Thread: Argue Pointlessly over the Definition of Atheism

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

read what I typed to Replicon.

He just replied to you, so I'll wait.

Because the speaker has it backwards. It's human-beings that "need" to worship God not that God "needs" human-beings to worship him. If not one single human worshiped God it will not diminish his Glory not one iota.

Fortunately for the speaker, even if he concedes this relatively minor point, it doesn't change much.

What's to explain it's pretty apparent actually and yes I thought that portion of the argument was shut because it's ridiculous and you know it. However, this is the point. Your claim of your lack of belief is not the same as a baby the absurdity in this has already been demonstrated. (which I stated before) Your's is not a derivative of ignorance. So in short babies are not Atheist. You were not born Atheist. Atheism is a "choice".

Look, I grow tired of this "its X, Y, and Z, and YOU KNOW IT" prattle. It is unnecessary and childish.

Atheism is the default position since it encompasses a few areas. If it encompassed only those who positively rejection the notion of god, then I would not say it is the default position. Let's say there are three people standing in a line. When asked about their thoughts on god, the first person positively rejects the notion and says "I don't believe in God, and he does not exist." The second person says "I don't believe in God, but I'm not willing to say one doesn't exist as a fact." The third person ends up being a fence-sitter. Since being a theist involves believing in god, the reciprocal would only apply until we reach the second person, where person 1 says "I believe in God, and he exists." Person 2 says "I believe in God, but I'm not willing to say one does exist as a fact." The third person simply wouldn't apply since atheism isn't necessarily a positive claim. Therefore, the fence-sitter falls within the house of atheism. Whether they have some qualms about the roommates is immaterial. This still applies to babies. They're the same as the fence-sitters, minus hearing about god.

Because when I ask you a question in relation to the topic of this thread you answer it with a question like below. So in short we essentially get nowhere.

Probably because I'm trying to understand where you're coming from or what you're saying and you end up chastising me for asking questions.

You're an Atheist who has a "lack of belief" in a God right? Unless you're not an Atheist then this question has no relevance to you. But if you are an Atheist, then what are you basing your "lack of belief" on?

What relevance is this to the rest of the thread? What point are you trying to make depending on my answer?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Perhaps this will elucidate your misunderstanding, as you seem to be taking the analogy as the truth. Let's be clear here, I did not claim that god is a jealous ex-girlfriend.

Of course he isn't. Well, probably not, anyway. I'm just saying that the Christian notion of a god that is both perfect and jealous is contradictory and self-refuting. A perfect being would not harbor such resentment for those that do not believe in it or worship it properly. And even if the christian god doesn't come out and say "worship me now, peons," he certainly implies it quite well.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

He just replied to you, so I'll wait.

He stated he didn't want to argue about it, I'm going to respect that, so there's no need to wait for anything.

Originally Posted by Blueline

Fortunately for the speaker, even if he concedes this relatively minor point, it doesn't change much.

Actually it changes a lot. When the speaker was approached about the Biblical God, the speaker asserted a false regarding the existence of a Biblical God because of ignorance on his part in terms of worshiping. How much more could he actually be accurate about when speaking of God if he's ignorant of something so basic? Also, for it to be a minor point he sure did take the time to make it appear as if it was a point of major importance.

Originally Posted by Blueline

Atheism is the default position since it encompasses a few areas. If it encompassed only those who positively rejection the notion of god, then I would not say it is the default position. Let's say there are three people standing in a line. When asked about their thoughts on god, the first person positively rejects the notion and says "I don't believe in God, and he does not exist." The second person says "I don't believe in God, but I'm not willing to say one doesn't exist as a fact." The third person ends up being a fence-sitter. Since being a theist involves believing in god, the reciprocal would only apply until we reach the second person, where person 1 says "I believe in God, and he exists." Person 2 says "I believe in God, but I'm not willing to say one does exist as a fact." The third person simply wouldn't apply since atheism isn't necessarily a positive claim. Therefore, the fence-sitter falls within the house of atheism. Whether they have some qualms about the roommates is immaterial. This still applies to babies. They're the same as the fence-sitters, minus hearing about god.

Atheism doesn't encompass a few areas not sure where you got that from but that's the first I've heard of that one.

Your mistake is with person number 2. When the second person is approached and asked about his thoughts on God and the moment he says "I do not believe" or "I do believe", he's already made intellectual commitment. The reason why is because once a human is exposed to something/anything it automatically has an effect on the hearer and stimulates a response. Rather that response is intellectual or emotional. The hearer could also be "unsure" but cannot be unsure and have belief and unsure and disbelief. What you are claiming is that person number 2 says "I believe" or "I do not believe" and I'm unsure if I believe or do not believe. This is illogical and impossible. You cannot have neutrality and certainty/uncertainty at the same time. This is what you are failing to understand. You're making the same mistake the speaker made in that video.

And as for the fence sitter, this is the only true neutral instance in that entire statement you've made. This is not a default position of Atheism either because a decision rather to believe or disbelieve is pending. This person is agnostic about the concept of God.

Originally Posted by Blueline

What relevance is this to the rest of the thread? What point are you trying to make depending on my answer?

You've asked me this question twice now. I asked you a simple question that doesn't require a lot of thought on your part. It's like you're afraid or something, just man up and answer the question. If you don't want to answer it then no problem, if not going further on this makes you sleep better at night then so be it.

