Atheism is the only rational position to take
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2017, 07:47 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 07:55 PM)natachan Wrote:  How can you claim there is sufficient reason to believe without it?

If you say "Do you believe in the flibbityjibbet?" and I ask you what it is and you won't tell me, am I justified in believing in it? No. I dismiss the proposition and move on.

The problem with the concept of an omni-everything creator God is that this conceptual scheme as found in the Bible, Quran or other similar supposed revelations is that when examined carefully, that conceptual God is incoherent, self contradictory and obviously impossible. Strong atheism. That god concept has been falsified.

The theist is then left to either abandon that kind of God and all such supposed revelations, or indulge in fallacious apologisms. Or retreat into mystification, "God is incomprehensible, intellectual nihilism. Which in the end, logically contradicts itself.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
07-08-2017, 08:29 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
Well as to the Omni god, yes, we can be certain that god does not exist. Just like I am absolutely certain the god of Genesis does not exist. I am a gnostic atheist about that.

But as to vague definitions I just don't care. I don't believe in those gods, since they can't be demonstrated. And I do t really care all that much. If people want to be deliberately vague and obtuse then they're assholes and I'm not going to give their propositions any mental effort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
07-08-2017, 10:05 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(07-08-2017 01:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are confused, and should read about what has been linked to you about russels teapot.
I just read about the Russel's teapot, as I understand it, it has to do with the burden of proof. I'm talking about the burden of definition. Every rational person is responsible to define what he is talking about, otherwise he can utter any sort of vague nonsense without being irrational.

Quote:Again, the default position about ANYthing is: I dont believe.....until evidence is brought forward.

I think this position it not rational. Consider this: "Unicorns are usually white". If you assert that "I do not believe unicorns are usually white" that would be irrational. It'd be rational to simply dismiss it, any attempt to talk about unicorns' color (as real entities) is irrational. Similarly, any attempt to talk about Gods (as real entities) is irrational.

Quote:i am completely rational in dismissing your (undefined) claim
I agree, it'd be rational to dismiss it, nothing more. Making any claims or assertions about it is irrational.

Quote:"well, then i am justified to not believe in what you cant define".
It is justified to ignore it, nothing more. No one can define consciousness, it'd be irrational to assert "I don't believe in consciousness". The rational position would be to ignore the vast number of claims and speculations about consciousness and avoid making any assertions about it, until it is finally defined by scientists.


I think I repeated my position several times, and others are also giving the same response, I don't think we can make any more sense out of it at the moment. I don't have anything to add to what I've already said. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts about this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 10:54 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 01:32 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  If you claim that "I don't believe in any Gods" is a rational claim, you must take the burden of defining God, otherwise your claim hinges on an undefined and ambiguous term, therefore it is nonsensical, hence irrational.

As an atheist, I don't believe in the possibility of the existence of gods. Subtle but critical difference cv "I don't believe in gods". The latter presupposes that gods might exist.

You also need to be very careful basing your arguments on games of semantics (as I admittedly just did!) when the unencumbered understanding of a claim of disbelief is just that—as in "I don't believe in leprechauns". In reality, that claim in no way suggests I consider that there's a possibility, no matter how tiny, that they do exist.

So the onus of proof for the existence of gods still, and always will, lie with the theists making such claim. If I tell you that I can fly, it's up to me to prove it by jumping off the roof—it's not your task to prove that I can't.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(07-08-2017 01:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are confused, and should read about what has been linked to you about russels teapot.
I just read about the Russel's teapot, as I understand it, it has to do with the burden of proof. I'm talking about the burden of definition. Every rational person is responsible to define what he is talking about, otherwise he can utter any sort of vague nonsense without being irrational.
Then you havent understood Russels teapot.
If you make a proposition like Nosferatus teapot, it is not my fucking job to define what it is. Without any definition given by you, i can dismiss it. How hard is that to understand? Facepalm
Ok, here is my proposition: There is Deesses *Elwetritsch* circling *unknown planet*. Please define it. Please define what it is and which planet it is orbiting. Then (try to) provide evidence accordingly. Drinking Beverage Laugh out load

(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
Quote:Again, the default position about ANYthing is: I dont believe.....until evidence is brought forward.
I think this position it not rational.
Then you are wrong, demonstrably wrong. Please go www and check why. Its easy. But i will give you a last example why accepting propositions by default will lead to conflicting beliefs.:
Proposition#1: the sun is green
Proposition#2: the sun is purple
Without further information you are forced (by your definition of "being rational") to believe both propositions, which are contradictory. Ergo your epistemology is flawed.

