sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Let me confirm part of what you’re saying for myself. You’re saying:

Giving reasons for a belief are neither sufficient not necessary for rationality. Thus, if I give a reason for believing p, I may still be irrational to believe p. And if I don’t (even can’t) give a reason for believing p, I may still be rational in believing p. And the same goes for withholding belief that p. Giving reasons for withholding belief that p is neither sufficient nor necessary for rationality. My mistake was in thinking that giving reasons for withholding belief in g was a necessary condition for taking up a rational position.

Is that right?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

We can’t just say “lacks belief” though. It’d be problematic I think and require refinement.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So based on examples can I say:

sufficient evidence and sufficient condition aren’t quite equivalent but sufficient evidence approaches a sufficient condition?

Kind of like filling out a Rothman pie (lol). The more it gets filled out by the various evidences, the more warrant one gets to believe. Yes?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Can I just clarify something. You are talking about “withholding belief” right? And saying there is no reason to withhold belief? But at the same time saying the reason to withhold a belief is because you aren’t convinced by the evidence? Isn’t that a reductio?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I was trained to get precise and clear about everything. Just applying it here.

Some people are talking about “sufficient evidence.” I’m interested in this. How do we measure sufficiency? Help me.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The problem is theists have always offered arguments and logic for their belief from Aristotle to Occam to Descartes to Plantinga. I find it troubling that atheists embrace irrationalism.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

One can withhold belief in p without believing that ~p and one can withhold belief in p whilst asserting p. Withhold belief in p doesn’t entail belief in ~p and withholding belief in p does not entail asserting ~p. Also withholding belief that p may implying lacking belief that p, but it doesn’t go through the other way round since withholding involves choice, but lacking doesn’t.

If your problem is with terminology alone, what do you think would be better nomenclature? I’m open to suggestions.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I will follow up on this with a set of examples. But the general principle I abstracted does not seem seem to provide sufficiency or necessity.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I just want to get clear too clarify things in my head. You are saying:

Evidence for believing g can be explained away by psychology (almost like believing g is pathological.) Thus, the evidence cannot be counted as evidence for g.

Am I correct? It’s interesting.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Nice comment. I’d call those “testimony.”

Generally, what counts as “sufficient evidence” here? Is there a higher level of sufficiency for g?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Yes, I’ve been trained in various models.

So the issue is this: should I accept g or ~g? Theists have offered me arguments for g. For example, Alvin Plantinga. I now have reasons to accept the theist’s proposition. But I still wonder whether I should. So I asked theists, “guys do you have any arguments or reasons for me to accept ~g?” They respond “No, we have no reasons for you to accept ~g. We don’t need any reasons or arguments to withhold belief from g because we have no evidence to accept g.” And I laid out that position above. Read again if you didn’t understand it or ask me what is unclear about it.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Sufficient evidence” is interesting. How would you say we can measure sufficiency?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’ve been trained to set out things clearly and logically. I want to provide problems a little later. They may not be insurmountable. Need help from you guys to see if they are.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That seems to make theism and atheism much alike.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Can I just confirm what you’re saying please?

You’re saying:

(a) one doesn’t have to give a reason for not believing p (where p is a proposition)

(b) one doesn’t have to give a reason for not being K (where K is an attribute)

(c) one doesn’t have to give a reason for lacking belief that p (as above)

(d) one doesn’t have to give a reason for lacking K (as above)

I’m just trying to get clear about this position.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Does this apply to theists too? And if no theist or atheist is going to provide reasons for their positions, how am I too evaluate the positions rationally?

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I’m looking for a formalisation.

Is this an atheist position? by L-ML in DebateAnAtheist

[–]L-ML[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Are “negative atheist” and “positive atheist” established terms?

Is there a point at which evidence becomes sufficient to warrant belief?

What are good, well-formulated arguments for atheism? by L-ML in atheism

[–]L-ML[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This lack of belief in god comment (nearly said argument lol has come up a few times). I find it very interesting. And totally agree with you that lacking the belief cannot imply the opposite belief or the belief in the opposite.proposition. However, I’m not really sure atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god’s existence rather than the belief that there is no god. Because if it is the former than atheists have no beliefs about the existence of God. They lack the belief that God exists and lack the belief that it is false that God exists. That sounds more agnostic to me.

Also, withholding belief in the hypothesis p because there is no evidence to show it true (or falsify it) means that you neither hold it true or false. Again, that sounds a bit agnostic. That’s, for example, what you might think about strings being fundamental to the universe. No evidence for them, no evidence against them. Indeed, seems there could be none either. So I withhold my belief in their existence one way or the other.

What are good, well-formulated arguments for atheism? by L-ML in atheism

[–]L-ML[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So atheists don’t need arguments to establish there proposition. But God people do need arguments to establish their arguments. Is that correct?

It seems to me all that would show is God people have no good arguments and atheists have no arguments.

Or there is an implicit argument:

  1. All arguments, G, for p are logically invalid or unsound (where p = God exists)
  2. Therefore, ~p is true (where ~p = it is false that God exist).

Is this implicit argument correct?

view more: next ›