Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's take

[borrofburi]

I'd hate to bring up such a contentious topic, but QualiaSoup has posted a very interesting video:

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Ignostic is a term I find more accurate.

:geek:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Stupendous, and I agree wholeheartedly with every syllable.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

It seems OK as far as it goes.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

It seems OK as far as it goes.

Well that was frightfully uninformative... How far does it go?

 

[Aught3]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

 

[Pandawa]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

@ Aught3 it was a logical "X" "Not X" argument i suppose...

 

[OmegaMale]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Saw this earlier today, excellent video. One of the best atheism related videos I've had the pleasure to watch.

This "atheism is just another faith position" is one of the arguments I've tried to combat for a long time, and this video makes many of the points better than I ever could. Bravo.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Yfelsung]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I used to think strong atheism required faith compared to weak atheism, but then I kind of switched my belief on that.

Strong atheism is the stance that God doesn't exist. I wholeheartedly believe there is no God... that's not to say there couldn't be entities that seem like God, or who claim to be God, but they are not God.

There is no God.

I don't require faith to say that, only an understanding of the impossibilities of something being all powerful or all knowing. Power and knowledge are defined by limitations. If something has no limits, it doesn't exist.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I still prefer agnosticism as the default position, because in a way, when a child is born it has no knowledge of the term god or even if it exists. Overall, the video is persuasive.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

I think a small portion of the video went to address why it is a guilty/not guilty dichotomy, VS a guilty/innocent dichotomy.

In reality the defendent is either guilty or innocent (with degrees of which delineated in the charges laid), but as applied to existence of an entity, it is a true dichotomy. Something either exists, or it does not. However, there are two claims that can be made about this: Either that the entity exists (guilty), or that it does not exist (innocent). The acceptance of a claim that the defendent is guilty is one thing, and the acceptance of a claim that the defendent is innocent is another.

The judicial system is set up to test the claim that the defendent is guilty, and the true dichotomy in this case is guilty/not guilty. The default position is set to be not-guilty until guilt is proven, to avoid falsely accusing individuals. It doesn't matter what the jury decides on why they think the defendent is not guilty - in the "not guilty" category it could be that they think the person is actually innocent, or that they think the evidence is lacking, or simply not convinced by the claims of guilt, they vote not guilty.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

I think a small portion of the video went to address why it is a guilty/not guilty dichotomy, VS a guilty/innocent dichotomy.

In reality the defendent is either guilty or innocent (with degrees of which delineated in the charges laid), but as applied to existence of an entity, it is a true dichotomy. Something either exists, or it does not. However, there are two claims that can be made about this: Either that the entity exists (guilty), or that it does not exist (innocent). The acceptance of a claim that the defendent is guilty is one thing, and the acceptance of a claim that the defendent is innocent is another.

The judicial system is set up to test the claim that the defendent is guilty, and the true dichotomy in this case is guilty/not guilty. The default position is set to be not-guilty until guilt is proven, to avoid falsely accusing individuals. It doesn't matter what the jury decides on why they think the defendent is not guilty - in the "not guilty" category it could be that they think the person is actually innocent, or that they think the evidence is lacking, or simply not convinced by the claims of guilt, they vote not guilty.

In addition to manitoriadiation's splendid explanation, this is because, in a criminal case, the state has all the resources to convict the accused, while the defendant does not. That's why he is presumed inocent and where it is the state's job to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. This metric is different from civil cases where preponderance of evidence is the metric, that's akin to a scale. The former is an abused analogy and is often applied in atheistic/theistic debates/arguments.

However, if you want to make this argument work for you, it's first best to make clear that the one who asserts the information must know more about the topic asserted or has all the resources to prove it, otherwise, you can't use this effectively.

 

[PeanutbutterChilli]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Its a great way to refute a thiest claiming that you should be agnostic (but not in the sense that you say that the theist can't claim to know either) or that atheism is a faith based position. I quite like the terms "agnostic thiest/athiest" myself though theres unfortunatly no real distinction between coming to that from analyzing the various positions and simple apathy.

 

[theatheistguy]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

I think it was just simply that 'guilty' or ' not guilty' were shown as G and NG which also fitted 'god' or 'no god'.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

No, because innocence is a loaded word and, let's face it, the domain only of very young children.

I still prefer agnosticism as the default position, because in a way, when a child is born it has no knowledge of the term god or even if it exists.

So you missed the bit where he talked about how agnosticism is not what you think it is, then?

 

[Aught3]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Pretty good. I didn't think the guilty/non-guilty bit was done right. Shouldn't it have been guilty/innocent?

I think a small portion of the video went to address why it is a guilty/not guilty dichotomy, VS a guilty/innocent dichotomy.

In reality the defendent is either guilty or innocent (with degrees of which delineated in the charges laid), but as applied to existence of an entity, it is a true dichotomy. Something either exists, or it does not. However, there are two claims that can be made about this: Either that the entity exists (guilty), or that it does not exist (innocent). The acceptance of a claim that the defendent is guilty is one thing, and the acceptance of a claim that the defendent is innocent is another.

The judicial system is set up to test the claim that the defendent is guilty, and the true dichotomy in this case is guilty/not guilty. The default position is set to be not-guilty until guilt is proven, to avoid falsely accusing individuals. It doesn't matter what the jury decides on why they think the defendent is not guilty - in the "not guilty" category it could be that they think the person is actually innocent, or that they think the evidence is lacking, or simply not convinced by the claims of guilt, they vote not guilty.

I agree with you completely but this didn't seem to be the way it was explained in the video. The idea was that some people will form opinions immediately upon seeing the accused, some will think guilty and others will think not-guilty. But the ones who haven't made up their minds, it seems to me, are also in the not-guilty camp. They are of the opinion that the person is not-guilty or at least, not of the opinion that he is guilty. I just thought listening to the video that a guilty/innocent dicotomy with the mid ground of not-guilty would make more sense. Other than that I was totally on board with the rest of the video.

I think it was just simply that 'guilty' or ' not guilty' were shown as G and NG which also fitted 'god' or 'no god'.

Yep, that could be it!

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I agree with you completely but this didn't seem to be the way it was explained in the video. The idea was that some people will form opinions immediately upon seeing the accused, some will think guilty and others will think not-guilty. But the ones who haven't made up their minds, it seems to me, are also in the not-guilty camp. They are of the opinion that the person is not-guilty or at least, not of the opinion that he is guilty. I just thought listening to the video that a guilty/innocent dicotomy with the mid ground of not-guilty would make more sense. Other than that I was totally on board with the rest of the video.

Oh... I didn't get that the first time around, that makes more sense.

I think it was just simply that 'guilty' or ' not guilty' were shown as G and NG which also fitted 'god' or 'no god'.

Yah, that was my thoughts.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

So you missed the bit where he talked about how agnosticism is not what you think it is, then?

No. I don't agree with his opinion on the matter, except where he says that it can exist with agnosticism in the moment where a child is born, because at such time, the child has no opinion on the issue. In that situation a child has no knowledge about a god, he cannot believe in a god. Even if it's implied in such a way, lacking of knowledge preceeds atheism.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

So you missed the bit where he talked about how agnosticism is not what you think it is, then?

No. I don't agree with his opinion on the matter, except where he says that it can exist with agnosticism in the moment where a child is born, because at such time, the child has no opinion on the issue. In that situation a child has no knowledge about a god, he cannot believe in a god. Even if it's implied in such a way, lacking of knowledge preceeds atheism.

I would say that the state of ignorance of a child preceeds the agnostic claim that a god cannot be known.