(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
Quote:i am completely rational in dismissing your (undefined) claim
I agree, it'd be rational to dismiss it, nothing more. Making any claims or assertions about it is irrational.
You just contradicted your statement above, that it would be not rational to dismiss any proposition until evidence is brought (and evidence can only be brought after at least a tentative, preliminary definition, after the proposition has been defined. Saying "i dont believe" is the dismissal of a claim. You still seem not be able to understand this. I am close to suspecting that you think "i dont believe xxx" is equal to claiming that xxx does not exist.

(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
Quote:"well, then i am justified to not believe in what you cant define".
It is justified to ignore it, nothing more. No one can define consciousness, it'd be irrational to assert "I don't believe in consciousness". The rational position would be to ignore the vast number of claims and speculations about consciousness and avoid making any assertions about it, until it is finally defined by scientists.
I am not going to discuss consciousness with you until you have understood what "burden of proof" is or that the default position about any proposition is to not believe it.
Still a little hint for you to work with: The world is no tentirely made up of black and white. There are different conflicting, possibly imperfect and incomplete, definitions of consciousness. That is different from "No one can define consciousness". Many researchers are working with different working definitions, and looking for according evidence. This is as far as i am willing to discuss this with you, sorry, but you need to get some basic terms right first.

(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I think I repeated my position several times, and others are also giving the same response, I don't think we can make any more sense out of it at the moment. I don't have anything to add to what I've already said. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts about this.
You are welcome.
But please take care about basics before you start thinking about difficult shit like consciousness or why 42 is the answer to everything.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
Saying "I don't believe a claim" isn't a claim in itself. It's a statement of fact. It's also not even a statement of belief. I don't think nosferatu gets this yet. It's a statement of lack of belief, which does not imply a belief to the contrary.

"I don't believe your claim that this giant jar of sweets contains an even number" (because there's too many to count and you've provided no evidence yet) does not imply "I believe your claim that this giant jar of sweets contains an even number is false". If it did, then it means that I'd have to believe there were an odd number in order to not believe your claim there is an even number, which is obviously stupid. The default position is to neither believe nor disbelieve a claim. No opinion on its truth. If you have no opinion, then you can't believe it's true, can you?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
07-08-2017, 11:51 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
That's the default position, which is (standard/weak) atheism. Of course any particular atheist is welcome to shit all over any particular God concept.

When one hasn't been told where to shit because even the theist doesn't know, then the conversation has reached critical pointlessness. I don't care about God at the best of times. Why should I care about a version so imaginary and ethereal that even the theist has no clue how to even describe it in reality?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
I also hate it when theists say that we are making a claim as well. It should be obvious by now that we are just rejecting their silly claim Facepalm.

" That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(07-08-2017 10:05 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Consider this: "Unicorns are usually white". If you assert that "I do not believe unicorns are usually white" that would be irrational.

No. If you assert that you do have a belief regarding the usual color of unicorns then that could be irrational. There is a huge difference between
I do not believe unicorns are usually white
-and-
I believe that unicorns are not usually white

I do not believe unicorns are usually white. (I do not accept the claim)
I do not believe unicorns are not usually white. (I do not accept the counter claim)
I have no belief regarding the usual color of unicorns.

Saying that you do not believe something doesn't say what you do believe.

Quote: It'd be rational to simply dismiss it, any attempt to talk about unicorns' color (as real entities) is irrational. Similarly, any attempt to talk about Gods (as real entities) is irrational.

It is rational when you are comparing characteristics claimed for the god. When xians claim that their god is both perfectly just and merciful then it is rational to talk about an entity possessing those attributes in order to show that it can't logically exist. When a xian claims that Jesus is all loving it is rational to discuss the introduction of hell into the theology. Accepting a claim for the sake of argument is not the same as accepting the claim.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
07-08-2017, 01:20 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 07:36 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 04:02 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "I don't believe in any gods" is a description of fact. I am being honest.

Facts are empirically verifiable.

I'll accept that statement (as a necessary truth) as soon as you can empirically verify it.

Tongue

There's a reason why logical positivism died many years ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: