier or special term because atheism is so straight-forward about the issue.
Why are you typing this to me? I'm well aware of the concept. I literally had a massive discussion on how atheism is the neutral position between theism and anti-theism. My comment is still very much valid. The person I was commenting to said "disbelieve" in a god was the same as saying a "belief" in no gods. Which is wrong.
Totally agree. Well put.
Well, disbelief means lack of belief. So, an atheist does disbelieve. But yes, you are right.
so the black holes thing its quite well understood now and it fits with everithing else we know ....but if there is a better explanation of this phenomenon and other stuff with better explanatory power .....that explanation will be the new knowledge
(3) One small adjustment to your original phrasing, change "we either believe that it is true or false" to "we believe that it is either true or false". Then it would be true. But you meant it?
A flipped coin has either landed on heads or tails, but before we've peeked we don't believe either.
Like either alien life exists, or it doesn't, but we don't have to believe one of those two options before we understand conclusive evidence for or against the existence of alien life. Same for gods.
Ya, nobody need claim their definition is 'official', it's just necessary to be clear what we mean.
Okay, I getcha :)
'Cognitive dissidence'.....yea sure Brian whatever.
In Soviet Russia, dissidents think you!
Hence, the prokaryotic ribosome (70S) comprises a large (50S) subunit and a small (30S) subunit, while the eukaryotic ribosome (80S) comprises a large (60S) subunit and a small (40S) subunit. Two sites on the ribosomal large subunit are involved in translation, namely the aminoacyl site (A site) and peptidyl site (P site). Ribosomes from prokaryotes, eukaryotes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts have characteristically distinct ribosomal proteins.
I get it, but I do have a PhD in chemistry..
Non-acceptance of god claims is not 'ignorance', it is a rejection of the claims that gods exist. Theists are making a knowledge claim, which they cannot demonstrate to be true, therefore the correct position for one with rational objective thinking abilities is to reject that claim of knowledge, because it cannot be demonstrated to be true at all.
I rather liked him. He might have had a small slipup or two, but it's super hard to avoid that. And beyond that
"either you believe in god or you don't"
"you don't" includes people who are convinced there are no gods, and who aren't convinced there are no gods.
In common internet theist definitions, what people call theist/agnostic/atheist. The latter two, agnostics and atheists, don't believe in gods.
(I personally prefer different definitions but that doesn't matter right now)
I'm just trying to discuss this stuff ....take it easy dude
An intracellular organelle, about 200 A in diameter, consisting of RNA and protein. It is the site of protein biosynthesis resulting from translation of messenger RNA (mRNA). It consists of two subunits, one large and one small, each containing only protein and RNA. Both the ribosome and its subunits are characterized by their sedimentation coefficients, expressed in Svedberg units (symbol: S). cont........
old example they were using is Pluto's orbit takes 248 years we know about Pluto since ....less than that so how do we know that it orbits and in precisely that many years if we haven't observed it .......we know because we have a theory that makes very exact predictions based on the evidence/observations up to now.If the predictions weren't true we discard the theory ....survival of the most useful theory :)
another simple thing is everything u know u believe that that is true
.....like who your mother/ is your spouse faithful some things are known to ridiculously high standard like the earth orbiting the sun ....but even that is something that u believe that is true ............and the people who knew the earth was immovable thought they had good reasons for it (the biggest reason -- they couldn't imagine anything else being true)
You're trying way too hard, here. Whether it is a competition or not, it is relevant. The analogy is very valid.
Do you believe the number of gumballs is even? Yes. Do you know that? No.
Simple as that
I guess I did over-reply a bit.
What's your semantics issue then? In what way could you stand by your original statement that people necessarily either believe the God proposition is true or isn't true?
I wouldn't say that about anti-theists. Theists and Atheists are in logical negations to each other so those are the true 2 positions. Anti-theism would be a subset of one or the other. So if you are an anti-theist (as you defined it) you'd still be an atheist.
The guy was lying, he's just lonely and pretended to not understand the difference :P
The proposition that God exists is either true or false. Regardless of hypothetical omniscience, we either believe that it is true or false.
Matt is good.
I don't really understand this guy's objection. Just because you do not believe god(s) exist, does not mean that you are claiming to know one doesn't. That is what an agnostic atheist is. Many atheists, although they reject the claim that god exists (usually due to the claim being unable to meet its burden of proof), do not assert that god(s) do not exist. There is a distinction there.
black holes......for example they had some (hypotheses)reasons to believe they could exist.....the hypotheses made predictions...and once they were demonstrated u have very good reasons to believe they exist ........knowledge is justified true belief....depending on your definitions knowledge could be granted to almost nothing except labels and claims like there is a cup on the table (some people can deny even that...its long to explain .....u might know this)
I think this caller worships Socrates
To not accept that there are gods does not mean that you are an atheist. You can w/hold a claim and be an agnostic. (3 element set - agn., ath.,th.) W/holding is equivalent to not accepting. Of course, one could categorically not accept with an outright rejection. The problem is logical eq.. Eq.: p has the same truth value as q. A duck is eq. to a horse in that they are both animals. I don't accept a god because either I don't know or I am, in fact, an atheist. (Agn v Ath) = ~theist.
Atheists reject theistic beliefs as irrational. Agnosticism is the claim that a proposition lacks rational means of criteria. Socrates said it best "the only true wisdom is in knowing that I know nothing" which simply means one cannot know anything with absolute certainty. I am still struggling with whether I should call myself a pantheist or an agnostic atheist. Rejection can be claiming not to agree with a specific claim. However, there IS a middle ground that is being ignored. Not claiming anything whatsoever does not make you either. The definition of words are very important. Knowledge is universally accepted as rational belief. If someone does not address a proposition, one cannot say they accept it or otherwise. What I think Brian was trying to say is if he does not say whether he accepts theism or not, one should not say he is an atheist. Withholding one's belief is not the same as rejecting theistic claims. It can be argued that he is withholding his acceptance of theist claims, as it can also be argued he is withholding his acceptance of atheist claims.
I don't believe Socrates statement that you can't know anything with certainty, for example if you have 2 dollars and find a $5 bill, you now have $7. That's certain.
davids11131113 But how do you know it wasn't just a dream? : )
Wel now you're dealing with solipsism which I don't really pay any attention to because I could just reply to what you said with 'Then how do you know I even exist, and therefore why bother replying to it?' Its just kind of nonsensy to me.
davids11131113 "I don't believe Socrates statement that you can't know anything with certainty, for example if you have 2 dollars and find a $5 bill, you now have $7. That's certain."
2+5 = 7 because we define it to be. Yes, we are certain of it. We define these quantities to be certain.
Knowledge isn't defined to be certain. Knowledge, as demonstrated through science, is to be accepted tentatively based on currently-available evidence. If new evidence changes the explanation then the position regarding the knowledge should also change. This demonstrates that knowledge can *never* reach absolute certainty. Solipsism isn't a particularly useful view of the world, so we should never have to engage this worldview in order to demonstrate that knowledge (beyond something definitionally true) isn't absolutely certain.
Corie Mike: If you are convinced, to any degree, that there is a god then you are a believer (which would make you a theist). If you are not convinced then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground between belief and nonbelief. Either you believe a claim, or you do not believe it. Those are the only two positions you can hold regarding any claim. Even if your belief in a claim is 1%, or even 0.0001% certain then you are still a believer. Under these circumstances, you do not have high expectations of being right, but you are still convinced to some degree.
"Withholding acceptance of atheist claims" makes no sense. You cannot withhold nonbelief. You can only withhold belief. Either you believe that a claim is true, or you don't.
Yes, 'numbers' are about as certain as we can get, like names or labels we put on other things like how I can say 'this is a fedora I'm wearing', it's a fedora because we call it that. It could possibly more correctly be a 'hominajambora'.....but we're ok with fedora it's a label we use.
This caller sounds like he was an atheist all along but just needed clarification on it because he was hung up on terminology. He is either young or not very bright, I'm afraid.
Say what you want about Rumsfeld, but there are unknown unknowns.
"you can either accept it as true or reject it as false"
You can accept it is true, or reject it as undemonstrated, or accept it is false. Rejecting a claim isn't accepting it is false.
The rest of the message was fine, yes either you believe a God exists or you don't.
Here's your mistake! I see it clearly now, from the way you said "third option" and thought I was claim a third option to "either you believe in god or you don't".
I'm not, that's a valid dichotomy. "You don't" includes 2 of my 3
"I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm going to go ahead and put some there for you....."
wonder if he understands the difference between "dissonance" and "dissidents"......
seems like he's applying the "God of the Gaps" argument.....but as NDGT has said: "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance"
I don't believe in some deity/deities (the rejection that the number of gumballs is even) is not the same as i believe no deity/deities exist (the belief that the number of gumballs is odd).
I think that is where the confusion came from towards the end of the conversation for the otherwise pretty astute caller. Matt got a little tempered up because of this confusion, which is understandable but the caller was being honest and trying to figure out the confusion hence asking the same question again and in different ways. Glad he got to the bottom of it, was a good conversation.
I love the gumball example, it's so much better than the jury example; not believing the number of gumballs is EVEN is a different claim than saying you believe it's ODD.
Even a SOUTHERN christian should be able to understand THAT.