I love how you guys have really taken the thread title to heart.

Originally Posted by Xei

I love how you guys have really taken the thread title to heart.

T-t-t-t-t-time kilerrrrrr

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Atheism doesn't encompass a few areas not sure where you got that from but that's the first I've heard of that one.

Your mistake is with person number 2. When the second person is approached and asked about his thoughts on God and the moment he says "I do not believe" or "I do believe", he's already made intellectual commitment. The reason why is because once a human is exposed to something/anything it automatically has an effect on the hearer and stimulates a response. Rather that response is intellectual or emotional. The hearer could also be "unsure" but cannot be unsure and have belief and unsure and disbelief. What you are claiming is that person number 2 says "I believe" or "I do not believe" and I'm unsure if I believe or do not believe. This is illogical and impossible. You cannot have neutrality and certainty/uncertainty at the same time. This is what you are failing to understand. You're making the same mistake the speaker made in that video.

Okay. Say there is a teapot sitting on the table in front of me. I obviously believe it's a teapot. It looks like a teapot, it feels like a teapot, it even acts like a teapot. It seems strange that anyone could believe that it is anything other than a teapot. But consider some of the possibilities. It could be a hallucination, it could be a hologram, it could be a kettle disguised as a teapot. I really can't prove that it's a teapot. I mean, even if i did prove those theories wrong, I'd have infinite more theories to debunk in order to prove with absolute certainty that it is indeed a teapot.

Even though I can never be sure I'm right, I still believe it's a teapot (hopefully with some tea inside). So there we go. I believe something, but at the same time, I'm unsure. Come on, do you really think atheists are the unbelievers, agnostics are the fence-sitters, and theists are the believers? Nothing is that simple. I myself am an atheist and an agnostic, since I don't believe in any god but I have no way of knowing. It's easy to come to a conclusion whilst still being uncertain.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Okay. Say there is a teapot sitting on the table in front of me. I obviously believe it's a teapot. It looks like a teapot, it feels like a teapot, it even acts like a teapot. It seems strange that anyone could believe that it is anything other than a teapot. But consider some of the possibilities.

I like this idea but let's see where it takes us.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

It could be a hallucination,

Perhaps, but what is it to you?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

it could be a hologram,

Perhaps, but what is it to you?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

it could be a kettle disguised as a teapot.

Perhaps, but what is it to you?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I really can't prove that it's a teapot.

Why would you want to or better yet, why would you feel the "need" to if you already believe it's a teapot? If you are certain that it's a teapot how can you be uncertain that it's a teapot? Sounds funny doesn't it? That's what your statement appears like to me.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Even though I can never be sure I'm right, I still believe it's a teapot (hopefully with some tea inside).

If you are not sure then you actually do not believe it's a teapot you are basically unsure of what it is. So no, this is not the same as being certain about something.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

So there we go. I believe something, but at the same time, I'm unsure. Come on, do you really think atheists are the unbelievers, agnostics are the fence-sitters, and theists are the believers? Nothing is that simple. I myself am an atheist and an agnostic, since I don't believe in any god but I have no way of knowing. It's easy to come to a conclusion whilst still being uncertain.

So let me ask you this. As an Atheist you do not believe that a God exist right? Are you willing to agree that there may be sufficient evidence that you have not witness yet that could demonstrate God's existence?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Perhaps, but what is it to you?

To me, it would be a teapot. But that doesn't change the fact that I could be wrong in thinking that.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why would you want to or better yet, why would you feel the "need" to if you already believe it's a teapot? If you are certain that it's a teapot how can you be uncertain that it's a teapot? Sounds funny doesn't it? That's what your statement appears like to me.

That's the thing. You think believing something means being absolutely 100% certain of it. Knowing that something definitely exists and wholeheartedly believing in it. But that's impossible. We can never be completely certain of anything. Even if you feel that you truly believe in something with all your heart, there's a part of you that is still unsure. It's the part that is always asking questions, always doubting. If we did believe in something wholeheartedly, I don't think we'd ever be swayed from that belief, no matter how much evidence there is against it. But this doesn't happen. People can change their beliefs when they're given enough convincing.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If you are not sure then you actually do not believe it's a teapot you are basically unsure of what it is. So no, this is not the same as being certain about something.

Basically the same thing I said above. Believing something doesn't mean being absolutely certain. I believe it's a teapot, but part of me knows I could very easily be wrong, so there is uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So let me ask you this. As an Atheist you do not believe that a God exist right? Are you willing to agree that there may be sufficient evidence that you have not witness yet that could demonstrate God's existence?

Of course I'm willing to agree to that. I've come to the conclusion that there is no god because I haven't seen good enough evidence for it. But if someone could show me some clear evidence that there is a god, I'd be happy to see it. I think I'd be right in saying that most atheists wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

To me, it would be a teapot. But that doesn't change the fact that I could be wrong in thinking that.

You're right it doesn't change the fact that you could be wrong. But I think what you are failing to understand is that your belief in the teapot is subjective. It's about how you feel. If you have feelings that the teapot is something other than what it is, this is being unsure. As in your case regarding the teapot, if you find yourself in doubt you are unsure.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

That's the thing. You think believing something means being absolutely 100% certain of it. Knowing that something definitely exists and wholeheartedly believing in it. But that's impossible.

That's not impossible it's called Conviction and Faith. A). A firmly held belief or opinion. B).The quality of showing that one is firmly convinced of what one believes or says. C). an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. These are all methods of conviction and faith, so yes my friend it's very possible. I don't have a doubt.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

We can never be completely certain of anything.

One day you and everyone you know and love will eventually die for certain. Do you have any doubts about this?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Even if you feel that you truly believe in something with all your heart, there's a part of you that is still unsure.

Maybe for you but not for me, I'm pretty sure I'll expire one day and cease to exist. I have this same certainty with regards to checking out one day as I have that a God exist.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

It's the part that is always asking questions, always doubting. If we did believe in something wholeheartedly, I don't think we'd ever be swayed from that belief, no matter how much evidence there is against it. But this doesn't happen. People can change their beliefs when they're given enough convincing.

It happens when people are unsure to start with.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Basically the same thing I said above. Believing something doesn't mean being absolutely certain. I believe it's a teapot, but part of me knows I could very easily be wrong, so there is uncertainty.

Then you actually do not believe it's a teapot, you have doubts. Once you make the claim that, it's a possibility that this isn't a teapot then, you've already taken a position of being in doubt or unsure and thus you are no longer sure or you no longer believe.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Of course I'm willing to agree to that. I've come to the conclusion that there is no god because I haven't seen good enough evidence for it. But if someone could show me some clear evidence that there is a god, I'd be happy to see it. I think I'd be right in saying that most atheists wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

Fair enough. So considering you have not witnessed all the evidence for the existence of a God. Are you then willing to agree that there is a possibility that a God does indeed exist?

Yo Neyo, there are more shades than black, white, and gray. It's a spectrum. there's more to it than "I know this is a teapot," "this might be anything, I don't really know," and "I know this is not a teapot." How about "I can't confirm with absolute certainty this is a teapot, but it seems enough like a teapot that I shall call it that until shown otherwise."? Now stop making a creationist out of yourself by trying to force atheists into the "I know with certainty this is not a teapot" category.

Spoiler for Destroyer of threads:

Words are not objective entities to be analysed. Words are objects merely to facilitate faster communication by acting as placeholders for various concepts which take a bit longer to state. If there is disagreement about what these concepts are exactly (i.e. what the definition is exactly), either establish a convention before the discussion, or simply directly substitute the word with that concept which you mean by that word.

Originally Posted by Xei

Spoiler for Destroyer of threads:

Words are not objective entities to be analysed. Words are objects merely to facilitate faster communication by acting as placeholders for various concepts which take a bit longer to state. If there is disagreement about what these concepts are exactly (i.e. what the definition is exactly), either establish a convention before the discussion, or simply directly substitute the word with that concept which you mean by that word.

If that would have worked, this thread wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

It's just funny to watch how it gets skimmed over each time it's pointed out, especially by those who have no other arguments to make except ones based on semantic confusion.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're right it doesn't change the fact that you could be wrong. But I think what you are failing to understand is that your belief in the teapot is subjective. It's about how you feel. If you have feelings that the teapot is something other than what it is, this is being unsure. As in your case regarding the teapot, if you find yourself in doubt you are unsure.

Yes, I am unsure, but that doesn't mean I can't believe it. I believe it is a teapot because I have no reason to believe it isn't. But I must admit that even though I have no reason to believe so, the object sitting on the table may not be a teapot.

Like Mario92 said, it can't be viewed in black and white. Like many things in the world, it can't fit neatly into a few categories. It's not as simple as "Either you believe it or you don't" because as you said, belief is subjective. Other people can believe the same things you believe, but to a different degree. They can believe that what they feel is true, but at the same time, they know they could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's not impossible it's called Conviction and Faith. A). A firmly held belief or opinion. B).The quality of showing that one is firmly convinced of what one believes or says. C). an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. These are all methods of conviction and faith, so yes my friend it's very possible. I don't have a doubt.

You say you believe with 100% certainty and have no doubt whatsoever that you are right. Really? You've never once questioned your beliefs? You've never even once thought to yourself "I might be wrong"? If you say yes, I think you're lying to yourself. The mind doesn't operate on a single thought. It's a collection of thoughts. If I think to myself I'd like to have a cup of tea, another part of me might want coffee, and another part might want some juice. The mind is always full of conflicting thoughts. So when you say you truly believe something, a part of you must surely question it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

One day you and everyone you know and love will eventually die for certain. Do you have any doubts about this?

I do believe that this will happen. But again, if we look at some of the possibilities, even this is uncertain. For all I know, life is a dream, and when I wake up, I'll realize that everything I went through in this life was fake. For all I know, life is a simulation, and when it's over, I'll realize that everything I went through in this life was fake. I can't prove that these ideas are right, and I can't prove that they are wrong. But even though I believe that I and everyone I know will eventually die, these are possibilities I can't deny.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It happens when people are unsure to start with.

So if someone who believes the same things you do (perhaps strongly enough to stake all of their belongings on it) has the slightest doubt in their mind, they're not true believers? They're just on the fence? Undecided? Agnostic?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Then you actually do not believe it's a teapot, you have doubts. Once you make the claim that, it's a possibility that this isn't a teapot then, you've already taken a position of being in doubt or unsure and thus you are no longer sure or you no longer believe.

