This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong? — frank

I don't know if it's wrong, but I do wonder. I wonder if this is like that stuff about WEIRD, where results obtained from (say) young, (mainly) white, male, American, psychology students may not generalise to the whole population? The stuff I can find about atheists seems based on Americans, when the US has one of the lowest proportions of atheists. Does data from this very specific demographic apply universally? I don't know. Maybe it does.... :chin:

Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa

Your "opinion" is wrong.

You did NOT answer my question!

And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that. — Frank Apisa

That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).

You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.

And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use.

Yes. — Frank Apisa

And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic?

I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa

No, that wasn't my point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no logically relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important.

"Angry...rant?"

You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part? — Frank Apisa

Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps...

In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa

Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong.

At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa

That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying.

...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa

Why are you shouting? And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am.

How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant. — Frank Apisa

You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.

S
8.7k

Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa


Your "opinion" is wrong. — S

No...It is not.

You did NOT answer my question!

And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that. — Frank Apisa


That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).

You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.

And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use. — S

My "accusation" was not false...but now you have answered it...and we will leave it at that.

As for having the required intelligence...I am possessed of that.

That schmarmy crap is for amateurs, S. Get away from it.

Yes. — Frank Apisa


And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic? — S

I not only have found no sourced statistic...I have found evidence that VERY INTELLIGENT people are not atheists. In fact, it appears as though MOST of the very intelligent people who have lived...were not atheists.

I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa


No, that wasn't my point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. — S

You are just muddying the waters here. YOUR POINT...the one to which I responded...was what I said.

In any case...the difference between agnostic and weak atheism...IS CONSIDERABLE...although you people who want to identify as weak atheists pretend that it isn't.

Okay...that is your right.

It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no logically relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important. — S

It is NOT trivial. The difference between your "weak atheism" and my "agnosticism" is HUGE. If you cannot see that, perhaps logic is not your forte.

"Angry...rant?"

You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part? — Frank Apisa


Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps... — S

Like I said!

In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa


Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong. — S

You saying I am wrong...does not make me wrong. That is a much more important distinction.

At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa


That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying. — S

No it doesn't.

...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa


Why are you shouting? — S

I am not shouting...I am emphasizing.

If you do not like it...go talk with someone else.

And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am. — S

If you want to think you are more mature than I...be my guest. If you want to think you are Napoleon...be my guest.

How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant. — Frank Apisa


You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.

Ahhh...you do not like that when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine.

Okay.

In any case, I am not an atheist of any sort. And I do not even use the descriptor "agnostic" any more.

I use this:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and effectively reinforce your own personal semantics.

The only reason someone would abandon logic and reason is that they don't find the conclusions of logic and reason consoling. In other words, they have an emotional attachment to a certain assumption and if logic and reason don't reinforce that assumption, then logic and reason aren't good for reaching all conclusions.

If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist.
Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind.
That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods.
You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and effectively reinforce your own personal semantics. — S

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it.

Harry Hindu
1.8k
The only reason someone would abandon logic and reason is that they don't find the conclusions of logic and reason consoling. In other words, they have an emotional attachment to a certain assumption and if logic and reason don't reinforce that assumption, then logic and reason aren't good for reaching all conclusions. — Harry Hindu

I agree.

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it. — Frank Apisa

Okay. Understood.

[GREEN]I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things![/GREEN]

Wait, the green text isn't working. How will people know that I'm being sarcastic?

DingoJones
586
↪Frank Apisa


If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist. — DingoJones

Why?

Because you say so?

Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind. — Dingo

Why are you asserting that?

Where does that come from?

That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods. — Dinjo

Not sure why you think that...but I am saying it is incorrect.

My suspicions are that using "atheist" as a descriptor involves a significant MORE than that.

You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.

ALL atheists lack a "belief" in any gods.

NOT ALL people lacking a "belief" in any gods...are atheists.

S
8.7k

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it. — Frank Apisa


Okay. Understood.

I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things! — S

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is?

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa

Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game.

Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!". I mean, are you a teenager or something?

The limits of reason has been a central topic of philosophy at least since Socrates. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason provides a rational defense of the choice of faith. He saw rational proofs of the existence of God, however, as a source of disbelief because rationally they fail. Reason can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or resolve the other antinomies. Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith.

A larger question that informs such discussions is whether the world is rational and thus fully understandable through the use of reason. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does the world exist because existence is rational and non-existence is irrational? Is what happens governed by reason? Or is reason just our way of making sense of things?

Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith. — Fooloso4

We do not need definitive proof one way or the other to reasonably resolve the question of whether or not to believe in God. That question is a question of whether you want to be a wise man or a fool, and was answered by Kant's predecessor, Hume. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Pointing out that we lack definitive proof either way doesn't justify abandoning reason for fancy.

That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean.
An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.
Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.

S
8.7k

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa


Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game. — S

My game is just fine. Things are working exactly the way I want them to work

That seems to be bothering you.

Or perhaps you are just pretending to be bothered to make me laugh.

Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!".

Perhaps you ought not to play so close to the edge, S. You seem in real danger of falling off.

I mean, are you a teenager or something? — S.

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer.

Fooloso4
272
The limits of reason has been a central topic of philosophy at least since Socrates. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason provides a rational defense of the choice of faith. He saw rational proofs of the existence of God, however, as a source of disbelief because rationally they fail. Reason can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or resolve the other antinomies. Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith.

A larger question that informs such discussions is whether the world is rational and thus fully understandable through the use of reason. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does the world exist because existence is rational and non-existence is irrational? Is what happens governed by reason? Or is reason just our way of making sense of things? — Fooloso4

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that.

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa

Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse.

DingoJones
587
↪Frank Apisa


That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean. — DingoJones

Respectfully as possible...that is not so.


An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.[/quote]

First of all..."atheism" came into the English language BEFORE "theism"...so it could not have been derived via that.

It did come from the Greek through the French...and actually derives: "a" without + "theos" a god...and means WITHOUT A GOD.

It has nothing to do with "belief."

Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.

Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I am agnostic on the question. There is no way I see to determine that it is more likely one or the other.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa

No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't readily give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here.

Like this:

Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. — Frank Apisa

And this:

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa

S
8.7k

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa


Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse. — S

Ahhh...still responding.

Still meeting that part of my plan!

Thanks.:wink:

S
8.7k

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa


No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here. — S

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal?

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa

Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference.

One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are.

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists." — Frank Apisa

I do not think it is so simple. Many things that had previously been attributed to the work of God now have physical explanations in which the supernatural plays no role. Newton set out to demonstrate the hand of God at work, but it turned out that his physics left no room for the actions of God. It was the work of natural forces not God at work. There are some who appeal to some form of intelligent design, but natural explanations increasingly leave no place for the hand of God. The only place left where a God may play a role is with claims that God is the ground or source of existence. But if we ask why there must be a ground or source, something other than what is as the reason for what is, then such claims seem less likely.

↪Frank Apisa


One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are. — DingoJones

I have been discussing this topic for over 20 years on the Internet...and have written many published op ed pieces on it for over 20 years before that.

The "French reference" is something anyone should know who decides to discuss this subject...and I have use it (as it should be used) for over 40 years.

If there is anyone here who does not know what he is talking about...it is you. Your argument was "Atheism 101...at best.

Now...if it make you feel good to suppose that anyone not expressing a "belief" in any gods is required to be an atheist...do it. I can understand atheists wanting agnostics in their ranks to raise the intelligence level.

Fooloso4
274

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists." — Frank Apisa


I do not think it is so simple. Many things that had previously been attributed to the work of God now have physical explanations in which the supernatural plays no role. Newton set out to demonstrate the hand of God at work, but it turned out that his physics left no room for the actions of God. It was the work of natural forces not God at work. There are some who appeal to some form of intelligent design, but natural explanations increasingly leave no place for the hand of God. The only place left where a God may play a role is with claims that God is the ground or source of existence. But if we ask why there must be a ground or source, something other than what is as the reason for what is, then such claims seem less likely. — Fooloso4

Okay...a challenge.

Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...

...it is more likely there is at least one god than that there are none...or...

...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I will then use that argument in another setting...and we'll see how it works there.

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa


Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference. — S

Silly game you are playing...but if it keeps you around, I'm up to it.

Either you are of the opinion that the likelihood of "at least one god exists" is greater than the likelihood that "no gods exist...

...or the likelihood of "no gods exist" is greater than the likelihood that "at least one god exists"...

...or you are of the opinion that likelihood is equal or indeterminate. (Of course, you can claim none of the above...to provide humor...in which case I will laugh and enjoy it.)

So...which is it?

Okay...a challenge.

Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

What one takes to be likely is based on evidence and temperament. I find no evidence that leads me to think it is likely that there is a God. I have no convictions that lead me to think that there is a God. Someone else, however, may have strong convictions that there is a God and believe that everything is evidence that there is a God. For him it is not only likely that there is a God, but he does not even think it possible that there is not.

I see no way or even any reason to resolve these differences.

Okay...a challenge.

Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa


What one takes to be likely is based on evidence and temperament. I find no evidence that leads me to think it is likely that there is a God. I have no convictions that lead me to think that there is a God. Someone else, however, may have strong convictions that there is a God and believe that everything is evidence that there is a God. For him it is not only likely that there is a God, but he does not even think it possible that there is not.

I see no way or even any reason to resolve these differences.


— Fooloso4

That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

You were taking exception to that.

Apparently you do agree, though.