30 replies to this topic

[Utnapishtim]

WHY IMMORTALITY IS NONSENSE

Are you a familar with Hume's fork? It is a philosophical utensil for seperating interesting problems from bogus ones and was developed by the scottish David Hume in the 18th century.

The basic idea is that every statement falls into one of three categories
envisioned as the tines of a fork
1) Either True or false by definition
2) Dependent on Experience
3) Just nonsense

Hume argued that only the second category of statement is interesting.

Hume saw type 1 statements as tautologies. To say that a Labrador is a dog is merely to restate the definition of Labrador. To state 2 + 2 = 4 is merely to follow the logical consequences of how we have defined the terms.

Type 2 statements are about matters of fact which are not neccesarily true and which tell us something new about the world. To say that "Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants" is informative because Hannibal might not have done. Type 2 statements are the only ones which provide us with real new knowledge

Statements abut immortality are neither necessarily true (Since their denial isn't neccesarily false) nor empirical, since no amount of experience can prove to us we are immortal.

Immortality and claims about it are therefore nonsense by definition

comments?

Edited by Utnapishtim, 11 July 2003 - 02:08 PM.

[DJS]

Well, if you proceed with that logic, then all theoritical technologies of past and present are nonsense. Following this form of logic, discussing a possible cure for polio before the vaccine was invented would have been viewed by Hume as nonsense. How would any progress take place if all potential discoveries are nonsense?

I think that is why science is superior to philosophy in handling future trends. Philosophy will say something is nonsense and throw it in the trash. Science will say something has the potential to be nonsense, and then proceed to prove it one way or the other.

Kissinger

[hughbristic]

Utnapishtim:

Big fan of Hume, though the analytic/synthetic distinction evident in 1 versus 2 has generally been accepted as being subsumed by the ontological relativity of Quine.

Saying that anything will exist forever has problems in that there doesn't seem to be any given time when an observation will satisfy as proof. Seems to be more of a problem with the word forever rather than immortality though. Perhaps there is a way of phrasing it sensibly that I am missing though. I think in practical terms people just mean a very long time. The most scientific way to talk about it seems to be in terms of negligible senescence as per Aubrey de Grey.

Kissinger:

Analytic philosophy is a way of stating things in a way so that they CAN be tested by science. Science can't "prove" anything unless what is being posited can be operationalized. I don't think you fully appreciate how easy it is to think you are saying something when you really aren't.

Hugh

[DJS]

ah! I got you. I missed the point there. [bl:)]

Let me see if I can get this right.

Somethings are self evident: The current President of the United States is GW Bush.

Somethings must be proven: GW Bush has increased federal spending during his Presidency. (This may be true, but it must be proven.)

Somethings can not be proven: GW Bush will get us all killed if reelected. (This may be true, but it can't be proven.)

Is this more on target?

---------------------------------------

Or is it, since we will never know that we will live forever (because the future is uncertain) that Hume would say it is nonsense? I think that is more what you are speaking of Hugh.

But what happened if we were eventually designed out of an indestructable material and had a back up copy of our "soul", just in case. Couldn't we then claim to be immortal.

And also, isn't this the whole reason why we refer to ourselves as immortalists and not immortals?

Edited by Kissinger, 11 July 2003 - 09:42 PM.

[hughbristic]

I am a novice in philosophy.  Sorry if I am missing the boat. 

Well, despite my name, I certainly don't want to be so arrogant as to assume that the little I've read makes me an expert. I'll probably stick my foot in my mouth just like anyone, but I do feel that some of what I've read is relevant, even if I am not very successful at expressing it.

Wouldn't this whole line of thought invalidate any kind of prognostication?  Wouldn't it make our whole movement...nonsense?

Not at all. Prognostication is fine. It is just a matter of framing what you say (or predict) in a way that is falsifiable within the bounds of other beliefs to which you have made ontological commitments.

And why should I accept Hume's fork?

