"There's probably no god" is taken as a statement proving the supreme arrogance of atheists, and condemned.

"Jesus Christ is the son of God and my lord and savior" is taken as a statement showing reverence and faith, and admired.

Once again we return to the perfect quote: "When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

One of those two statements is deeply offensive to some, even though it really shouldn't be.

For experimentalists, mathematicians and agnostics it's really hard to know something with 100% confidence. It's a pure matter of statistics. 100% confidence in a statement is only possible if we have 100% of information. But we almost never have 100% of all the information that COULD possibly exist.
Because that's the crux: If you look at the data from your experiment, you also have to take into account that there is more data out there that just so happened not to show up in this one particular measurement.

That's why experimentalists, mathematicians and agnostics shy away from making hard, absolute statements: Because they KNOW that they cannot KNOW for sure.



"There's probably no God." is a statement of doubt.

Belief on the other hand is rooted in the principle that we CAN know something for sure.

The statement does refer to God, but on a deeper level it attacks the notion that belief is a valid way of thinking.

There is no way to calculate, or otherwise estimate a probability either way. So in essence it is a flawed statement in and of itself. The only truly accurate statement that can be made is "no one can know, it is an article of faith".

It lacks any sort of real meaning. For me, the statement is: "I don't believe that deities exist."

That is a statement of truth, since it only refers to my own personal assessment. It says nothing about anyone else and what they might or might not believe.

And yet, that statement, too is seen by some as an attack on their belief. Why, I do not understand. What does my lack of belief mean to anyone but myself?

My statement is not an invitation to a presentation of some sort of argument, either. It is a firm statement of personal disbelief, not a weak statement of probabilities.

And yet, it is often seen as a challenge.

The sun will probably appear in the eastern sky tomorrow. This isn't a flawed statement.

The sun will probably not appear in the eastern sky tomorrow. This is a flawed statement.

"Leprechauns don't exist."

"Unicorns don't exist."

"Santa Claus doesn't exist."

Now is it possible that (depending on definitions, of course), you could find something somewhere in the universe that proves any of the above statements false? Absolutely. A horse with a mutant gene causing a horn to grow straight out of its head could be called a unicorn, couldn't it?

I think that's where a lot of people get tripped up - they don't bat an eye if someone says any of those, but all of a sudden when you say "gods don't exist" then it's OMG THAT'S A STATEMENT OF FAITH JUST AS MUCH AS SAYING GOD EXISTS THAT'S WHY I'M SMARTER AND MORE TOLERANT AND AGNOSTIC AND KEEP MY MIND OPEN.

No, sometimes saying "X doesn't exist" is shorthand for "I have seen absolutely no evidence that X exists, and until such evidence is presented, I'm comfortable saying it doesn't."

But try to get some people to understand that nuance - it just doesn't work.

1) One or more gods exist
2) The aforementioned higher power created something
3) The aforementioned higher power intervenes with the existence of humans

Positive atheism makes only one claim that isn't incredible at all.

The theist is happy to hang out at stage 3 until tough questions are posed, at which point they retreat to 1, say you can't disprove it, wait until you give up, then come right back to 3. A sort of Schroedinger's god, one which is simultaneously undefinable but also has a very specific definition when one or the other is most convenient.

I believe they are in the minority of atheists. That assertion is a direct challenge to believers. It serves very little, functionally, except to start an argument. That's why most atheists I know say, "I do not believe that a deity/deities exist." Others use the "Deities probably don't exist," which is really not a statement that means much.

That atheists don't express a belief.

Nuance, too.

begs an argument from someone who believes they do. Saying "I do not believe" simply states your opinion on the matter. You might still get an argument, but it is a weaker one, since you have asserted nothing but your nonbelief, leaving belief as an option for others.

In between is the statement, "I believe there are no gods." That statement will get a lot of nonsense regarding why the other person does believe. The "I do not believe" is often simply challenged with the question "Why?" That can be answered with "I have seen no evidence that they do," which allows you to walk away without a lecture, since you have answered the question fully.

