wade-w

SOMMS,

I don't agree with all of your reasoning, but I do understand your position, and in fact agree that the existence or non-existence of some sort of god cannot be decided by logic alone. (Note that I am not saying this about the omnimax god that most theists seem to believe in) In that case, the simpler hypothesis is that there is no god. Thus, a rational person should not believe in such a being without compelling evidence.

Theli

SOMMS...

False claim.
Knowledge is largelly based on probability, not on mere absolute evidence. By saying that all beliefs are based on faith is to neglect the fact that people do actually think. That they do have logic. That two claims can be compared with each other, and that a conclution can be reached without having undisputed evidence to support any of the claims.
What is irrational is to ask for evidence for the nonexistence of a being that hasn't been proven to exist yet. It would be like asking someone to kill a dead animal.

Clutch

I worried I was being pedantic when I pointed out the elementary fallacy of this move, over in "proving negatives" on the Philosophy board. But there's no fallacy too elementary, it seems.

You are confusing the lack of a logico-mathematical proof with a lack of evidence. Now, without a clear definition of God, it is premature for you even to claim that there is no logical disproof available. But even were there no such disproof, the evidential situation still supports atheism. For all the same reasons that it is not a matter of faith that I do not believe in chartreuse hippogriffs who fly backwards and do calculus puzzles while delivering rare coin collections to the President of Ecuador. Because I have a "proof" that there are no such things? No. Because there is zero reason to believe that there are. Mutatis mutandis, then...

John Galt, Jr.

Theli,

You said This seems to be ambiguous between at least two significantly different claims:

a denial that knowledge implies truth, i. e., a denial that "aknows that P"entails "P"

or

a claim to the effect that a good deal of what we think we know, we don't really know.

A bit of clarification please.

When you claim that somms's claim is false, are you saying, in efect, that it is (merely) probable that it is false, or are you making a stronger claim?

John Galt, Jr.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Goliath

SOMMS,

And weak atheists, such as myself, need not find such a proof, since we make no claims dealing with the nonexistence of any gods whatsoever.

Unproven assertion.

I am an atheist. I hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever regarding anything supernatural. Therefore I have no faith. Thus your claim above is demonstrably incorrect.

Again, your claim does not apply to weak atheists.

False dilemma. One also has the option of holding no beliefs whatsoever.

These claims have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, which is a *LACK* of belief.

Please, learn what atheism is before you address atheists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vorkosigan

if you hold the view that the purely physical universe can account for everything, that love, logic, conscienceness, and morality are perceptions but not real in and of themselves,

That sounds nice, but it doesn't mean anything. "logic, conscienceness, and morality" are real in the sense that they exist as ideas (packages of chemicals and electric signals in the brain) and influence are behavior. By "real in and of themselves" you mean existing as transcendent entities outside of human minds? There's no evidence for that view.

Theli

John Galt, Jr...

Well... I would say that "knowing" that P is true doesn't neccesarily mean that P is true.
Since "knowing", from my experience seems more a level of commitment/certainty towards a proposition held by a person.
If "knowing" ensures truth, then I will have to know that I know the true answer, and I also must know that I know that I know the true answer... and so on.

My intentions with that claim is that "evidence" can (and most of the time does) point at several causes. Where it then becomes a question of probability and ofcourse the here famous Ockhams Razor.

No, claims based on entirely on logic is not a question of probability. 1 plus 1 is 2. 1 plus 1 isn't "probably 2".
The reason why SOMMS's claim was false was that he neglected alot of factors, among those - probability, aswell as the burden of proof on his side.
If all claims should be judged on faith, people could never learn anything. It doesn't matter if you believe a claim or not, if you don't understand it you cannot learn more from it.

If you require 100% valid proof for every claim, you will find yourself not knowing anything. As practicly every claim has atleast a slim chance of being false.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I have no, need no, and want no faith.

Now, what do I mean by 'faith'?

Faith is often defined as hope, fidelity, integrity, a particular brand of religion, as belief without evidence, or belief without proof.

Each of these uses of the word 'faith' refers to a very differnt concept, and not all of them are invalid or irrational.

Hope can be rational, if one has hope because one has observed evidence that justifies hope.

Fidelity (sometimes called 'faithfulness' or 'integrity') is also a valid concept. It means that one's words correspond to one's actions; that one's word is trustworthy; that one is honest.

Referring to a certain brand of religion as a particular 'faith' is also perfectly acceptable.

Believing something without evidence should be easily seen as irrational; reason/logic is the only objective (and only demonstrable) method for providing proof, and 'proof' requires a great deal of evidence.

But, believing something without proof is another matter. Some are of the opinion that one should never believe unless one is absolutely certain. For them, to say 'I believe' is synonymous with 'I know'.

I disagree.

I think can rationally (and validly) have conditional beliefs. If there is evidence sufficient to suggest that a thing is so, but not enough evidence to 'prove' that it is so, I believe that it is OK to say 'I believe, given the evidence, that this is so'.

One does not have 'full' belief, one is not certain, but one has evidence, and one's belief is thus based solely upon that evidence. A rational belief is one based on evidence, so one's belief--in this situation--is rational.

The only definition of 'faith' which refers to a concept that, to my knowledge, no other English word refers, is 'belief without evidence'.

When one chooses to believe that a thing is, when there is no valid, independently verifiable evidence that the thing is, that is what I mean by 'faith' when I say 'I have no/need no/want no faith'.

Keith.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Sir drinks a lot,
Absolutely correct.


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Vorkosigan,

I touched on this in the first post. IF you see these things as physical perceptions only THEN it
is highly likely that you do not see evidence of God. On the other hand IF you see these things as more than perceptions THEN it is highly likely that you see evidence for God.

The point is what we see as evidence for/against God is completely dependent on how we view these other highly subjective matters.


I think it's important to note that you don't see any evidence that these things exists outside our minds. On the other hand the somebody else may see evidence that they do exist outside the human mind. It depends on one personal (read subjective) view of the world.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS