Quote unquote skepticism

[zoro]

Well, Sulaiman, I’d agree that it’s “pointless”, so long as you continue to beat away at your own straw men and refuse (or are unable) to see the points raised by others.

For example, I know of no scientific humanists who “reserve terms that mean ‘believing in something only when you think you have good reason to” and ‘thinking freely’ so as to refer exclusively to themselves.” Of course it’s the case that everyone thinks that they think freely and have good reasons for their beliefs. Most also think that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You’re beating at your own straw men.

What you seem to refuse to see (or maybe are unable to see) is that beliefs in various gods are estimates for the probabilities that such gods exist. If you did see that, then you wouldn’t complain that people making claims about holding a belief “when the evidence supports it” is “elitist… narrow-minded… haughty… offensive, and… stupid.” That is, if you understood the scientific method, then you would know that, using Bayes’ method, evidence is used to generate estimates for the probability that any particular claim is true. In that light, what’s “stupid” is to state that you believe (or don’t believe) in something; what’s more intelligent is to provide details about your estimate for the probability that some claim is correct – or at least (if you don’t provide details of your estimate) provide your estimate for the probability.

Furthermore, with your comment that “there is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or logic”, it appears that you still fail to understand the limitations of logic: as I outlined in my first response (and provided you with additional references for details), logic is totally incapable of producing new information (e.g., about the existence of any god). To gain new information, you must collect new data (aka evidence). That’s why all “logical proofs of God” are, as Kant said, “So much labor lost.”

 

[IAmZamzam]

I know of no scientific humanists who “reserve terms that mean ‘believing in something only when you think you have good reason to” and ‘thinking freely’ so as to refer exclusively to themselves.”

When you use "freethinker" synonymously with "nontheist", how is anyone to avoid drawing that inference? How would you feel if theists did the same thing? PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES ALREADY.

EDIT: You know what? I'm not going to leave that question rhetorical. Unless your next post contains an answer as to how you would feel if theists used the term "freethinking" to mean "theism", I'm not dignifying your nonsense with another response.

Of course it’s the case that everyone thinks that they think freely and have good reasons for their beliefs. Most also think that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You’re beating at your own straw men.

...says the guy who is intentionally overlooking the fact that I'm not talking about whether or not anyone actually is doing those things but whether it is sensible or ethical to define their very opinion itself that way.

What you seem to refuse to see (or maybe are unable to see) is that beliefs in various gods are estimates for the probabilities that such gods exist.

Yes, the probabilities, in whatever amount, obviously do exist. That does not mean that they can be reckoned to thousandths of a degree in a mathematical formula!

If you did see that, then you wouldn’t complain that people making claims about holding a belief “when the evidence supports it” is “elitist… narrow-minded… haughty… offensive, and… stupid.” That is, if you understood the scientific method, then you would know that, using Bayes’ method, evidence is used to generate estimates for the probability that any particular claim is true.

You keep accusing me of being the one making the straw men, yet over and over and over again you FORCE yourself to miss the point like this. I'm tired of repeating myself. Go ahead and misunderstand.

In that light, what’s “stupid” is to state that you believe (or don’t believe) in something; what’s more intelligent is to provide details about your estimate for the probability that some claim is correct – or at least (if you don’t provide details of your estimate) provide your estimate for the probability.

And what is not intelligent is to presume such precision as to be able to state said probability (of God's existence) mathematically. Aren't you the one who quoted Socrates on the beginning of wisdom being to accept what you can and can't know?

Furthermore, with your comment that “there is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or logic”, it appears that you still fail to understand the limitations of logic: as I outlined in my first response (and provided you with additional references for details), logic is totally incapable of producing new information (e.g., about the existence of any god). To gain new information, you must collect new data (aka evidence). That’s why all “logical proofs of God” are, as Kant said, “So much labor lost.”

Nobody ever said that logic had to provide new information in order to have any worth. It's more about helping us to interpret existing information. So is the scientific method, yes, but there is only so much it can be used for. Everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things. It would be awesome if that were the case, but it's not, and so we may as well accept it. Irrelevant appeals to "the scientific method" as an alternative to or refutation of reason are just the nearest acceptable atheistic equivalent to religious people doing the same thing with appeals to faith (usually misusing the term "faith" just as much as the atheists are misusing the term "the scientific method"), and is no more convincing to anyone not already blinded by bias.

 

[CosmicPathos]

When I read zoro's propaganda on his site, his usage of the word "Dear" made me LOL so hard that my Latissimus dorsi are willing to adduct my arms with such velocity that they penetrate zoro's face.

 

[IAmZamzam]

When I read zoro's propaganda on his site, his usage of the word "Dear" made me LOL so hard that my Latissimus dorsi are willing to adduct my arms with such velocity that they penetrate zoro's face.

I don't know what you're talking about. But to the degree that I follow you it sounds like you're just flaming zoro instead of contributing to the thread. Then again, what is there left to contribute? They're never going to allow themselves to understand my point, and like I said that's just a sign for me that the point was good enough to warrant such self-obfuscation in the first place. I just don't like what it means for them and wish there were something I could do about it.

 

[zoro]

In response to Sulaiman:

When you use "freethinker" synonymously with "nontheist", how is anyone to avoid drawing that inference?

I never did that! I simply gave you an example of a freethinker.

Yes, the probabilities, in whatever amount, obviously do exist. That does not mean that they can be reckoned to thousandths of a degree in a mathematical formula!

Wow, you really don’t understand science, do you?! You name the belief about something in nature external to people’s minds (and eventually, I suspect, as neuroscience develops, even within people’s minds), then if you can get the funding, the probability that any claim is true can be “reckoned to the thousandths of a degree” using Bayes’ method. In fact, if you can continue to supply the funding, the probability can be evaluated to any degree of accuracy (save for limitations imposed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).

And what is not intelligent is to presume such precision as to be able to state said probability (of God's existence) mathematically.

Wrong again! I’ve already provided you with a reference to details about how to estimate the probability of God’s existence mathematically. Apparently I dare not provide you with the reference again, since it sends you off on one of your tangents. Yet, I admit that my estimate is extremely crude (no funding, doncha know), but I’m quite certain that the probability is much less than 1 part in 10^500.

Aren't you the one who quoted Socrates on the beginning of wisdom being to accept what you can and can't know?

Well, actually, it was Confucius who said it, but what are you trying to say: that you can’t know the probability that God exists? Hmmm, interesting. That would make you an agnostic! (That is, if you have no knowledge of something, then as with the outcome of tossing a coin, the probability of a specific outcome is exactly 50%).

Nobody ever said that logic had to provide new information in order to have any worth. It's more about helping us to interpret existing information. So is the scientific method, yes, but there is only so much it can be used for. Everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things. It would be awesome if that were the case, but it's not, and so we may as well accept it.

No, no, no, no! Go learn some science! The scientific method DOES provide new information. That’s the data collection phase. Go back to that “Venn diagram” (in a now-unspecified reference) that you said “put you off”.

Further, you have multiple errors in your “everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things.” First, “control groups” are needed in relatively few science studies; they’re needed only when all the variables can’t be controlled. Second, and more importantly, in fact it IS feasible to perform experiments on essentially everything: a monkey wonders if he could use a rock to break a nut, he experiments, and it works; a seagull wants to know if she can break a mussel by dropping it on the rocks, she experiments, and it works; a human wonders if he could shoot a projectile using a taught string of gut tied to a bendable rod, he experiments, and it works. And so on it has gone, for the past multiple millions of years, to include all that humans have learned about nature.

But I do agree with your suggestion that many people are “blinded by bias”.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Yahya, I would have no problem whatsoever if a theist called themself a "reasoner", but to do that they'd have to let go of Faith, because faith is the opposite of reason, it is the opposite of skepticism. If somebody came to their religion through reason, with their own ideas and concepts of God, instead of looking to a holy book or prophet or preacher and believing what they are told by authority or faith, that would be very refreshing to me and I'd be proud to call them a free thinker or "reasoner" (as you suggest). The answer they came to is less important than how they got to it in regard to whether or not we can call them a "reasoner" or "free thinker".

 

[CosmicPathos]

yes i am not contributing to this thread whatsoever as there is nothing to contribute but i can still make comments for fun.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If I thought you had the slightest respect for the ideas of the existence of Zeus and Thor then I might consider it. I hear a lot from atheists about all gods being equally unlikely in their eyes but given the context, tone, and wording this almost never seems to be expressed as a rational follow through of their own belief but instead their nine hundredth means of scoffing and scorning.

