If there's a jar of 40 million black marbles and 1 white marble I believe I'll pick a black marble. Yet if you challenge me to pick a marble and if it's white you kill me then I wouldn't risk picking a marble.

Yet from my actions you can say my belief is I will pick a white marble?

i'm not ignoring a person's behavior

the behavior in your tests does tell us something, but...

again

you cannot avoid this

It seems to me that Prodigy evaluates a person's behavior as a gestalt, and not based on strained hypothetical scenario.

You see a lever. If you pull the lever, and if God doesn't exist, you will die. Do you pull the lever?

Your problem is that you privilege behaviour over everything else. And do so purely because it suits you to. And this is obvious to everyone. Which is why people are embarrassed for you.

Regarding the lottery question, for instance. Many people I know buy lottery tickets because they *might* win. This doesn't mean either that they believe they will win, or that they do not believe they will win. Their behaviour is completely divorced from any concrete belief about its possible consequences. Some of them just enjoy it.

Doesn't it bother you that you're the only person in the English-speaking world who defines 'theist' as 'someone whose behaviour might theoretically be impacted to some degree, however trivial, by the possible existence of a God'? If not, it should. This is as childish as saying that if I hit my thumb with a hammer and say "God damn it" I must believe "to some extent". It's affected my behaviour, right? I wouldn't have said 'God' if I'd never heard of God, right?

Also, you didn't think up the objection to the lever argument, someone else did. Give the credit where it's due.

I repeat: Have you met God?

If yes, you are a theist. Otherwise, you're a closet atheist.

Prove this wrong.

Yeah, he hasn't answered yet, has he?

Stu, do you pull the Theist lever, or the Atheist lever?

This isn't difficult, right? You are who you are.

Sorry RoundGuy, I thought I had answered your question.

If the senario is there are two levers, one atheist on theist, and I die if I pull the wrong one, I pull the theist lever.

If the senario is there is a lever and I die if I pull it and God does not exists, then I do not pull the lever. That does not make me a "closet atheist". It only says my belief in God is imperfect.

Again Prodigy our differences is you attach no meaning to "conviction" or "confidence". For you "strong confidence" that something is true, means whatever you want it to mean. Those words to me are meat and bones, to you they are the suppleness of a fart in the wind.

I don't think we can measure people based just on what they claim to believe, Stu. I think we must take their actions into account.

You take the atheist action (not pulling the lever), and you do not take the theist action (pulling the lever). This makes you an atheist. You can't just ignore a person's behavior. If you have enough of a belief that God doesn't exist enough for it to affect your behavior, then you are an atheist.

So your saying Atheist believe that God doesn't exists? As moderator are you making that the official definition for use in this forum?

I'm officially stating that in the same sense that theists are the people who pull the lever in my scenario, atheists are defined as people who believe God doesn't exist. Atheism is defined as having belief (in Stu Pidasso terminology) that God doesn't exist.

But really, this is avoiding the question. If you believe in the nonexistence of God, then how can you call yourself a theist? You can claim that you're a theist who believes in the nonexistence of God, but if we held it to a vote I think you'd be declared a closet atheist.

See your twisting things Madnak,

I keep saying Atheism is either 1) A denial of the existence of God/gods or 2)Having no belief in God/gods.

Now nobody can be expected to have absolutely "no belief in God/gods". In order for that definition to be useful to use we must make a determination when a persons belief in God/gods is so lacking that for all intents and purposes they have no belief.

Yourself, Prodigy, and all the other nominal atheists take the position that an individuals statements are good enough. I take the position that an individuals behavior is the best indicator.

You guys don't like my position because it means you really arn't atheist. So you think I must be changing the definition of atheist. I am not. I am taking the existing definition and applying it in a logical unbiased manner.

The actual definition is "denial or disbelief." As mentioned earlier, "no belief" isn't in there. However, one definition of atheism that is perfectly valid is denial of God, that is, belief that God does not exist. Thus, a person who has belief that God does not exist is an atheist. And thus, in order for a person not to be an atheist, that person must have no belief in the nonexistence of God.

If your lever example is valid, then mine is also valid. And that's ignoring the leap from "not an atheist" to "a theist;" the dichotomy you're suggesting need not exist.

If you want to preserve your dichotomy, you'll have to find a test that comfortably serves for all definitions of atheism. Say, for example:

There are two levers. If you pull lever A, and God exists, you will die. If you pull lever B, and God does not exist, you will die. You must pull one of the levers. Which do you pull?

You mentioned this test before - the atheist versus theist levers - so I assume you consider that a valid test of theism/atheism?

it doesn't matter what you want them to mean

when a person calls himself an atheist, he means something

that is generally that they lack belief in a god or gods

and by this they do NOT mean what you want them to mean, which is that their belief of the likelihood of God existing is such that it will no influence any action (again, earlier I showed why this means that they must this God's existence to be impossible and also that they are incapable of error)

they ACTUALLY mean that they lack a strong conviction that God exists

by "strong conviction" they mean something...it's not exact and no one is saying that it is...

but what is important is what THEY mean by it, and almost no one means what you think it SHOULD mean...