Like I said before, I think it's easy to believe something whilst having doubts. Absolute belief can only come from knowing, and if I don't know that it's a teapot, my mind is free to doubt. The only way I can know for certain that the teapot is real, is if I have knowledge of absolutely everything. Obviously I don't know everything, so I don't know all of the infinite possibilities and can't prove to myself that I'm right. I probably couldn't even comprehend most of the possibilities. But simply because I acknowledge that they exist, doesn't mean I don't believe the object is a teapot.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Fair enough. So considering you have not witnessed all the evidence for the existence of a God. Are you then willing to agree that there is a possibility that a God does indeed exist?

If there is any evidence, then I haven't seen it or simply haven't noticed. But with or without evidence, I know that a God is a possibility. Because in theory, anything is possible.

I feel we're starting to use words like "believe", "possibilities" and "doubts far too much in this thread.

I want you to pay close attention to what you stated here.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I believe it is a teapot because I have no reason to believe it isn't.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

But I must admit that even though I have no reason to believe so, the object sitting on the table may not be a teapot.

So the object sitting on the table may not be a teapot for no reason or is there a reason why you think it may not be a teapot?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

You say you believe with 100% certainty and have no doubt whatsoever that you are right. Really?

Yes it's called conviction and faith.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

You've never once questioned your beliefs? You've never even once thought to yourself "I might be wrong"? If you say yes, I think you're lying to yourself.

Actually I did question my so-called belief when I was a teenager. I did a lot of questioning because I wasn't really sure regarding the concept of a God. As I've gotten older I've gained faith and became convicted in believing that God does exist.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

The mind doesn't operate on a single thought. It's a collection of thoughts. If I think to myself I'd like to have a cup of tea, another part of me might want coffee, and another part might want some juice. The mind is always full of conflicting thoughts. So when you say you truly believe something, a part of you must surely question it.

This is something else that transpired a lot with me when I was a teenager. I was very indecisive and my mind was all over the place. As I've grown that indecisive way of thinking became less prevalent. Now if I want a cup of coffee, That's what I'm getting because I know what I want. When I was a teenager I didn't really know what I wanted.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I do believe that this will happen. But again, if we look at some of the possibilities, even this is uncertain. For all I know, life is a dream, and when I wake up, I'll realize that everything I went through in this life was fake. For all I know, life is a simulation, and when it's over, I'll realize that everything I went through in this life was fake. I can't prove that these ideas are right, and I can't prove that they are wrong. But even though I believe that I and everyone I know will eventually die, these are possibilities I can't deny.

Based off this statement you're giving the possibility of an after-life from which you wake up from this life only to enter into another (after-life) in which you would consciously experience in the same fashion as what is depicted by some Christians after one dies. I do not think you are an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

So if someone who believes the same things you do (perhaps strongly enough to stake all of their belongings on it) has the slightest doubt in their mind, they're not true believers?

If they are strongly convicted in their belief they have no doubts. In the same instance that I have no doubts.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Like I said before, I think it's easy to believe something whilst having doubts. Absolute belief can only come from knowing, and if I don't know that it's a teapot, my mind is free to doubt. The only way I can know for certain that the teapot is real, is if I have knowledge of absolutely everything. Obviously I don't know everything, so I don't know all of the infinite possibilities and can't prove to myself that I'm right. I probably couldn't even comprehend most of the possibilities. But simply because I acknowledge that they exist, doesn't mean I don't believe the object is a teapot.

And that's exactly the point right there. You do not actually know it's a teapot because you've already made a determination to yourself of doubt. So you are not in belief that it's a teapot. If you doubt that the object sitting on the table is a teapot how exactly can you believe that it is a teapot?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

But with or without evidence, I know that a God is a possibility. Because in theory, anything is possible.

This actually contradicts what you stated earlier. Here you state, God is a possibility. Earlier you stated this...

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I myself am an atheist and an agnostic, since I don't believe in any god

Which also means you do not believe in the possibility of God. You do realize your Atheist position is inconsistent with the first statement right? How do you explain that?

This looks very interesting.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Absolute belief can only come from knowing,

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I know that a God is a possibility.

Which also means you do not believe in the possibility of God. You do realize your Atheist position is inconsistent with the first statement right? How do you explain that?

What the fuck? Did you suffer some recent head trauma? This is the worst show of logic I've ever seen.

It works like this: "God is possible. However, equally possible is that there is no god. We have no evidence to back up the positive claim that there is a god. Ergo, I have no reason to believe one exists."
Is this really so hard that you can't grasp it?

Ne-yo, no matter how strong a person's conviction, if they are intellectually honest they will still have doubts. Doubts are a symptom of a healthy thinking mind.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Ne-yo, no matter how strong a person's conviction, if they are intellectually honest they will still have doubts. Doubts are a symptom of a healthy thinking mind.

I see where you are getting at, so how do you factor in doubt when a person posses a strong conviction based on faith?

Also with regards to strong convictions. Do you think Astrophysicist's have any doubts about the following 2 Laws?