Sometimes this happens, yes. People get tired of being talked down to and being told they deserve torture for not believing as others. And yes people also scoff at others who believe in things they find ridiculus. This happens with atheists towards theists, just as it happens with others towards those who believe in space alien plots. And yes, sometimes the comparisons to santa claus and faeries is done in scorn.

But more often than not it is used to illustrate a point, by using the comparison, as I noted above. Bertram Russel's "celestial teapot", the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all got their start as comparison points in showing that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean you should believe it. The Santa comparison is also often used to show the fallacy of believing in something by authority. Other points are also used via these comparisons. I'd rather make these points without evoking the defensive response, but I sense that no matter what I use for comparison I'm going to get it. I think people simply get offended when you don't buy into their beliefs and show them fallacies in their arguments for it.

I don't buy it. As for a better analogy, the only one amongst the endless line of nontheistic cliches that I've ever heard which doesn't sound like it was dreamed up by a four-year-old schoolyard bully is the "mile run" one

Never heard that one. What is the "mile run" one?

I think maybe the best point of comparison for many of these points may actually be space aliens. Some people believe that space aliens are watching us and have infiltrated our governments and plan to take over. They further believe that if we don't act promptly in a particular manner (to repel the aliens or whatever) we will suffer, and deserve to. As they buiild their special shelters they feel that they are saved and that the rest of us are rightly doomed for our arrogant dismissal of their beliefs. To continue the analogy in the Christian setting, maybe one of them volunteered to be abducted so the rest of us could be saved, if only we would accept his sacrifice and live a certain way.

My question to you: If you met somebody who honestly and earnestly believed in the above would you go out of your way to respect their beliefs? Remember as wrong as they may sound, they do hold these beliefs honestly and want to be taken seriously. Or would you call them tin foilers and engage in the kind of attitude you're concerned here with some atheists towards theists?

What comparison would you use to show them that just because you can't disprove aliens watching over us it isn't reasonable for you to believe that they are?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Yahya, I would have no problem whatsoever if a theist called themself a "reasoner", but to do that they'd have to let go of Faith, because faith is the opposite of reason, it is the opposite of skepticism. If somebody came to their religion through reason, with their own ideas and concepts of God, instead of looking to a holy book or prophet or preacher and believing what they are told by authority or faith, that would be very refreshing to me and I'd be proud to call them a free thinker or "reasoner" (as you suggest).

One again you seem bent on missing the point. Merely calling yourself a reasoner or a freethinker is one thing; using the very terms as SYNONYMS for your own view on something is another thing altogether. Would it be fair to liberals if conservatives started calling themselves The Freethinking Party? How would you take that if you were a liberal? Would you feel any differently from how I feel now? Would you not be disgusted by the bigotry and elitism involved?

Sometimes this happens, yes. People get tired of being talked down to and being told they deserve torture for not believing as others. And yes people also scoff at others who believe in things they find ridiculus. This happens with atheists towards theists, just as it happens with others towards those who believe in space alien plots. And yes, sometimes the comparisons to santa claus and faeries is done in scorn. But more often than not it is used to illustrate a point, by using the comparison, as I noted above. Bertram Russel's "celestial teapot", the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all got their start as comparison points in showing that just becasue you can't disprove something doesn't mean you should believe it. The Santa comparison is also often used to show the fallacy of believing in something by authority. Other points are also used via these comparisons.

I had forgotten about the celestial teapot. It’s a much older form of awful behavior than Russell, though. In fact, it seems to have been a trend for as long as there have been atheists:

When Our signs were being recited to them, they said, “We have already heard; if we wished, we could say the like of this; this is naught but the fairy-tales of the ancients.” (Koran 8:31, Arberry)

If their sole purpose with these analogies is to “instruct” and not to mock, that hardly excuses them, as there are much less bellicose and immature ways to get the point across. That they so often have to demand that I think up ways for them because they’re so incapable of finding such a way themselves is extremely telling.

I'd rather make these points without evoking the defensive response, but I sense that no matter what I use for comparison I'm going to get it. I think people simply get offended when you don't buy into their beliefs and show them fallacies in their arguments for it.

Even if they do, comparing their god to Santa Claus is still hardly going to help the existing problem, now is it? I have very strong doubts that their intentions are usually as pure as you think, given that mockery is the chief hallmarks of their behavior toward theists anyway.