"There is no evidence" is different from the statement "they do not exist". There is no evidence they do OR DON'T exist. The only logical statement is "there is no evidence they exist". You'll still don't "believe" they exist, but you also don't believe they DON'T exist.

So you probably won't find any defenders of positive atheism here.

Because there is some nuance as to what "there is no evidence for," means in terms of positive vs. negative atheism. Just my suggestion, you don't have to take it. I could be wrong.

I could calculate the probability of the sun rising (a little definition would be required). Furthermore, I could confirm the event the next day. A mathematical estimate of the probability of life on other planets has been made, despite never identifying one. (It's based predominately upon the fact that there is life here). If you define an observable event, it can basically be quantified in terms of probability. The value may always be in question. But for the question at hand, there is nothing upon which to estimate and so there is no value to dispute.

...well said, you make our point.

Just sayin'

Whether or not you can is irrelevant to whether or not you’d need to do so in order to make a reasonable assertion on which way it’s more likely to go.

If I recall correctly, these "proofs" were filled with logical flaws. Anyone can write down a bunch of equations and numbers, but that doesn't make them useful.

Both are fairly well founded, based upon measurable and verifiable data. They are both extrapolations, which always run the risk of inaccuracies (although the one about the sun is only a single day extrapolation).

Ya only have to wait a day for the sun (depending upon onees definition of "rising&quot . Aliens, well, at this point one is going to have to wait to hear/see them since we have little capacity to go/see there. Although the world did get a bit excited a little while ago when they thought they had detected an alien superstructure near a distant star.

For example, there is non-zero probability that a vein of gold is located underneath a mountain. You can drill holes and look for it, but the vein might be very small, and you can only drill so many holes and only go so deep. But based solely on drilling and finding nothing, you can estimate the probability that there may actually be gold under the mountain, but you missed it.

So exactly what data are you going to use to show that, despite looking, you didn't find a god? Do you know what to look for?

God in the Bible is said to have caused certain miracles to have happened, and that's the proof. But based on our modern understanding of how legends develop, we can say no such God exists.

Some say God is the First Cause. But based on modern physics, we think the universe is self-caused in a way we do not fully understand (which leaves the possibility of God open, but much less likely than thought 300 years ago).

If we don't understand something, because we don't know a falsifiable definition, all we are expressing is our own limitations. Relativity long existed before we knew what falsifiable things to go test for.

Which has proposed many gods. Presumably when we are talking about gods, we have some particular definition in mind. If we don't, then why are even calling them gods? We could just as well call them covfefe and ask if covfefe exists. I don't think the problem of defining covfefe is reflective of our own limitations, but rather a problem with the word itself.

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2019, 06:14 PM - Edit history (3)

I don't speak for anybody else but "There probably is no God" gets peoples hackles up because it's perceived as an attack on their self. It's a difficult spot to believe in something that can't conclusively be proven and is tied deeply into your core belief systems anyway.

No matter what the questioners intention the phrase ends up seeming like an personal attack on the believer. The connotation being that xyz religious person is "an idiot" for believing in something that has no conclusive proof.

I think it is a logical error.

The statement, "There is no god." is a much stronger one. It's not a statement I would make, because I have no proof and no proof is possible. I simply say, "I don't believe that deities exist at all." That is a true statement.

But, "There probably is no God," is really not much of a statement at all. I simply would never say that.

Thanks for your reply in this thread.

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2019, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The problem is that it sounds, and is taken, as dismissive in the way is sort of hand-waves the entire discussion(at least in my opinion).

Here, I'll repeat it:

Some of the interactions that get complaints go something like this:

Theist: "Why are you an atheist?"
Atheist: "Well, I realized there isn't any evidence that gods exist, so I don't believe they do."
Theist: "So you think all believers are illogical/irrational/intellectually inferior/stupid."
Atheist: "I didn't say that at all."
Theist: "But that's clearly what you implied."

Etc.

You'd be amazed how often this kind of exchange happens.

I got lectured yesterday that atheists aren't suppose to say believe. They're suppose to stick to some variation of "it hasn't been proven so I as yet choose not to believe".

It looks a lot like you're trying to pretend that "faith" and "belief" mean the same thing. They don't.