I'm not sure that you should accept Hume's fork, per se (for the reasons I gave before about Quine), but you should accept the principle that there is a direct relationship between meaningfullness and the ability to operationalize what you are saying. Why accept that? It is the most self-consistent way of talking about what we are doing with language, maybe?

Like I said, I am no expert, and may have already subtly misrepresented verificationism and Quine. These are very powerful ideas though, which are greatly helpful in allowing you to realize when we really making sense and when we are just spouting bullshit, as most of philosophy seems to do. If you haven't studied this stuff before, in a quick search of the web, I found some resources from a Trinity College course on Philosophy of Language that might serve as a good introduction:

Some Basic Distinctions
Early Modern Background
Verificationism
Ayer, LT&L, chapter 3
Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
Ayer on Truth

Hugh

[DJS]

Sorry Hugh, I changed my response
[lol]

Thanks for the links

Edited by Kissinger, 11 July 2003 - 09:44 PM.

[hughbristic]

ah!  I got you.  I missed the point there. [bl:)]

Let me see if I can get this right.

Somethings are self evident:  The current President of the United States is GW Bush.

Yes.

Somethings must be proven:  GW Bush has increased federal spending during his Presidency.  (This may be true, but it must be proven.)

Yes.

Somethings can not be proven:  GW Bush will get us all killed if reelected.  (This may be true, but it can't be proven.)

Is this more on target?

Sort of, but not quite. The above is a meaningful statement, because there is a way of knowing if it is true. Namely, you can wait and if Bush is reelected see if anyone dies of other causes before Bush has a chance to kill them. This makes the statement meaningful.

A meaningless statement would be something on the order of "There are fairies that hide behind trees whenever anyone goes into the forest and can never be detected." What possible observation could ever disprove this statement?

More importantly, metaphysical systems such as idealism and realism can be seen as meaningless when viewed in this pragmatic context. What evidence would suffice to show that everything in the world was the product of mind or that only mind-independent physical objects exist? There is none. Therefore, one must question whether these putative theories are really positing anything and have meaning.

Hope that helps.

Hugh

[Utnapishtim]

Kissinger
Hugh pretty much clarified what I was trying to get at, quite possibly better than I could have done myself. I am unfamiliar with quine and also need to do some background reading in this area

Hugh
I will defintiely check out the link you posted! Thanks from this side too.

[hughbristic]

One question: Why Kissinger?

Hugh

[DJS]

A meaningless statement would be something on the order of "There are fairies that hide behind the trees whenever anyone goes into the forest and can never be detected."  What possible observation could ever disprove this statement?

Ah, wait a minute. This is the same argument used by atheists to deny God! "God exists" -- what possible observation could ever disprove this statement. I think I am beginning to understand the atheist's position more clearly.

The agnostic says, "Well, you can't prove it one way or the other."

The atheist says, "You're never going to be able to prove it one way or the other so it is an irrelevant question."

As far as my name, let's just say that you and I would probably disagree on foreign policy, although I am beginning to modify my views somewhat -- I think I like Immortalism more than my pension for neo-con foreign policy. Plus, it just makes me so conflicted politically since I lean towards the left on social issues. I think 9/11 made me a little crazy for a while. [:o] Weren't you here for the "Should we go to war in Iraq" thread?


Kissinger

Edited by Kissinger, 11 July 2003 - 10:44 PM.

[hughbristic]

The agnostic says, "Well, you can't prove it one way or the other."

The atheist says, "You're never going to be able to prove it one way or the other so it is an irrelevant question."

Yeah, that's definitely closer to what I mean. I think you are starting to get it.

Hugh

[Casanova]

First of all, using Hume's philosophy to disprove God, once and for all, is nonsense in itself. It can only disprove God within it's linguistic circle; within it's closed-system.

To prove God, you must go a level above Hume's Logic, to the Trans-Logic, or Non-Dual domain.
That requires the advanced techniques of the best mystics/contemplaters.

Reality, with a capital R, includes, but ultimately transcends both science, and philosophy.

