Poll: Apatheism

[juliett_lima]

I would say that a 6.9 is convinced. I am convinced that evolution is real, but it is still possible that someone could find and present the evidence to convince me that there is some viable alternative. I am convinced that the reason that I get sick is because I become infected with microbial organisms, but if someone had an alternate theory and presented sufficient evidence then my mind could be swayed. I am convinced that there is not a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom, but if there were one then then it would be possible to gather the evidence to convince me that there was a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom. In all of these cases, I am convinced because the probability of the assertion of which I am convinced is far greater than the probability of the assertion of which I am not convinced. And just to really get at the term, as a child many times I convinced my parents that I didn't do something wrong, have two cookies instead of one for instance, but that doesn't mean that the alternate possibility couldn't have been true, and my parents certainly knew that it was still possible I had missbehaved, even if they had been convinced it was improbable.

SO wish you'd said a blue alien called Shep. that's who I was thinking about when you wrote ^_^

 

[Doug]

Anyway, the OP is an atheist. Atheists aren't anti-god, the same way as most people aren't anti-Santa Claus. An anti-theist is anti-religious.

You can't just make up a word to describe yourself, especially when there are perfectly good words around that do the job.

Okay, well, I don't believe in God, or an afterlife, or fate, or destiny, and I think taht people who do are to be pitied for being taken in by fairy tales.

What words describe me?

Hellbound Satanist, immoral, Devil worshipper

nah, j/k.

Anyway, from that description you are an atheist, possibly anti-theist but theres not enough info there.

Sounds like a materialist, to be precise - only believes in the physical world around us and nothing beyond. And yeah, tis a branch of athesism

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I just finished listening to that interview with Adams, and I would say that he is a 6.9, I don't know if you've read The God Delusion or not, but the things he says are almost identical to the things that Dawkins says. Not once in that interview did I hear him go so far as to assert that the religious answer was absolutely impossible (that would be a 7), but instead he asserts that the religious answer is so highly improbable that it doesn't deserve even remotely the amount of merit that the secular answers deserve. That is, it seems to me, in 6 territory, and is not a 7.

That tenth of a point means you are allowing for the possibility; somewhere in your mind you've made room. He said, "I am, however, convinced that there is no god". And then goes on to explain why for five minutes.

Not "improbable", just "not".

One doesn't say impossible, because possibility is an illogical question in the case of this negative proposition. Proof of non-existence is a silly concept to begin with.

I would say that a 6.9 is convinced. I am convinced that evolution is real, but it is still possible that someone could find and present the evidence to convince me that there is some viable alternative. I am convinced that the reason that I get sick is because I become infected with microbial organisms, but if someone had an alternate theory and presented sufficient evidence then my mind could be swayed. I am convinced that there is not a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom, but if there were one then then it would be possible to gather the evidence to convince me that there was a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom. In all of these cases, I am convinced because the probability of the assertion of which I am convinced is far greater than the probability of the assertion of which I am not convinced. And just to really get at the term, as a child many times I convinced my parents that I didn't do something wrong, have two cookies instead of one for instance, but that doesn't mean that the alternate possibility couldn't have been true, and my parents certainly knew that it was still possible I had missbehaved, even if they had been convinced it was improbable.

I get what you're saying and I am a fan of Dawkins' works, (as was Adams, as you heard) but while I do consider myself of a scientific mind as he does, the way I see it is this: Bring me even the slimmest shred of actual evidence and then you can have the 0.1 and not until. When someone insanely suggests that Chet is living in your closet you don't immediately make room for the possibility, you take a look and check it out, but remain so skeptical as to not lend it any credence whatsoever until you have a reason to. In science we don't allot a percent of probability to a "possible" outcome until we have a reason to.

Flip of a coin: roughly 50% Heads, roughly 50% Tails, and even mention the negligible probability that the coin will land on its end. But what you don't bother making room for is the coin turning into a snowflake. If it happened, even once; if there was just the tiniest bit of evidence that it had happened or that it might, then it can be included, but until then; It doesn't even warrant 1.42% probability.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I just finished listening to that interview with Adams, and I would say that he is a 6.9, I don't know if you've read The God Delusion or not, but the things he says are almost identical to the things that Dawkins says. Not once in that interview did I hear him go so far as to assert that the religious answer was absolutely impossible (that would be a 7), but instead he asserts that the religious answer is so highly improbable that it doesn't deserve even remotely the amount of merit that the secular answers deserve. That is, it seems to me, in 6 territory, and is not a 7.