We went down this road. One of two common definitions pretty much equates them, and it is the one that is relevant to this topic. Belief of the form in which one draws a conclusion despite any evidence is indistinguishable from faith. We just tend to use faith when discussing this kind of belief associated with deities.

"Supply side is a stupid idea because the evidence shows it has the exact opposite effect."

"You are calling me stupid so that makes you a bad person."

The majority of Christian voters in the US cast ballots for Trump, after all. I know there are non-Christian right wingers, and Christian liberals, there sure does appear to be some correlation there.

gods can’t be conclusively be proven, it’s the uncomfortable fact that there is no evidence at all that any of them do exist.

We live in a modern society with a very strong influence from enlightenment theories of empirical knowledge. Evidence matters, pun intended, with respect to “what we know”. But religions are generally based on pre-modern theories of revealed truth. So there is this huge conflict over “different ways of knowing”. Even if most people are not conscious of the conflict, statements like “there probably is no god” expose the rift.

...stating that there is probably no god(s)" is meaningful, and (as a bonus) logical.

but find it wholly unsatisfying. By saying, "I don't believe that deities exist," you are stating your thinking about it, that you have considered it, and don't believe they exist.

It's slightly less authoritative than saying "Deities do not exist," but gets across the point that you don't think they do. That's why I use that form, even though it is often taken as a challenge by some. It is not a challenge, though.

... and, reviewing from a different angle, I also strive to avoid the imperative "Deities do not exist".

I prefer something on the order of "the thesis of god(s) existence has been proffered with no evidence that comports with reality and therefore does not warrant any serious commitment of my time and/or effort to address."

The claim is entirely unsupported and unproven.

In the absence of any evidence there is nothing to rationally debate, nothing to ponder in reality.

This is where I depart from both sides. There is little to ponder in the sense that one can wonder alot, but there will be nothing to find. And really, even if one (or more) exists, is there really any chance at all of understanding such a being? One is better off looking for aliens, or attempting to prove they don't exist. I don't give either side much of a chance.

...."there is nothing to rationally debate, nothing to ponder in reality, in regards to that particular topic."

There is nothing one will find that will address whether there are, or are not, deities. For one thing, it presumes one would understand them well enough to know what to look for.

Who is actively engaged in this practically impossible endeavor?

While there are many who are actively engaged in finding evidence of extraterrestrial life, I'm not aware of anyone who is actively engaged in trying to prove extraterrestrial life doesn't exist.

That would be a useless, meaningless and futile activity. A make work project for philosophers, or maybe theologians.

If W(x,y) is a function that weights the likelihood of a proposition x based on some set of evidence y, say there exists an x such that x meets the criterion that it be God and that W(x,y) holds true.

Many concepts of deities say there is no y (and intentionally so). There are also the problems of those creator deities that apparently no longer exist.

I believe that any proposition that is unfalsifiable is neither existent or nonexistent, it's undefined, because we can't tell the difference between a world that has a God vs. one that doesn't.

Do believe unfalsifiable things exist?

Falsifiable things require knowing what to "look for" in the first place. I believe there are things we don't know what to look for that exist.

I suspect there may be particles we still do not know about, or even imagine. There may be forces we don't know about. Dimensions we don't know about. It's been said more than once that any reasonably technologically advanced society would look like magic to one that wasn't nearly as advanced.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

There may be particles and forces we don't know about, but we know particles and forces when we see them, so we do know what to look for. If it's something we can't even imagine, then there isn't even a question. If there isn't a question, then what are talking about?

What kind of atheist believes in a deity?

"There's probably no God" and "There probably is a God"

The first is weighed heavily towards believing in no God. The second towards a God. Whatever that weight is depends on the person. For the sake of argument let's say 99% - 1%.

I think the first is a perfectly legitimate response for a non religious person as no one can know 100% that there is none.

The second is much more odd. The only one using it would be someone who has been a believer but perhaps their faith is waning slightly. Some kind of first indicator of sliding away from religion. But it's a position that is respected neither in the religious community nor the atheist community. It is a very private conclusion based on a personal internal pivot point in a small percent of the population.

(see what I did there?!)