1. The Law of Motion.
2. The First Law of Thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So the object sitting on the table may not be a teapot for no reason or is there a reason why you think it may not be a teapot?

When I say I have no reason to believe it isn't a teapot, that's because I perceive it to be nothing other than a teapot. It looks and feels like a teapot, so obviously I'll believe it's a teapot. But my perceptions could be flawed. There are a number of ways that this could happen very easily, and that's where the doubt comes in. I can inspect this object from every angle, hold it, and even use it to make tea. But I can't prove to myself that my perceptions are trustworthy. For all I know, I could be having a mental breakdown, holding a rat in my hand and trying to pour tea from its mouth.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yes it's called conviction and faith.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Actually I did question my so-called belief when I was a teenager. I did a lot of questioning because I wasn't really sure regarding the concept of a God. As I've gotten older I've gained faith and became convicted in believing that God does exist.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This is something else that transpired a lot with me when I was a teenager. I was very indecisive and my mind was all over the place. As I've grown that indecisive way of thinking became less prevalent. Now if I want a cup of coffee, That's what I'm getting because I know what I want. When I was a teenager I didn't really know what I wanted.

Xaqaria managed to put it very well in just two sentences. It's healthy to have doubts and it's healthy to ask questions. You seem to talk about your questioning nature as a teenager like it was some sort of rebellious phase that you eventually got through, when really it's just the way the mind works.

Say a man is a truly devout follower of a political party. This party speaks to him in ways no other party can, it's like they reached into his mind and took out his thoughts. He agrees with them on almost every issue. Education, healthcare, welfare, all of their ideas just connect with him, except one. He doesn't agree with the party's view on immigration. Everything else is perfect, but this is one part of their plan he just doesn't agree with. Does this single disagreement make him any less loyal to the party? I wouldn't say so. He would still gladly vote for them and support them any chance he got. And in the same way I would say a single or even a few doubts doesn't make someone any less loyal to their belief.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Based off this statement you're giving the possibility of an after-life from which you wake up from this life only to enter into another (after-life) in which you would consciously experience in the same fashion as what is depicted by some Christians after one dies. I do not think you are an Atheist.

I'm saying, like with any other explanation, it's a possibility. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean I believe it. And anyway, even if I did believe in an afterlife, it wouldn't mean I'm not an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a God or gods. I could believe in an afterlife without having any need for a God.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If they are strongly convicted in their belief they have no doubts. In the same instance that I have no doubts.

If they're sure enough to bet everything they own on it, I'm sure it's strong enough to be considered a belief. But they can still easily have doubts. Like a confident gambler, he's willing to risk everything on it. But also like a gambler, no matter how sure he is of himself, he knows he could easily lose.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And that's exactly the point right there. You do not actually know it's a teapot because you've already made a determination to yourself of doubt. So you are not in belief that it's a teapot. If you doubt that the object sitting on the table is a teapot how exactly can you believe that it is a teapot?

By how I've been trying to explain this whole time. Belief is not absolute certainty. To be absolutely certain, you would have to know. And in this case, we don't know whether or not it's really a teapot. Since we have no way of knowing what it really is, we simply settle on the idea that it is what it appears to be.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This actually contradicts what you stated earlier. Here you state, God is a possibility. Earlier you stated this...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Which also means you do not believe in the possibility of God. You do realize your Atheist position is inconsistent with the first statement right? How do you explain that?

Lacking belief in God doesn't mean denying the possibility of his existence. I am an atheist and I'm also an agnostic. Which basically says "I don't believe in a God or gods, but I may eventually find out that I've come to the wrong conclusion".

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

When I say I have no reason to believe it isn't a teapot, that's because I perceive it to be nothing other than a teapot. It looks and feels like a teapot, so obviously I'll believe it's a teapot.

Ok let's pause right here. This is what I was stating earlier. This is subjective and it falls directly in line with regards to what it means to "YOU". What you "perceive" influences what you feel and only what you feel, not what others feel or think. Even if the teapot is something other than what you "perceive" it to be is irrelevant. If I see the teapot and I think it's a hologram because I'm unsure of what it is and I never approach you about it does it effect your perception of what you believe it to be if you believe it's a teapot?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

But my perceptions could be flawed.

Ok, lets pause right here also. This is doubt and you're unsure. If you initially think that what you are looking at may not actually be a teapot do you believe it's a teapot?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

There are a number of ways that this could happen very easily, and that's where the doubt comes in. I can inspect this object from every angle, hold it, and even use it to make tea. But I can't prove to myself that my perceptions are trustworthy. For all I know, I could be having a mental breakdown, holding a rat in my hand and trying to pour tea from its mouth.

Which means that you are unsure of what it is. If you feel that the teapot is anything other than a teapot do you believe it's a teapot or are you in doubt and unsure?

Let's actually look at this from another angle. Look at the following photo below and lets say the photo is a real physical representation of what's in the photo and it's physically sitting on your kitchen table.


What is this sitting on your kitchen table?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Xaqaria managed to put it very well in just two sentences. It's healthy to have doubts and it's healthy to ask questions.

I'm not against doubts. Don't get the entire message twisted please. I have doubts about a ton of things and I question them. However, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that "conviction" is real. There are things in life that we are very certain of and we believe out of certainty that these things are true to us. Which is why I gave the example of 2 Laws that are a certainty within our Universe.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

You seem to talk about your questioning nature as a teenager like it was some sort of rebellious phase that you eventually got through, when really it's just the way the mind works.