This is why I keep insisiting that all of you read Ken Wilber. He is brilliant at collecting, organizing, and cataloging, all the domains of knowledge; science, philosophy, religion, psychology, etc., and placing them in their proper order.
I would advise Henry the K, to read Wilber, before he reads that list of books mentioned, above.
Wilber gives you a framework, so that you can make sense of all the knowledge you have aquired.
Wilber admires Hume, but he shows how limited Hume is, when it comes to understanding the totality of existence.

[DJS]

I would advise Henry the K, to read Wilber, before he reads that list of books mentioned, above.

You would advise me? [huh] LOL. I may be a novice at philosophy, but I am not a retard. I'm sorry, I don't mean to burst your bubble or anything (well, yes I do [lol] ), but I really don't value you opinion. I disagree, fundamentally, with everything you have posted here at ImmInst.

On a scale of 1 to 10 - Peter, Utna, Lazarus, and Hugh would be in the 8 to 10 range. You'd be a 1. I can recognize superior minds when I see them, and you are not even remotely at their level. So let's see what Peter has to say about Wilber...

Ocsrazor

In my opinion, Ken Wilber is not a particularly good thinker and there is nothing really interesting or novel in his writing. His optimism is nice, but he is excessively wordy, very superficial, and does not grasp many of the scientific concepts he talks about in his books. In particular, he does not understand complex and emergent systems. He also does not understand the relationship of science and religion in the development of human culture.I agree with him that integration of the sciences and spirituality needs to take place, but he is way off on the methodology (we need to move forward, his ideas are a step back).

From the samplings I've taken of Wilber I would agree that he is very wordy. Aside from this observation I will defer to Peter for now, as my time is valuable and I am already juggling far too many books. At some later date I may go back to Wilber.

P.S. - I understand that you are tickled pink by Wilber. Maybe you should just have his love child and get over it. [] Seriously, get some variety. Not only are you annoying me, but you're boring me as well.

[Cyto]

I'm not trying to be an arse.

The atheist says, "You're never going to be able to prove it one way or the other so it is an irrelevant question."

Person 1: "Theres a being that brought everything into existence."

Person 2: "Is there any observable evidence of such a dominant occurrence(in Person 1's view)?"

Person 1: "You can't see it, detect it, only feel it in your brain when praying(evidence against them)."

Person 2: "I will not consider your position until you can directly observe, even a little bit, of a creator generating an organism."

I think this is different from what you stated. What I get from "can't prove it one way or the other" is disprove or prove. So I want to say that it will be relevant, like you said, only when there is some credible evidence. Personal opinion of an atheist is that this will never be shown due to the 'creator' not present.

Or I just completely misunderstood you. heh.

[DJS]

Yeah, I reverted once again to the language of an agnostic. ) Did you read the few posts before mine and the part about the magic fairies? I was just trying to summarize those points, unsuccessfully apparently. I think I understand you CarboniX. However, please allow me to beat a dead horse, just a little while longer.

The position of an atheist is that there is no God. No God. To me, that is a claim to specific knowledge. It all depends what your definition of God is. Could God be conscious? Not in my opinion. Could God have feelings/emotions? Not in my opinion. Could a God without any of the aforementioned attributes still help explain the meaning of existence? Yes, I think there is a possibility it could.

And isn't that the whole point, to understand our universe? And no, finding meaning is not anthropomorphizing. It is the primary imperative of our consciousness, and as such it can not be ignored. I'll end this with a quote.

There is no such thing as a favorable wind for a ship with no direction. - Seneca The Elder

Kissinger

Edited by Kissinger, 02 August 2003 - 08:48 AM.

[hughbristic]

Interesting article on a scientist who seems to have resolved Zeno's paradox.

http://www.eurekaler...c-gwi072703.php

The physics is a little above my head, but I think the gist is that their is no such thing as a "moment" in time. Only ranges of time can be sensibly talked about, and the concept of an instant is a quick and dirty idea used by our conscious mind to make sense of things in a rough sort of way. Seems like this has implications for the way mathematicians have formalized the conception of infinity, though, again, sadly, I must plead ignorance since I haven't studied math that deeply.