Never heard that one. What is the "mile run" one?

A common analogy usually about that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” stuff. Never mind.

I think maybe the best point of comparison for many of these points may actually be space aliens. Some people believe that space aliens are watching us and have infiltrated our governments. I have not seen good evidence to convince me of this besides stories and "eye witness" accoutns, but it COULD be true. Just very unlikely. I see your God the same way.

That is better, yes. It at least sounds like it was thought up by someone who has graduated from middle school.

My question to you: If you met somebody who honestly and earnestly believed in the above space aliens would you go as out of your way to respect their beliefs as I am here? Remember as wrong as they may sound, they do hold these beliefs honestly and want to be taken seriously. Or would you call them tin foilers and engage in the kind of attitude you're concerned with re atheists and gods?

I most certainly would not call them that! I don’t know if you think so little of me to begin with or are just so used to pointing and laughing at anyone whose beliefs you find incredible that you find it difficult to imagine anyone ever not being so inclined, but either way the question avoids being offensive only by being so out of the left field. I have a very good reason (I think) for not believing in close encounters (and I have been thinking lately of maybe starting a thread on it) but unlike your average spokesperson for atheism I have grown at least beyond the level where making fun of them would be a natural reaction for me (and even if it was I would know that to suppress it is the right thing to do), and if I found their story convincing then I would consider revising my opinion on the alien matter. Funny you should mention it: just earlier today I read this article at randi.org, which was so singularly morally horrendous and juvenile even for the people of that site that I was as relieved as I was surprised to find any people at all in the comments section decrying it. Though they were in a minority and had a very mistaken notion of the site and forum “not being what they used to be” when in fact I do not know of any time when it was any better, it always helps to occasionally see a bit of fairness, open-mindedness, and compassion from an atheist. I think it is plain after reading that article just how debatable it really is that it’s okay to be a complete jerk toward someone whose claims seem to you to be ridiculous.

 

[Pygoscelis]

One again you seem bent on missing the point. Merely calling yourself a reasoner or a freethinker is one thing; using the very terms as SYNONYMS for your own view on something is another thing altogether.

I think the reason why nobody has been addressing that is because nobody here had done what you complain about. I would never say that "Free thinking" is synonymous with atheism. But I *WOULD* say that most who follow organized religions and tout faith and follow preachers, prophets, and holy books are displaying signs AGAINST free thought, reason and skepticism. Faith and reason are opposites. And if somebody proudly proclaims their "faith" in something and that they know something through "faith"... we can't say they are reasoning.

If their sole purpose with these analogies is to “instruct” and not to mock

There is no unified "them". Some people DO use these things to mock. Others use them to illustrate a point.

that hardly excuses them, as there are much less bellicose and immature ways to get the point across. That they so often have to demand that I think up ways for them because they’re so incapable of finding such a way themselves is extremely telling.

They just don't want to go through the effort of thinking something up only to find that it too offends your sensibilities. Seems simpler to see if you grasp the point they are trying to make and then provide them with a more palatable way to say it. Many of us would be happy to use whatever comparison you like, so long as it makes the point.

I have very strong doubts that their intentions are usually as pure as you think, given that mockery is the chief hallmarks of their behavior toward theists anyway.

I think this is selective memory. Do you realize that many theists have the exact same attitude towards atheists? Do you realize how many times we get told that we are too blind, too "proud", that we can have no sense of morality, that we are "ungrateful", that we deserve to suffer? Should I attribute that ugly attitude to anyone and everyone who believes in a God? No. Just as you should not so broad brush atheists.

A common analogy usually about that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” stuff. Never mind.

Well extraordinary claims *DO* require extraordinary evidence. Is this disputed?

I most certainly would not call them that! I don’t know if you think so little of me to begin with or are just so used to pointing and laughing at anyone whose beliefs you find incredible that you find it difficult to imagine anyone ever not being so inclined

Not at all. If you'll notice I haven't been calling you names, mocking you or laughing at you. Zorro maybe a little, but you started this thread with a flippant and belicose attitude. Not a surprise that he may respond the same way.

It always helps to occasionally see a bit of fairness, open-mindedness, and compassion from an atheist.

Ditto for a theist. You do know that theists have been hating, scorning, and burning atheist "heathens" and "infidels" for a few thousand years, across most cultures from pagan to modern, yes?
Some civility and compassion is good all around.

I think it is plain after reading that article just how debatable it really is that it’s okay to be a complete jerk toward someone whose claims seem to you to be ridiculous.

Indeed.

I actually think I could have actually agreed with what I now understand to be the central point of your OP had you written it with the approach you are now advocating for.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Maybe you don't use terms like "freethinking" and "skepticism" in such an arrogant fashion, Pygoscelis, but if not then I really don't see what your beef is in the first place, and these are the generally accepted meanings of the words in nontheistic jargon. Do you really not hear them used in such a way all the time?

As for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, maybe they do, but the argument never seems to be used as anything except an excuse not to think and a way of sounding all intellectual about having a closed mind. You'll notice that no one ever seems to bother actually defining what would constitute "extraordinary" evidence and what would not. Convenient, eh? Not to mention that it's one of the tactics (like the phrase "lack of belief") that is used to tilt the argument in natural favor of atheism and make it sound like some kind of default. It's not really the notion of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence itself that's the problem, although it does presuppose that theism is more extraordinary than atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Maybe you don't use terms like "freethinking" and "skepticism" in such an arrogant fashion, Pygoscelis, but if not then I really don't see what your beef is in the first place, and these are the generally accepted meanings of the words in nontheistic jargon. Do you really not hear them used in such a way all the time?

No. I really don't. But then I'm not a believer so it wouldn't be targeted at me. You may not see the hateful attitude so often put to atheists for the same reason (you not being one).

As for my beef, I have no real beef. Its a bit annoying that you took on such a hostile attitude in your OP but I'm used to that here and really don't have any animosity from it. I only entered this thread to make the points I made in my first response and since then have been caught up in the conversation.

Not to mention that it's one of the tactics (like the phrase "lack of belief") that is used to tilt the argument in natural favor of atheism and make it sound like some kind of default.

Atheism is the default, just like a-astrology (not believing in astrology) is the default. We can bicker over semantics if you like but I will define atheist as a-theist - not theist. Somebody who doesn't hold a theistic beleif. Babies do not come into the world theistic. They may instinctively seek to imprint on a parent, authority figure or even "higher power", but the specific concept of a deity (and certainly any particular deity you'd care to name) is well beyond that and takes some teaching. This teaching usually takes place in one's impressionable youth, which is why adult conversions to religion are pretty rare.

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

As to what extraordinary evidence I'd need to turn theist, that is a good question. It would have to be something beyond books and people claiming to be prophets. It would have to be something only a God could do. Come to think of it, no need for a sign or physical evidence. A God could simply make me know he's real. That he hasn't shows that for some reason he doesn't want to or that he can't (because either he doesn't exist or isn't all powerful).

 

[zoro]

Pygoscelis: It was a pleasure to again read your intelligent and calming ideas. You are a credit to your fellow Humanists. With respect to your space-alien analogy, it reminded me of what Feynman said:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers – because I am scientific, I know all about flying saucers! I said, “I don’t think there are flying saucers.” So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely.” At that he said, “You aren’t very scientific. If you can’t prove it’s impossible, then how can you say what’s more likely and what’s less likely?” But that’s the way that IS scientific. It’s scientific only to say what’s more likely and what’s less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it’s much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It’s just more likely; that’s all.

Yahya Sulaiman: I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent, with impressive linguistic and logical capabilities. For your own sake and for humanity’s, I do hope that you expand your knowledge about the limits of logic and the capabilities of science, for if you were to do so, I expect that you, too, would become a Humanist.

Mad Scientist: You’d probably find that you’d be able to communicate more effectively without your foot in your mouth.

The Vale’s Lily: My sincere hope for you is that you experience love.

Woodrow: You did fare well! Farewell, again.

 

[جوري]

Yahya Sulaiman: I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent. The Vale’s Lily: My sincere hope for you is that you experience love. Woodrow: You did fare well! Farewell, again.

Nice piece of protracted propaganda there-- if only you were lucid enough not to come across as a complete paranoid schizophrenic-- do take your stench out of here for good and live out those things you personally can neither define nor prove with your divisible zeros!

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent, with impressive linguistic and logical capabilities. For your own sake and for humanity’s, I do hope that you expand your knowledge about the limits of logic and the capabilities of science, for if you were to do so, I expect that you, too, would become a Humanist.