If that's what you've took from that then chances are you're probably a teenager. Either way, you took it wrong. I questioned a lot of things as a teenager not because I was rebellious but simply because I was UNSURE. Now as an adult and through experience I do not question as many things. Some things I'm pretty certain about and believe in them. Like for instance if I see a teapot sitting on the table, there is no doubt in "MY MIND" that it's anything other than a teapot. There is not a single instance where I stop and say, hmmmm... you know that may not actually be a teapot it may be a giraffe. Your mind may work like that but mine doesn't.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Say a man is a truly devout follower of a political party. This party speaks to him in ways no other party can, it's like they reached into his mind and took out his thoughts. He agrees with them on almost every issue. Education, healthcare, welfare, all of their ideas just connect with him, except one. He doesn't agree with the party's view on immigration. Everything else is perfect, but this is one part of their plan he just doesn't agree with. Does this single disagreement make him any less loyal to the party? I wouldn't say so. He would still gladly vote for them and support them any chance he got. And in the same way I would say a single or even a few doubts doesn't make someone any less loyal to their belief.

This is not a good scenario you've used here. You're adding a collection of things that a person would believe in while imposing one thing that he doesn't believe in. Because overall it may or may not impact that person depending on how strongly he stands on immigration. Immigration may be of more importance to this individual, trumping education, healthcare, welfare and a slew of other ideas presented to him. If this individual puts immigration above all else the rest would not really matter to him.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I'm saying, like with any other explanation, it's a possibility. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean I believe it. And anyway, even if I did believe in an afterlife, it wouldn't mean I'm not an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a God or gods. I could believe in an afterlife without having any need for a God.

Is that a fact? So let me ask you something, as an Atheist what is your disbelief in a God based on?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

If they're sure enough to bet everything they own on it, I'm sure it's strong enough to be considered a belief. But they can still easily have doubts. Like a confident gambler, he's willing to risk everything on it. But also like a gambler, no matter how sure he is of himself, he knows he could easily lose.

That's why it's called a "Risk" because you are unsure of the outcome.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

By how I've been trying to explain this whole time. Belief is not absolute certainty. To be absolutely certain, you would have to know. And in this case, we don't know whether or not it's really a teapot. Since we have no way of knowing what it really is, we simply settle on the idea that it is what it appears to be.

You're saying "we" this is not objective. You are looking at the teapot. Is this a teapot to you or is it something other than a teapot? What is it to YOU?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Lacking belief in God doesn't mean denying the possibility of his existence.

So as you state there is a possibility that a God may or may not exist are you willing to concede that you are "unsure" rather or not a God exist?
And regarding your Lack belief in God. What exactly are you basing this on? Why do you have a lack of belief?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Ok let's pause right here. This is what I was stating earlier. This is subjective and it falls directly in line with regards to what it means to "YOU". What you "perceive" influences what you feel and only what you feel, not what others feel or think. Even if the teapot is something other than what you "perceive" it to be is irrelevant. If I see the teapot and I think it's a hologram because I'm unsure of what it is and I never approach you about it does it effect your perception of what you believe it to be if you believe it's a teapot?

I wouldn't need you to approach me with the idea that the teapot is a hologram. I could easily consider that possibility without outside influence. And I don't think it's irrelevant if I perceive it to be something that it isn't. If I believe it's a teapot when it isn't, then I'm wrong. It doesn't matter how I feel about it or how strongly convinced I am of my belief. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Obviously I won't know I'm wrong until it's proven that I am, so I'll simply believe that it's a teapot. But just because I believe that, doesn't mean I can't question it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Ok, lets pause right here also. This is doubt and you're unsure. If you initially think that what you are looking at may not actually be a teapot do you believe it's a teapot?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Which means that you are unsure of what it is. If you feel that the teapot is anything other than a teapot do you believe it's a teapot or are you in doubt and unsure?

Yes, I am perfectly capable of believing it's a teapot whilst considering I could be wrong. That's the thing. You keep implying that belief and uncertainty are opposites and so can't exist together, when really they're not. Belief is not equal to absolute certainty. I've been trying to show that this whole time. That's the point of the whole teapot analogy. I'm trying to show how easy it is to believe something whilst having doubts about it.

We're just repeating ourselves over and over again now. And if we can't come to an agreement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because if we carry on, we'll just continue repeating ourselves.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Let's actually look at this from another angle. Look at the following photo below and lets say the photo is a real physical representation of what's in the photo and it's physically sitting on your kitchen table.


What is this sitting on your kitchen table?

Hmmm, I dunno. Some kind of canned food? Of course, it's a teapot. But of course, that's still judging from my perceptions. What I'm getting at is, I can't know for a fact what it is by relying solely on my senses. I can believe it, but I can't know. If it turns out to be a hallucination, then no matter how strongly I believe it was real, I'm still wrong.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm not against doubts. Don't get the entire message twisted please. I have doubts about a ton of things and I question them. However, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that "conviction" is real. There are things in life that we are very certain of and we believe out of certainty that these things are true to us. Which is why I gave the example of 2 Laws that are a certainty within our Universe.