Clyde S. Dale
Yeah, it's a great example. Not to be picky but just wanted to highlight that "not believing the number of gumballs is EVEN" is not the same *claim* as "believing it's ODD" because not believing is not a claim. :)
Not believing is just rejection of a belief or rejection of a specific claim usually on the basis of insufficient evidence or proof to justify belief in it.
Sorry, but it IS a claim...it is a claim of disbelief in the first claim.
But I will say this -- being this picayune and petty is stupid and ridiculous, and I will not accept it further. You have been advised.
***** "Sorry, but it IS a claim...it is a claim of disbelief in the first claim."
- Hmm. I thought a claim was synonymous with belief here and if disbelief is not a belief, then disbelief it's therefore also not a claim.
Here's a quote explaining better my point: "mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. Or I may lack enough information to test your claim. Or I may simply not care enough to think about it."
And i'm not *stating* a claim of disblief...i just disbelieve it. If i were stating to someone i disbelieve a claim...then sure, i guess you could make the argument that by stating to someone your disbelief, you would be making a "claim" by stating/asserting your position. But that's not the type of claim we're trying to make distinction of here.
"But I will say this -- being this picayune and petty is stupid and ridiculous, and I will not accept it further. *You have been advised.*"
- Er....o-k. That's the fucking weird response, lol.
You think that trying to gain clarity on definitions and meanings is petty, stupid and ridiculous? Okidoki, suit yourself. :)
You don't agree with what i say? That's fine. Feel free to respond or not. But no need to act like a dick about it.
DrR1pper Sounds like you got the concept. The only claim an atheist would be potentially making by default is that theists have not met thewir burden of proof. As that claim is a negative, it requires no evidence (rather nine can be presented to support it). The burden of proof is on the positive claim that a god exists. If you remain unconvinced, you cannot possibly believe a god exists. That makes atheism the default state on the matter (withholding belief until that belief could be rationally justified via evidence). Now the gnostic agnostic part is about the level of certainty. If I claim to not only believe in god but also know for a fact that I am right about my particular beliefs, I would be a gnostic theist. If I believe a god exists but am not crazy enough to claim to know for a fact how or what that god actually is like, or that my belief in a god is justified, I am an agnostic theist. If I have not been convinced that a god exists but don't claim to know for a fact NO gods can exist, I am an agnostic atheist (which I am). That is the most justified and intellectually honest position given the lack of evidence. But everybody is a GNOSTIC atheist about CERTAIN particular god claims. We know a god is not throwing lightning bolts down from the sky. We know the Sun is not really Ra in a barge. We cab be gnostic atheists about those claims as for the highest level of certainty meaningful, those claims are just KNOWN to be false.
Try again on Deism:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
It is theism.
I'm not sure that 'over' thinking was his problem....
By definition He is clearly an Agnostic Atheist, but calls himself a Deist by presenting an argument from ignorance fallacy. He`s just having a hard time placing His uncertain Deism in either Theism or Atheism. I thing He got it , or will get it.
Is this Bryan Callen from mad tv? Sure sounds like him.
A_Stoic_Master I think so too
man i hate making spelling/grammatical mistakes
the lack of punctuation is just laziness :P
Hmm that was much better, except I think we may have different definitions of disbelieve. I'd define disbelief as not believing a claim, were you using it as a positive belief that a claim is not true?
If someone makes an unfalsifiable claim, that has no evidence for it but also cannot be tested, I don't believe the claim. That, I'd call me disbelieving the claim.
An unsupported claim that can be tested, we should disbelieve.
An unsupported claim that cannot be tested, we should also disbelieve.
Is a car alive? Is a lawnmower alive? Biological machines are very different from non-biological machines. Can you name the biggest difference?
Are the gumballs an odd or even number? Since I know that they must be odd or even, I can’t disbelieve both possibilities simultaneously. Neither can I believe that they are both even and odd. Therefore, in that example, I don’t know which proposition to believe or disbelieve. Let me count the gumballs and then I’ll tell you whether I believe there is an odd or even number.
anyone else notice the tiny jesus christ figurine at the atheist desk
(2)
Two people could come to me with the propositions:
Claim a) God does exist
Claim b) God does not exist
I do not believe either of those two statements, because I don't think there's sufficient evidence for gods or that no gods exist (since many definitions of gods are unfalsifiable like deism that is, I'd be fine saying there's sufficient evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist).
Deism is not knowledge that there is a deity. It is a belief, as defined by Matt at the beginning of the video. We can believe without knowledge, but we cannot know without belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief, but most of belief is without knowledge. "How can you believe without evidence?" is an unfair question. Evidence is required for knowledge, but evidence is not required for a belief. I am a deist. I do not know that there is a god, but I believe there is, and that belief is not based on knowledge. It is merely an opinion .... to which I am entitled, even without any knowledge.