Religion and Morality

[JohnFKennedy]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

[Gabu]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

[Emsworth]

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

There is a difference between asserting/believing that God does not exist and not asserting/believing that God does exist. The former implies the latter, but not vice versa. It is the latter which defines atheism.

[Gabu]

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

There is a difference between asserting/believing that God does not exist and not asserting/believing that God does exist. The former implies the latter, but not vice versa. It is the latter which defines atheism.

Yes, I know.  I was replying to JFK about skepticism, not atheism.

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.

[Emsworth]

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.

No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)

[Gabu]

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.

No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)

I suppose you're correct in your technical analysis of the word "atheism" ("without" + "the belief in a god or gods"), but if you look at any dictionary definition of the word, it'll tell you that it means "the belief that God does not exist" or something along those lines.  For all practical purposes, that's what the word "atheism" means, and any attempt to get it to mean something else will only result in confusion.  Anyone who is not overly pedantic who tells you that they're an atheist just told you that they believe no god exists.

[JohnFKennedy]

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.

No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)

I suppose you're correct in your technical analysis of the word "atheism" ("without" + "the belief in a god or gods"), but if you look at any dictionary definition of the word, it'll tell you that it means "the belief that God does not exist" or something along those lines.  For all practical purposes, that's what the word "atheism" means, and any attempt to get it to mean something else will only result in confusion.  Anyone who is not overly pedantic who tells you that they're an atheist just told you that they believe no god exists.

I quoted the definition of atheism a few pages back - disbelief in the existence of a God or deity (or words to that effect). It was disbelief, hence without the belief in God.

[JohnFKennedy]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

[Gabu]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

A lack of belief does not indicate a disbelief, though.  The skeptic is one who simply feels that he or she does not know.  A skeptic will place the burden of proof on whoever is making a claim, and will say that the lack of proof is proof that nothing has been proven - but not that anything has been disproven.  There's a very large difference between a lack of belief and disbelief - a lack of belief simply means that you are not convinced that it is true, whereas disbelief means that you are convince that it is not true.

Take the example of Schroedinger's Cat.  If you don't know what this is, essentially, a live cat is placed in a box with a cannister of a very powerful poison, and an experiment is carried out where the cannister has a chance of breaking.  At the end of the experiment, due to its nature, it is completely unknown whether or not the cat is now dead.

Suppose, now, that a person makes the claim, "The cat is alive."  The skeptic would then turn to that person and ask, "Why?  Do you have any proof?"  The skeptic would ask this because does not see compelling evidence to show that the cat is alive.  This does not, however, mean that the skeptic thinks that the cat is dead - if someone else made the claim, "The cat is dead," the skeptic would have the exact same response.  The skeptic feels that we can't know one way or another until we open the box, and thus presents a lack of belief towards both sides.

I think the crucial point to be made here that forms the crux of the matter is that not believing something is true has no correlation to believing it to be false.  There is a middle ground to be found - it is the fallacy of a false dilemma to assert that one must either believe or disbelieve a claim, and that if you don't believe, then you disbelieve.

[John Dibble]

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

Actually, no it doesn't - it can trend either way, really. There are degrees of skepticism, afterall.