Fare enough, you're not saying that you're incapable of doubt. Good. But what you are saying is that there are some things in life that you can't doubt. I disagree with this. I don't think conviction really exists, since it implies that one knows the truth without really knowing. I don't think we can even be certain of the laws you mentioned, considering that one day, someone might prove them wrong and replace them with their own, improved theories. That's something that scientists have to consider. That the knowledge they currently have may not be the absolute truth and could one day be disproved.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If that's what you've took from that then chances are you're probably a teenager. Either way, you took it wrong. I questioned a lot of things as a teenager not because I was rebellious but simply because I was UNSURE. Now as an adult and through experience I do not question as many things. Some things I'm pretty certain about and believe in them. Like for instance if I see a teapot sitting on the table, there is no doubt in "MY MIND" that it's anything other than a teapot. There is not a single instance where I stop and say, hmmmm... you know that may not actually be a teapot it may be a giraffe. Your mind may work like that but mine doesn't.

So you're incapable of considering possibilities?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This is not a good scenario you've used here. You're adding a collection of things that a person would believe in while imposing one thing that he doesn't believe in. Because overall it may or may not impact that person depending on how strongly he stands on immigration. Immigration may be of more importance to this individual, trumping education, healthcare, welfare and a slew of other ideas presented to him. If this individual puts immigration above all else the rest would not really matter to him.

Fair enough, it wasn't a good example. But you get the idea. I was trying to show how the mind can doubt something even if it believes in it strongly.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is that a fact? So let me ask you something, as an Atheist what is your disbelief in a God based on?

Like I said before, I haven't seen any evidence supporting a God. So I don't believe it, since I have no reason to. But also like I said before, I consider it a possibility.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's why it's called a "Risk" because you are unsure of the outcome.

Exactly. The guy believes enough to risk everything he owns, but he knows it's a risk because he could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're saying "we" this is not objective. You are looking at the teapot. Is this a teapot to you or is it something other than a teapot? What is it to YOU?

Again, I'm forced to repeat myself. To me, it's a teapot. There are infinite other possibilities, but I simply settle on the idea that it's a teapot because I can't prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So as you state there is a possibility that a God may or may not exist are you willing to concede that you are "unsure" rather or not a God exist?
And regarding your Lack belief in God. What exactly are you basing this on? Why do you have a lack of belief?

Yes, I am unsure of the existence of a God, because I simply don't know the truth. I don't believe it, but I don't rule it out. And again, like I said before, i base my lack of belief on the fact that I have seen no evidence.

I'll say again what I said earlier in this post. If we just keep repeating ourselves over and over again, then it's clear we're not going to get anywhere. So if it continues, I'd rather we just agree to disagree. The constant repetition is annoying and it's a waste of time. It takes me a long time to type out posts as long as this one, and if I'm just going to be repeating what has already been said over and over again, there is really no point.

You'll come to notice that repeating yourself is common when speaking with Ne-yo.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I see where you are getting at, so how do you factor in doubt when a person posses a strong conviction based on faith?

Also with regards to strong convictions. Do you think Astrophysicist's have any doubts about the following 2 Laws?

1. The Law of Motion.
2. The First Law of Thermodynamics.

Faith stagnates without being constantly reaffirmed. If you cannot honestly ask yourself why you have faith, what is the nature of your faith, what exactly is the object of your faith, and how your faith affects and is affected by the rest of your life; then soon that faith will wither into a devotion that is empty of any substance. What use is faith in something when you do not assess how that thing is actually affecting your life? Doubts and questions are how one assesses the validity of their faith, and if the thing that you have placed your trust in (faith) is worthy of that trust, then your faith will only be strengthened by questions and doubts.

As for the astrophysicists; when performing calculations I don't think there is any question of doubt (or a lack of doubt) in any scientists mind. The fact that they are performing the calculations at all, however, shows that they recognize the possibility that those laws may be innaccurate or down right untrue. Any empiricist conducts his or her work in such a way as to be constantly able to check their convictions against observations and so while actually using science, the question of doubt is unnecessary. I can't speak for all astrophysicist's philosophical leanings, or how they feel about their work outside of actually performing it, but I would be willing to put money down that they entertain healthy doubts about the validity of natural laws, only because it is my opinion that a good scientist is viscerally aware of the fact that is so elegantly stated in the quote that can be found in DuB's signature,
"The tragedy of knowledge is not that it is intrinsically erroneous, but that, erroneous as it is, it is indispensable: We must do what we cannot do well."
--William James McGuire, 1925-2007

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I wouldn't need you to approach me with the idea that the teapot is a hologram. I could easily consider that possibility without outside influence.

I understand that, however, the moment you do consider the possibility of it being something other than what it is you are unsure.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

And I don't think it's irrelevant if I perceive it to be something that it isn't. If I believe it's a teapot when it isn't, then I'm wrong. It doesn't matter how I feel about it or how strongly convinced I am of my belief. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Obviously I won't know I'm wrong until it's proven that I am, so I'll simply believe that it's a teapot. But just because I believe that, doesn't mean I can't question it.

This isn't about being right or being wrong, who cares if you're wrong about the teapot. What matters is, what does it mean to you. If you believe it's a teapot and you turned out to be wrong in your belief, so what. Being wrong or right is not the point here. How are you missing this???