Hugh

[hughbristic]

To prove God, you must go a level above Hume's Logic, to the Trans-Logic, or Non-Dual domain.
That requires the advanced techniques of the best mystics/contemplaters.

Trans-Logic? What the f*** is that? The science of pulling things willy-nilly out of your arse? By the inexorable logistics of the non-dual domain and relying on the august practices of the ancient sages, I deduce that the universe is truly a rutabaga planted by the great Sweedish turnip farmer of the Nth dimension! Disagree? You must not have read Wilber deeply enough.

Hugh

[Cyto]

The position of an atheist is that there is no God. No God. To me, that is a claim to specific knowledge.

If I were to choose to play hypothetical about there being a god and say 'no god' I could see how that is taken as 'special knowledge.' But, in the first place, I never really did recognize the anti-existence or existence - thus referring back to your irrelevancy of the issue. Since I am bound though to play the "what if" game lets move on...

It all depends what your definition of God is. Could God be conscious? Not in my opinion. Could God have feelings/emotions? Not in my opinion. Could a God without any of the aforementioned attributes still help explain the meaning of existence? Yes, I think there is a possibility it could.

I don't speak for all atheists but I do think Trans-Atheists would agree with me. I do think events started it all. Don't take that sentence out of context though, I would be talking about chemical dispositions to generate organic molecules. As for the big bang-I'm not an astro person. So, if your god is the earth and also from what I understand, the moon, then ok but I'm not going to call anything a god. Rather a natural occurrence. Something without: conscious, feel, or any of the other characteristics makes me think if we are talking about the same thing.

Overall though...
I take these explanations that have 'no evidence of a god(s) goddess(es) doing' and hence I never gave a creator a thought. So I think I'm not taking any claim to knowledge since the existence and anti-existence don't exist( heh), in my view. I don't go out and try to provide 'evidence against the god-head' since there is nothing to consider it in the first place, is what I mean. It would explain things if there was an observance of a creator making biological organisms or a planetary system but, until then. *grin*

Now that I think about your make-up of a god figure it sounds like your dropping a creator to a zero-point and the way you put it makes it sound like a vegtable.

What does anthropomorphizing mean again?

And isn't that the whole point, to understand our universe?

Personally, if I can survive then I will care about continuing to understand Orga. *boos come from the shadows*

There is no such thing as a favorable wind for a ship with no direction. - Seneca The Elder

The quote can be taken as many things. Saying that since atheists don't think there is a creator we have no direction in life? Were missing out on something? *shrug* If you could elaborate.

[DJS]

But, in the first place, I never really did recognize the anti-existence or existence

I understand, but billions of people world wide believe in a Creator. This is not to say that the popularity of an idea makes it right, but that the concept of God can not be swept under the rug as easily as the idea of magical woodland fairies. For me, the term God could translate into existence explained. If you go by my existence explained definition, then we haven't found God yet, but instead we see signs of it in the amazing complexity of the universe, and we are working toward "God" by continuing to augment our understanding of the world around us.

Anthropomorphizing means ascribing human characteristics to things not human. One of the problems I have with atheism is that it fails to see the possibility of a God without a human face on it. I see this as a possibility and am therefore an agnostic.

So, if your god is the earth and also from what I understand, the moon, then ok but I'm not going to call anything a god.  Rather a natural occurrence.  Something without: conscious, feel, or any of the other characteristics makes me think if we are talking about the same thing.

Like I said, God could represent the answer to the ultimate question. Obviously we are not on quite the same wave length because you are atheist and I am agnostic.