That tenth of a point means you are allowing for the possibility; somewhere in your mind you've made room. He said, "I am, however, convinced that there is no god". And then goes on to explain why for five minutes.

Not "improbable", just "not".

One doesn't say impossible, because possibility is an illogical question in the case of this negative proposition. Proof of non-existence is a silly concept to begin with.

I would say that a 6.9 is convinced. I am convinced that evolution is real, but it is still possible that someone could find and present the evidence to convince me that there is some viable alternative. I am convinced that the reason that I get sick is because I become infected with microbial organisms, but if someone had an alternate theory and presented sufficient evidence then my mind could be swayed. I am convinced that there is not a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom, but if there were one then then it would be possible to gather the evidence to convince me that there was a purple alien named Chet living in the closet in my bedroom. In all of these cases, I am convinced because the probability of the assertion of which I am convinced is far greater than the probability of the assertion of which I am not convinced. And just to really get at the term, as a child many times I convinced my parents that I didn't do something wrong, have two cookies instead of one for instance, but that doesn't mean that the alternate possibility couldn't have been true, and my parents certainly knew that it was still possible I had missbehaved, even if they had been convinced it was improbable.

I get what you're saying and I am a fan of Dawkins' works, (as was Adams, as you heard) but while I do consider myself of a scientific mind as he does, the way I see it is this: Bring me even the slimmest shred of actual evidence and then you can have the 0.1 and not until. When someone insanely suggests that Chet is living in your closet you don't immediately make room for the possibility, you take a look and check it out, but remain so skeptical as to not lend it any credence whatsoever until you have a reason to. In science we don't allot a percent of probability to a "possible" outcome until we have a reason to.

Flip of a coin: roughly 50% Heads, roughly 50% Tails, and even mention the negligible probability that the coin will land on its end. But what you don't bother making room for is the coin turning into a snowflake. If it happened, even once; if there was just the tiniest bit of evidence that it had happened or that it might, then it can be included, but until then; It doesn't even warrant 1.42% probability.

I think the .9 was used mostly to keep discussion easier. In practice, it is more like 6.9 repeating, which for all intents and purposes is a 7, but in technicality it still recognizes the possibility, even if the probability is almost nill. That is to say that the probability of the existence of a deity, for now at least, is something like .0 repeating 1, a number which it has been argued one can't even make, but that hasn't stopped me. Would that be close enough for a comprimise?

 

[DamienHell]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

 

[Kinguendo]

I get pretty tired of hearing atheists being described as 'arrogant'. Since when does having some conviction, or some belief in your own judgment, make a person arrogant? It's fucking stupid.

Seconded... British, right? Same here, West Yorkshire FTW! =D

 

[Kinguendo]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

Religious, right?

Even your typing reads out as judgemental.

 

[DamienHell]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

Religious, right?

Even your typing reads out as judgemental.

Wrong, I'm an atheist, try again.

 

[Kinguendo]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

Religious, right?

Even your typing reads out as judgemental.

Wrong, I'm an atheist, try again.

Hmm, okay I will try again... Atheist right? =D

You are an odd atheist, why are you forcing your beliefs (or lack there of) on people and telling them what they have to be? Thats not the atheist way, we just walk on by the preachers.

 

[DamienHell]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

Religious, right?

Even your typing reads out as judgemental.

Wrong, I'm an atheist, try again.

Hmm, okay I will try again... Atheist right? =D

You are an odd atheist, why are you forcing your beliefs (or lack there of) on people and telling them what they have to be? Thats not the atheist way, we just walk on by the preachers.

This guy is just ashamed of being an Atheist, its insulting to all of us, that our beliefs (or lack there of) is something to be ashamed of.

 

[Kinguendo]

no your an atheist, if you do not believe in a god your an atheist, whether you care or not is irrelevant. If someone asks do you believe in god or not you would say no, anything beyond that has no bearing.

Religious, right?

Even your typing reads out as judgemental.

Wrong, I'm an atheist, try again.

Hmm, okay I will try again... Atheist right? =D

You are an odd atheist, why are you forcing your beliefs (or lack there of) on people and telling them what they have to be? Thats not the atheist way, we just walk on by the preachers.

This guy is just ashamed of being an Atheist, its insulting to all of us, that our beliefs (or lack there of) is something to be ashamed of.

Hmm, I didnt think about it like that. Hey! Hey person, whoever you are... man up and accept atheism already, you know its probably right!

 

[Shynobee]

you didn't invent apatheism. its been around for years now.