what they mean is such that they would not say they have a strong conviction if they judged the likelihood to be say 1% (enought to be labeled a theist by your tests)

again, you cannot avoid this

either we use our defintion of atheist (and belief, etc) and are correct

or we use you definitions and are actually not even claiming what you think we are claiming when we call ourselves atheists

no one cares for your personal ideas concerning the definitions...they are not as useful to us as common ideas concerning the defintions

but again, even if we used yours...al that would mean is that we are not actually claiming what you think we are claiming when we call ourselves atheists

so your tests does not show what you intend

you're definining atheist in a way that almost no one else does

then you are not even working from that definition...

of what??? NOT whether or not they fit the definitions of atheists (not the regular definitions, or even the definitions that YOU gave)

they don't tell us whether a person has "no belief" in God

they tell us whether or not they judge the likelihood of God existing to be enough to influence some particular action

and this can change depending on the test...

just change the circumstances and you label people thiests who think there is a 1%+ chance of God existing...change it again and you get 5%+, or 25%+ or whatever.

again, your tests don't really tell us anything because if you properly defined what you mean by certain words like "atheist" and "belief" or "strong conviction"

the people who would normally call themselves atheists would not call themselves atheistss anymore

but since your ideas concerning those words are not very common, we stick to more useful ones.

suppose I ask you if you are a lollipop...I'm guessing you'd say "no"

but then I take some of your traits and label a person who has those traits a lollipop...then call you a lollipop.

it may be clearly true given my definition but it isn't particularly meaningful...

this is essentially what your test does

First, to me disbelief = having no belief.

Second, people who deny the existence of God can't also claim there is a possibility that God exists. For example, tell me if you think this next statement makes sense: God does not exist and God might exists.

Now the problem with your test, is a person can have some belief God exist and have some belief that God doesn't exist. That person is a theist.

An atheists, for all intents and purposes, disbelieves(or has no belief) in God/gods. Your test doesn't prove I have no belief in God/gods. It only shows I have some belief that God does not exist.

Precentages are meaningless Prodigy.

Suppose the Pope believes that the possibility God actually exist is 1%
Suppose Sanal believes the possibility God exist to be 1%.

I say the Pope is a theists because that possibility is strong enough to cause him to behave in this world as if God exists.

I say Sanal is an atheist because that possibility is not strong enough to cause Sanal to behave in this world as if God exists.

You would call them both atheists or both theists because behavior is also meaningless to you.

as it is defined, this is usually true...but not in the way you think it is...

again, almost no one takes the phrase "have no belief" to mean "judges the likelihood of the proposition being true to be such that it will not influence a given action

(whatever scenario Stu Pidasso happens to put in front of you lol)...

it doesn't matter one bit you think this is "better" than how other people interpret it...

because either we interpret it our way and correctly label ourselves

or we interpret it your way and would then not even call ourselves atheists

you can't just assume people mean what you want them to mean when they say something

they mean what THEY want to mean

this is why your tests don't do what you intend them to do

If you drive up in a red car, you would have me believe the car is yellow just because you claim to drive a yellow car.

Thats basically what your argument amounts too.

what?? how can you say that?? percantages are VERY important

in life, we are given upsides and downsides and the way we make decisions is by judging the likelihood of certain outcomes or truths

my actions will change based on how likely I judge these things to be

and guess what...YOUT tests are not immune to this, as has been elaborated upon by others

To you, perhaps. But until you're an accomplished lexicographer, that's not especially relevant.

It makes exactly as much sense to me as the statement "I believe God exists and I believe God doesn't exist."

To deny a proposition is to express belief in the negation of that proposition, at least in the sense that "deny" applies to general categories of belief.

What that person is represents the subject of debate.

you can keep saying that but that doesn't make it true

my arguments is that you are hearing a person claim that their car is yellow, assuming they mean what you consider green...then looking at the acuually yellow car and telling them they are wrong



or, since there is not "right" definition here

a person says they are driving an XXDD (color) car...YOU think that XXDD SHOULD mean "green"...then you see that it is a yellow car and say they are wrong...

of course, when they said XXDD, they meant "yellow"...

again, if they assume their definition, they are correct

if they assume yours, then they would have never made the claim that their car was XXDD anyway

so what have you shown?

it's amazing that you can't see this

Prodigy, this isn't a hard concept. If you can't get this I'm done talking to you.

Precentages are meaningless as indicators of your beliefs. Your decisions are the meaningful indicators of your beliefs.

lol, you obviously don't have as much patience as I do when dealing with such things...almost everyone else has given up on you, but I'm still at it trying to show you what everyone else already sees (atheists and theists alike)

I'm not talking about what you SAY the percentages are...I'm talking about what they actually are

and those dictate your actions

so again, your tests CAN test for this

but they don't test for what you intended them to

as I have shown in the previous posts

Respond, please.

I define a theist as a person who holds some belief in God or gods. I base my evidence of that belief on a position statement from the "theist" or his behavior or both. If his behavior contradicts his position statement, I take his behavior as being the more accurate indicator of his beliefs.

An atheist can say, "God damn it". To him its just a saying to express anger which has no bearing on his belief. It does prove the atheist has heard of the concept of God before. Now if you are saying the "atheist" really wishes the hammer be dammed by God than I would say our atheist is in the closet.

Meeting God has no bearing on ones ability to hold some belief in God or gods.

Having some belief in God or gods such that it impacts your behavior is not consistent with a disbelief in God or gods. An atheist cannot disbelieve God exists and then sincerely act as if God exists. Thats my point in a nutshell.