Thank you for the compliments; no thanks for the old "I'm sure that if you just studied enough then you would agree with me" routine, which is only a deceptively congenial version of, "You obviously can't be intelligent and disagree with me unless you're ignorant."

 

[Ramadhan]

Babies do not come into the world theistic. They may instinctively seek to imprint on a parent, authority figure or even "higher power",

Has there been any research or studies done on this, or is it just your opinion?

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

Isn't true though that the unifying trait among all atheists are that they do not believe a creator of the universe exists?

Or are there atheists that believe our universe is created?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Or are there atheists that believe our universe is created?

I once met a fellow who believed that our universe was created by beings in another universe. I did not ask if he also believed in gods, but if he did not then he certainly would fit your query.

Most atheists I have spoken to will frankly admit to not knowing how the universe came to be. The big bang is our best scientific guess but what sparked it? An oscilating universe (the big crunch) some guess. A spin off from another universe others wonder. But really most will admit (as I myself admit) they simply do not know.

You don't have to know the right answer to a question to view a proposed answer as wrong.

 

[Ramadhan]

I once met a fellow who believed that our universe was created by beings in another universe. I did not ask if he also believed in gods, but if he did not then he certainly would fit your query.

Most atheists I have spoken to will frankly admit to not knowing how the universe came to be. The big bang is our best scientific guess but what sparked it? An oscilating universe (the big crunch) some guess. A spin off from another universe others wonder. But really most will admit (as I myself admit) they simply do not know.

I am now a bit confused about the meaning of atheist.
I always thought that atheists do not believe in the existence of the creator of the universe (in other words, atheists do not believe that the universe is created). But now it seems atheists are not sure what to believe.

You don't have to know the right answer to a question to view a proposed answer as wrong.

what is the question? what is the proposed answer?
what are the yardsticks to determine whether the proposed answer right or wrong?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Atheism is the default, just like a-astrology (not believing in astrology) is the default. We can bicker over semantics if you like but I will define atheist as a-theist - not theist. Somebody who doesn't hold a theistic beleif. Babies do not come into the world theistic.

No it isn't the default! For crying out loud, whether you (and ONLY you atheists EVER do this) choose by own accord to use the same word "atheism" to include people who have never heard of God, that doesn't change the fact that, semantics aside, they're still a different group of people from those who disbelieve in God! You can't just say, "Babies don't come into the world theistic; therefore they come into the world atheistic": that excludes more middles than just the one babies appear to belong to (those who don't know about the situation at all)!

Nobody ever disbelieves in astrology who doesn't know about astrology. Babies, for example, are not born knowing about it. If somebody decided to make "those who have never heard of astrology" into an alternate possible meaning or category of your term "a-astrologer", how silly do you think you would find it if they made the argument that therefore "a-astrology is the default" and therefore disbelief in it is the natural position? It wouldn't change the fact that people do disbelieve in astrology and people who have never heard of it are still two very different, mutually exclusive groups, would it? Equivocation fallacy much?

I am certain that you are going to duck and dodge that too, probably with the ambiguity in your term "a-astrologer". So let me give you another analogy in a vain attempt to convince you to let yourself understand. Let's say that I defined "theism" the same way. Let's say that it was even a commonly accepted and universally dictionary-approved definition of "theism" that one of its meanings or sub-groups was those who don't know about God at all. Now let's say that I used that as an argument to support the idea that people are born theistic. What would you think?

Never mind, it's useless.

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

What difference does it make?? What does materialism have to do with it?? People are not born disbelieving in anything; therefore it is dishonest to say that those who do disbelieve just so happen to be included in the same category, expressed by a select few with the same word, and therefore atheism itself is the default. Materialism is a complete non-sequitur here.

Why do I always keep trying even when I know that what I'm trying to accomplish is useless???

As to what extraordinary evidence I'd need to turn theist, that is a good question.

Which I didn't ask.

It would have to be something beyond books and people claiming to be prophets. It would have to be something only a God could do. Come to think of it, no need for a sign or physical evidence. A God could simply make me know he's real. That he hasn't shows that for some reason he doesn't want to or that he can't (because either he doesn't exist or isn't all powerful).

Would you please read that link I gave about the appeal to probability? Whether you're familiar with fallacy or not, you seem to need brushing up.