I lack belief that lacking a belief that X exists doesn't mean I believe X doesn't exist

If I lack belief that 5 exists as a solution to 2+2, I believe that 5 does not exist as a solution to 2+2.

If I lack belief that Bigfoot exists, I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist.

None of that "special pleading" that atheists like to whine about for God.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
If I lack belief that 5 exists as a solution to 2+2, I believe that 5 does not exist as a solution to 2+2.

If I lack belief that Bigfoot exists, I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist.

None of that "special pleading" that atheists like to whine about for God.

If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, I lack the belief that the answer is 5.
If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, I lack the belief that the answer is 4 as well.
If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, it could be 5, or 4, or something else, as far as I'm concerned.
None of that leads to me believing that 5 is the correct answer, even though I lack the belief that 5 is the answer.
 
If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, I lack the belief that the answer is 5.
If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, I lack the belief that the answer is 4 as well.
If I don't know what the answer is to 2+2, it could be 5, or 4, or something else, as far as I'm concerned.
None of that leads to me believing that 5 is the correct answer, even though I lack the belief that 5 is the answer.
VERY GOOD! Analogous to a defense of the "I lack belief" spiel for agnosticism, but not atheism.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
VERY GOOD! Analogous to a defense of the "I lack belief" spiel for agnosticism, but not atheism.

Not so fast, pardner. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

Theists are those who have the belief that a god exists.

The "a-" suffix creates a mutual exclusion when combined with the original word the suffix might be attached to.

Therefore, "atheists" indicate those who do not have the belief that a god exists.

So we now have two mutually exclusive groups, theists and atheists, and those two groups include everyone.

Agnostics do not know if a god exists or not.

Into which pile do we now place agnostics? The theist group, or the atheist group? It has to be the atheist group.

Therefore, agnostics are a certain type of atheist.
 
Not so fast, pardner. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

Theists are those who have the belief that a god exists.

The "a-" suffix creates a mutual exclusion when combined with the original word the suffix might be attached to.

Therefore, "atheists" indicate those who do not have the belief that a god exists.

So we now have two mutually exclusive groups, theists and atheists, and those two groups include everyone.

Agnostics do not know if a god exists or not.

Into which pile do we now place agnostics? The theist group, or the atheist group? It has to be the atheist group.

Therefore, agnostics are a certain type of atheist.

Not so fast, pardner. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

Theists are those who have the belief that a god exists.

The "a-" suffix creates a mutual exclusion when combined with the original word the suffix might be attached to.

Therefore, "atheists" indicate those who do not have the belief that a god exists.

So we now have two mutually exclusive groups, theists and atheists, and those two groups include everyone.

Agnostics do not know if a god exists or not.

Into which pile do we now place agnostics? The theist group, or the atheist group? It has to be the atheist group.

Therefore, agnostics are a certain type of atheist..
So why are most CARM atheists, if they fall into the subset category, so militant in their ignorance? Why not just say ""Duh, I dunno?" Why not attack strong atheists with equal diligence for their beliefs as they do theists? I think many are faking how open-minded they are on the subject.
 

J regia

Member
How about the new biology that sez XX can be XY?
Is that why it took Adam and his genetically identical partner also named Adam 130 "years" to first become pregnant (Gen 5:1-3)?

And is that why Jesus didn't have a Y chromosome if conceived by parthenogenesis as claimed by some, and why he loved a particular disciple instead of a wife (John 19:26 21:7?
 

Gus Bovona

Member
So why are most CARM atheists, if they fall into the subset category, so militant in their ignorance? Why not just say ""Duh, I dunno?" Why not attack strong atheists with equal diligence for their beliefs as they do theists? I think many are faking how open-minded they are on the subject.

I dunno about most CARM atheists, as they may not even agree with my categories. However, I would made the following distinctions:

I claim there are no gods.
I don't know (haven't added everything up yet, haven't heard the evidence yet, etc.) whether any god exists.
I've heard the evidence for god X, and am not convinced.

All those are atheists because they are all not theists.

Some atheists *do* attack strong atheists. The best example that comes to mind is the Jesus mythicists versus historicists. There was a huge long thread on the International Skeptics Forum in regards to that with atheists on both sides, quite vociferously, too.

By the way, one can be firmly ensconced in a conclusion but still be open to contrary evidence. It may seem like one is not open if the evidence for the current conclusion is strong. For instance, I'm pretty convinced about evolution, but it is falsifiable, we can imagine what evidence it would take to call its central points into question (the classic rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrin rock).

How firmly one holds a conclusion is not a measure of how open one is, in any responsible definition of open, it's more measured by the evidence for/against. Proportion belief to the evidence an all.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
So why are most CARM atheists, if they fall into the subset category, so militant in their ignorance? Why not just say ""Duh, I dunno?" Why not attack strong atheists with equal diligence for their beliefs as they do theists? I think many are faking how open-minded they are on the subject.
Oh, one other thing. I think that most CARM atheists, given the arguments against Christianity that I see here, actually are strong atheists with regard to Christianity - one way to this is to hold that the idea of Christian god is incoherent, or logically contradictory, etc. But they probably default to the weak atheism position a lot of times because that is the minimum necessary to be an atheist.
 
Oh, one other thing. I think that most CARM atheists, given the arguments against Christianity that I see here, actually are strong atheists with regard to Christianity - one way to this is to hold that the idea of Christian god is incoherent, or logically contradictory, etc. But they probably default to the weak atheism position a lot of times because that is the minimum necessary to be an atheist.
What's in a label? An atheist by any other label would know as little. so an atheist would, though he were not an atheist called, retain that imperfection which he owes; without that label. Gus, doff thy label. And for that label which is no part of thee ...........
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
So why are most CARM atheists, if they fall into the subset category, so militant in their ignorance? Why not just say ""Duh, I dunno?" Why not attack strong atheists with equal diligence for their beliefs as they do theists? I think many are faking how open-minded they are on the subject.
Self justification. They are militant.
 
Top