cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/52276726

Dawkins points out how the goalposts have been moved from the Turing test without justification and claims it can be viewed as a test of consciousness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept.

Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

I mean if they do, they can still engage in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago

    That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions.

    I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth.

  • source
  • parent