I don't go out and try to provide 'evidence against the god-head' since there is nothing to consider it in the first place, is what I mean.  It would explain things if there was an observance of a creator making biological organisms or a planetary system but, until then. *grin*

Stating that there is nothing to consider is a fixed position. There is always something to consider. Also. for me, the terms creator and God are not necessarily synonymous. This is one of those points that I am strongly agnostic on.

Personally, if I can survive then I will care about continuing to understand Orga. *boos come from the shadows*

haha. I believe in walking and chewing gum at the same time. I want it all. Survival and understanding.

The quote can be taken as many things.  Saying that since atheists don't think there is a creator we have no direction in life?  Were missing out on something? *shrug* If you could elaborate.

Well, the quote was definitely not an attack on atheism. I view atheists as brethren with a slightly different take on things. If Rand were alive today to debate me she would make me look silly. Atheism is a tenable position that can be argued effectively. I was eluding to my personal philosophy that we (humanity) need to continue to strive for the "Answer" and that there is value in acknowledging this fact.

Kissinger

[John Doe]

I understand, but billions of people world wide believe in a Creator.  This is not to say that the popularity of an idea makes it right, but that the concept of God can not be swept under the rug as easily as the idea of magical woodland fairies.  For me, the term God could translate into existence explained.  If you go by my existence explained definition, then we haven't found God yet, but instead we see signs of it in the amazing complexity of the universe, and we are working toward "God" by continuing to augment our understanding of the world around us.

This is a question for the dictionary. Dictionary.com says:

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Unfortunately for agnostics, none of these definitions even resembles "existence eplained". Also, the word atheism only denotes the lack of belief in God, and therefore agnostics are a subset of atheists (however much agnosticists wish to avoid that label). Sentences such as:

Obviously we are not on quite the same wave length because you are atheist and I am agnostic.

reinforce this false dichotomy.

Finally, allow me to quote Freud, whose atheism is not in question:

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions. One would like to mix among the ranks of the believers in order to meet these philosophers, who think they can rescue the God of religion by replacing him by an impersonal shadowy and abstract principle, and to address them with the warning words: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'"

[DJS]

JD,

Of course there are differences between atheists and agnostics! Isn't it obvious from the differing positions we take?

Regarding that last quote by Freud...

Are you somehow implying that I (and agnostics in general) are defenders of religion?? I can assure you I most definitely am not. Or am I reading this quote wrong?

Also, dictionary.com had very classical definitions of God. I choose to define my potential God in the way I see fit. Why must I conform to preconceived notions? And what would you call my concept of [Existence Explained], other than God?

I am thinking of writing an article on my "existence explained" to flesh out this idea, do you think it has potential? Also, do atheists have any hope that existence may be explained, or do they refute this out right?

[hughbristic]

Finally, allow me to quote Freud, whose atheism is not in question:

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions. One would like to mix among the ranks of the believers in order to meet these philosophers, who think they can rescue the God of religion by replacing him by an impersonal shadowy and abstract principle, and to address them with the warning words: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'"

Great quote John!

Hugh

[Cyto]

Well I don't see any conflict in your god=existence explained, all theists think this. The complexity argument? Well, I could respond to this but since your idea of a god can be altered how you see fit I would only be setting myself up. And you can say that 'we are all working toward god' but I think it is mainly control to survive.

One of the problems I have with atheism is that it fails to see the possibility of a God without a human face on it.

What? No. I just deal with people who think their god person is a humanoid form - all the time. If I thought your were implying a humanoid god I would insult you like I did Gewis. Your god 'could be' unconscious and have no feelings or emotions. So it will be up to you and your following to figure out more because if I say anything then I run the risk of you throwing in a new characteristic or absence of. The way you put it though makes it sound like you could call a specific type of matter the god thing or even some matter body we haven't found yet.

Stating that there is nothing to consider is a fixed position. There is always something to consider. Also. for me, the terms creator and God are not necessarily synonymous. This is one of those points that I am strongly agnostic on.

My fixed position on the god(s)s issue may seem not open minded but I'm not an open minded person on the subject. Atheists will not tell you that polytheism is any different, theists will.

*shrug*

[hughbristic]

What do you mean by "explain" existence?

Do you believe in the possibility of attaining ultimate knowledge?  I think that is straight forward enough.

Unfortunately, no, it is not yet clear enough for me. I think a main cause of long, pointless, back-and-forth philosophical exchanges (and indeed much of what is written in philosophy is such) is due to failure to get clear, early on, about what one is talking about. How to get clear? Frame what you say in terms of operationally falsifiable statements. What would count as evidence indicating it is impossible to obtain "ultimate knowledge" within a given set of ontological commitments (usually within the framework of currently accepted theories of physics and mathematics, unless you care to rewrite them).

Second.  Of course, existence explained is a belief held by most theists.  I, however, am not a theist.  There may be no such thing as ultimate knowledge.  But there is the possibility.  Please take note that I always qualify my references to God with potential or possibility.  I am playing devil's advocate.  You're right, my potential (notice the qualifier) God is open ended.  This is why I think it is impossible to rule out God.

If we are speaking of a traditional, caring, humanized God then I am in the atheist camp.  I believe the odds of such a God are very very close to zero.  If we instead define God as an organizing force, or some other novel concept, then that is when I split away from your camp.

I appreciate the fact that you don't accept the existence of a white-bearded superhero who lives in the clouds and sticks his finger in the world by performing miracles, but I guess I feel that belief in, or even agnosticism about, the more vague "God as organizing force" is a difference in degree, not in kind. When you explain everything in terms of physical laws based on observation, where is there room left for God of any sort? If by God you just mean the physical laws of the universe, why use the word God so strangely? It makes me question whether that is all you mean by the term and leads to confusion. If your conception of God is something beyond the realm of the observable, how do you sensibly talk about it when language is the means of communicating about the world of experiences we share?

Respectfully,
Hugh

[DJS]

hmmm, something is a little screwy with this thread as my post (that Hugh responded to) isn't here.

Hugh,

In all honesty, and as I've said earlier, I am thinking about writing an article on this concept. As of right now, I am hesitant to further expatiate on this idea because I'm not even sure exactly what I mean. [huh] The reason I wanted to have dialog about this is so I could better understand what I was thinking. If you don't wish to discuss it that is fine. I thought I was giving you a real "soft ball" with my open ended terminology. You could do anything you want with it. I wasn't trying to create a trap. I understand, however, that the first thing they teach you in atheist 101 ) is to let you opponent bring the debate and their "God" to you for dismantling.

A stupid little anecdotal that I thought could slightly clarify where my mind is at on the existence explained concept. Did you ever see that really dumb movie, "Dude, where's my car"? If so do you remember when they go to the Chinese take out and the voice in the box keeps saying, "and then". Kung Pow Chicken--and then-a side of rice--and then--some egg rolls--and then--two sodas--and then--and then nothing--and then....

man evolved from lower level mammals--and then--you could deconstruct evolution to the point where animate matter came from inanimate matter--and then--and all inanimate matter came from the big bang--and then...

am I making any sense?

Kissinger

[John Doe]

Of course there are differences between atheists and agnostics!  Isn't it obvious from the differing positions we take?

The two words are not synonymous but agnostics do not believe in God(s) and are therefore atheists too:

http://www.2think.or...i/atheism.shtml
http://dictionary.re...earch?q=atheist

Are you somehow implying that I (and agnostics in general) are defenders of religion??  I can assure you I most definitely am not.  Or am I reading this quote wrong?

The quote is not relevant to agnostics so much as those who adopt vague and shadowy definitions for the word God with the ulterior motive (I speculate) of defending the existence of such a God as plausible (as opposed to adopting standard usage).

Also, dictionary.com had very classical definitions of God. I choose to define my potential God in the way I see fit.  Why must I conform to preconceived notions? 

Why must I call a dog a dog? Why not call a dog a cat? You can define yourself into a theist or agnostic if you feel more comfortable with those labels.