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Yes, I am perfectly capable of believing it's a teapot whilst considering I could be wrong.

Then you're not believing. You're doubting what you think it is and you are unsure and yes this is starting to get a bit old.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

That's the thing. You keep implying that belief and uncertainty are opposites and so can't exist together, when really they're not. Belief is not equal to absolute certainty. I've been trying to show that this whole time. That's the point of the whole teapot analogy. I'm trying to show how easy it is to believe something whilst having doubts about it.

So being sure about something and being unsure about something is the same to you?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

We're just repeating ourselves over and over again now. And if we can't come to an agreement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because if we carry on, we'll just continue repeating ourselves.

I agree with this because this is getting very old.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Hmmm, I dunno. Some kind of canned food? Of course, it's a teapot.

Ok now we are finally getting somewhere. Now let me ask you this. Are you sure it's a teapot? Just yes or no please.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Fare enough, you're not saying that you're incapable of doubt. Good. But what you are saying is that there are some things in life that you can't doubt. I disagree with this. I don't think conviction really exists, since it implies that one knows the truth without really knowing. I don't think we can even be certain of the laws you mentioned, considering that one day, someone might prove them wrong and replace them with their own, improved theories. That's something that scientists have to consider. That the knowledge they currently have may not be the absolute truth and could one day be disproved.

Blueline posted something that ties in very well with what you just stated here.

Originally Posted by Phil Plait

Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work. Relativity is so solid, in fact, that anyone who denies it outright at this point can be charitably called a kook.

There are quite a few things that we are certain of without doubt. However, seeing as if we are not really gaining any sort of ground here, I'll respect how statements and we can just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

So you're incapable of considering possibilities?

I am capable of considering possibilities, ONLY when there is something I'm unsure of. Which has been my entire point. For me there are some things I'm certain of. for instance, I'm very certain I love my little daughter. I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever. I never for once questioned rather or not I love my daughter. So I'm strongly convicted of how certain I am with regards to how much I love my daughter. You can test that one out. Ask your mother one day if she is completely certain without a doubt rather or not she loves you. There you will realize I'm not the only person who can have certainty without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Fair enough, it wasn't a good example. But you get the idea. I was trying to show how the mind can doubt something even if it believes in it strongly.

Yes but it only doubts one aspect, not the entire scenario. It's common to be unsure of some things and be sure of other things. However, it's not possible to be sure of 1 thing and be unsure of that same 1 thing. That's the point. You're either sure about it or you're unsure about it. It's not really all that complicated.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Like I said before, I haven't seen any evidence supporting a God. So I don't believe it, since I have no reason to.

Ok you mentioned something earlier that kind says something different.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I could believe in an afterlife without having any need for a God.

How could you possibly believe in an afterlife with no evidence and no reason? If you cannot believe in a God because there is no evidence and no reason supporting a God. Equally there is no evidence supporting an after-life, how could you believe in this? I'm not saying that you do believe in an afterlife but you said that you "could" with no evidence. So "could" you believe in a God with no evidence equally?

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Exactly. The guy believes enough to risk everything he owns, but he knows it's a risk because he could be wrong.

The guy is willing to risk everything that he owns because there is a possibility that he could win. However, he also understands that there is a possibility that he could lose. That's why it's a risk not because of certainty but because it's risky that the outcome may not be in your favor, considering you do not know what the outcome is going to be. You are essentially "unsure" of the outcome.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Again, I'm forced to repeat myself. To me, it's a teapot. There are infinite other possibilities, but I simply settle on the idea that it's a teapot because I can't prove otherwise.

If it's a teapot to you then it's a teapot to you. If you are unsure of what it is then it's not a teapot to you and you are unsure. This is getting really really old now. :p

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Yes, I am unsure of the existence of a God, because I simply don't know the truth. I don't believe it, but I don't rule it out. And again, like I said before, i base my lack of belief on the fact that I have seen no evidence.

To me you appear like an Agnostic and not an Atheist. If you allow for possibilities you are no longer in disbelief. You are actually on the fence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Faith stagnates without being constantly reaffirmed.

Then you and I are not referring to the same thing. Faith is this to me.

Faith: Faith is belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust; opposite of doubt.

When you say something needs to be reaffirmed that's classified as doubt. You are reaffirming something because you are unsure of that something.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As for the astrophysicists; when performing calculations I don't think there is any question of doubt (or a lack of doubt) in any scientists mind. The fact that they are performing the calculations at all, however, shows that they recognize the possibility that those laws may be innaccurate or down right untrue.

I do not believe that to be accurate. As far as I am aware, Scientist would utilize equations not because there is a possibility of doubt but because if we wanted to launch a satellite to orbit around Jupiter, we would then need to perform calculations in order to make this happen.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Any empiricist conducts his or her work in such a way as to be constantly able to check their convictions against observations and so while actually using science, the question of doubt is unnecessary.

Exactly, because in the case of a Scientist who cross checks his calculations is not because he believes the Law's are wrong but because he may have made an error in his own work and is unsure thus he requires validity because he is in doubt. Once he's confident and believes without a doubt that his calculations are accurate enough then that satellite is launched. I'm willing to also put money down that Scientist do not launch satellite's into orbit when in doubt.