All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

# Atheism is a non-stance.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Fkkize
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Philosophy Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 77356
Debate Rounds (5)

14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Feyerabend 3 years ago
If you treat 'There is a God' As an assertion to be assessed on probabilistic grounds you face a modal problem.
The semantics for probability assignments follow a modal (Possible worlds) mode.
From The statement ' 'The proposition there is a God', has probability 1bring an object a probability of '.00000001.' Into a logical domain. A quick flip on the ontological argument take the idea that a God that is God in 2 possible is greater than a God that exists in only one possible world and that a God that exists in every possible world is greater than a God that exists in only n possible worlds then we get to the idea that God must exist in all possible Worlds and hence in by necessity in this one. This argument can be made for any modal system where probabilities other than 0 and 1 are employed.
Posted by Feyerabend 3 years ago
Probabilities over existents for the moment we are dealing with talking about god at all assigning probabilities for the existence of God have to be built in something (Happy to debate this). This is not intended to be a God Exists does not exist, in fairness it ascribes the statement There is a god the status of a non-stance. Not to hold that view would commit me to the position that there is a real meaning to either assertion.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
Atheism is, typically, the belief that "P(supernatural deity) < .01" or, alternatively, P("supernatural deity) > .99 (or whatever threshold you want). Such claims are certainly stances and require their own evidence to support them. I can claim there is no nitrogen in the air, but that doesn't mean it's a "non-stance".

What makes Atheism different that most beliefs is that the theory "god exists" has no predictive power and is not falsifiable. But this doesn't make the Atheist claim a non-stance (it just means they're making a claim that is supported by probability theory).

TL;DR Any claim of probability is a stance.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Is Asantaism a non-stance?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
yeeyuen7
I was using faith in the context of religious belief, not as a substitution for "hope or trust". It was not my intention to imply otherwise, nor was I trying to disparage the use of the word in the context of "hope or trust".
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
atheism=belief to the contrary
Posted by yeeyuen7 3 years ago
@missmedic Thats the viewpoint im taking after as well! You summed it up really well, living for learning instead of simply accepting. I would not be so swift and stern to decry faith as having no virtue or value though, human beings will always require some essence of faith in relationships and fulfilling their emotional capacity. Its the mutual faith between my loved ones and social interactions that stave depression away as I mine for answers to the deeper questions in life.
Posted by Fkkize 3 years ago
"Yes and metaphysical naturalism seems to be a bad choice of position."
How so?

"You can be an atheist without adopting this viewpoint."
Of course, however one would be missing out on some fairly strong weapons in his arsenal. The naturalist believes philosophy should be based on what our best emirical theries have to say. This would then apply to the God question as well, giving you a great edge.
Posted by Feyerabend 3 years ago
Yes and metaphysical naturalism seems to be a bad choice of position. You can be an atheist without adopting this viewpoint.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false.
Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence or despite the presence of conflicting evidence.
But how do we detect lies?
Through the absence of expected evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence. The very things that faith demanded we disregard. The most rational and sensible position is to simply withhold belief and remain an atheist.
Faith has no value.
Faith is not a virtue.
From the objective perspective, rationality is a virtue because it permits me to ground my thinking on reality, which is more conductive to the pursuit of my goals than fantasy. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.