And what would you call my concept of [Existence Explained], other than God?

God at least implies a person. The term Existence Explained describes itself well enough.

I am thinking of writing an article on my "existence explained" to flesh out this idea, do you think it has potential?  Also, do atheists have any hope that existence may be explained, or do they refute this out right?

I am sure that your paper is worth writing. I am only suggesting you drop the religious language not the idea. I personally think that theists suffer from the same existential skepticism that atheists do. Even if a God creates humans and gives them a purpose one can always ask who created God and why did he give us this purpose and not another? So whatever hope theists have for understanding the universe and human origins is shared by atheists. Most atheists, however, feel that science offers an advantage to the achievement of this goal, as opposed to religious fairy tales.

Edited by John Doe, 03 August 2003 - 11:05 PM.

[Mechanus]

I think the standard definitions of atheism, agnosticism and so on, and discussions on them, are a mess. ("An atnoshiasontheanthoshiantoheuist is not someone who denies that he has an absence of belief that he knows he believes that he can't prove that there's no God, but someone who has a belief that he does not know that he believes that he can prove that there's no God, so all people are by definition atnoshiasontheanthoshiantoheuists, so we're always right")

I propose the following:

A theist is someone who considers the existence of a God probable. (== who believes there is a God)
("Certain" is a special case of "probable", by the way)

An agnostic is someone who considers the existence of a God not very probable and not very improbable, and/or someone who thinks this probability can't change much due to future knowledge.
(Not: someone who doesn't know for certain whether there's a God)

An atheist is someone who considers the existence of God improbable. (== who believes there is no God == who denies there is a God)
(Not: someone who knows for certain that there is no God, or who has irrational faith in the absence of a God. )

A strong atheist is someone who considers the existence of God improbable because there is direct evidence against his existence, or because of logical inconsistencies.
(Not: someone who knows for certain that there is no God, or who thinks he can prove beyond doubt there is no God)

A weak atheist is someone who considers the existence of God improbable because there is no evidence for his existence. (Occam's razor, Kolmoplexity, blahdiblah)

There are also entities that have no opinion. This class includes infants, cows, traffic lights, and banana trees.

A nontheist is anyone who is not a theist. (== someone who does not believe there is a God) (Agnostics are not atheists, but they are nontheists)



I consider myself a strong atheist (I don't particularly mind being called "militant", either), mostly because the universe doesn't seem to have been designed with any coherent goal in mind. The universe we live in doesn't seem to be the most fun possible universe, or the most conducive to moral growth, or the most educational, or the most just, or the one that generates the most worship, or the one that generates the most free-willed worship. It isn't even the most confusing.

There are some classes of "Gods" that there is no direct evidence against; I think these should either not be called "God" because the connotations of the word are very different, and are not worth worshipping or having spiritual feelings toward (such as posthuman universe-simulators or an increase in complexity), or I'm a weak atheist with respect to them (such as Gods who want everything to be exactly as it would turn out naturally -- the God Who Makes No Difference).

(If you're God and reading this, hi.)

[Lazarus Long]

You are correct about the mess Mechanus and in part this is due to the overlap of social, spiritual, psychological, and philosophical aspects of the terms.

Lest we forget theocracy predates all forms of government and as a social organization institutionalized religion is still the global powerhouse for gathering the flock so the overlap of issues is no idle matter.

I approve of your attempt to clarify terms and I think it helps but I still suspect that all "institutionalized religion" is politics and visa versa so the separating of church and state begins in the psychology of the mind and even then is no easy matter.

[Cyto]

An atheist 'denies' the existence eh Mech? You sound like Webster. But if you plan to use neutral language then seek a better word.

[Mechanus]

Mmph. It should be clear from context that I take "X denies p" to mean "X says p isn't true" rather than "X says p isn't true, even though p is true".

The reason I included it is that people sometimes seem to make a distinction between believing something isn't true and denying it. I don't think that distinction is useful.