From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(30-04-2015 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Was it your or Q that stated that your marriage was build on the solid ground of god?

It's wasn't me, so I guess it must have been Q then.

Quote: I don't know how you can understand what love is without god.

I don't find that hard at all. It would just be a matter of understanding someone views that are different than yours. I often like to think as a methodological atheist, considering what the best explanations would be if there was no God.

I can understand someone else's view on love without holding them myself.

Quote:I don't see love as being a virtue. I think lust and pride are part of love, you think lust and pride are sins.

Do you think when your sexual desire is aroused by another pretty girl, by pornography, that you're in love with these very people? I think it's evident even for you that lust is part of love only in certain cases. I don't think you have lust for your children, even though you love them.

The only lust I'm assuming you associate with love here, is the sexual desire you have for your wife, and perhaps others woman you've been in similar relationships with?

Quote:You value altruism and think it is an indicator of love. I don't.

So lust is a part of love for you, but altruism isn't?

Quote:You think you can love Jesus, an idea of person that you have never met, never communicated with, but all you know is a name, not the person

I think you can love all sorts of things, not just people, like money or your possessions.

Quote:You have imagined talking to this "person" but have never received anything back, he has never spoken to you, never smiled at you.

I think he did once speak to me, but I may have confused him with my mexican gardener, Jesus.

Quote:With regards to my understanding of love, you can no more love Jesus than I can love my pillow.

You must really love your pillow then, lol.

But I should say what I love in regards to Jesus, is not exclusively about some dude who lived and died a very long time ago, it's what I love about others too. It's the sort of goodness he embodies for me, that is sometimes glimpsed in the rare lives of others. But you don't believe in goodness, so you might not be able understand this either.

Quote:And yet, I' sure you love Jesus. What you consider love and what I consider love are not the same.

Maybe, maybe not.

(30-04-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are there commonalities in what you mean by love, applied in these three ways as well?

For me such a commonality, would be to borrow your word “friendship”, or to use a word I’m more accustomed to “communion”. It’s not particularly about material concerns, but a desire to share our lives with others, rather than in isolation. To be a part of them, as they are a part of me, a shared sort of intimacy. A desire to share in their joys and sorrows.

Quote:I see my wife as an individual, i would never say that I am part of her and she is part of me.

You seem to be very literal dude, adamant about avoiding anything flowery or poetic in expression. You must have a whole lot of trouble picking out cards, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That’s interesting, that it was religious people challenging your moral assumption, that led you down this path.
It helped me down that path. I was already somewhat on it.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What happened to those atheists morals? You likely held a variety of things that you held as immoral or moral, do you still hold pretty much the same things as wrong, but just not morally wrong? Perhaps ascribing non-moral reasons to justify them, or oppose them?
I decided to not hold them in such a grandiose manner. My opinions are merely my own opinions. Other people also hold their own opinions, my opinions aren't more worthy than theirs.
Taking this new stance I became more tolerant of others. It was no longer my place, no longer my obligation to interfere in the affairs of other people. I became much less judgmental (as it doesn't make sense to judge others based on their adherence to my own opinions).
So judgements regarding the morality of prostitution, polygamy etc disappeared. Consenting adults can make up their own minds on these things, only they are capable of making the "right" choice for them.
I came to the conclusion that unless I have walked a lifetime in the other person's shoes that I am not qualified to know what it is the "right" thing for them to do.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:But I am wary of using force merely based on my opinions of what is right and wrong.
I don't see it as my place to forcibly control others merely because I don't like what they are doing.
Why does “forcible control” of others bother you in such instances?
I try not to be hypocrytical (because it doesn't logically make much sense). If I want to be able to criticise other people for oppressing people (especially for them oppressing me) then I need to avoid oppressing others.
The question comes up. "Is oppression required?"
Philosophically speaking you could say that I am oppressing a murderer by supporting laws against murder. I am oppressing Catholics by supporting laws against discrimination.

I do feel that if we are to live within a society then we do require a set of enforced rules (hence we need to oppress someone).
So what standard are we to use?
I don't what it to be on a whim, I don't want to support forcing a person's opinions of right and wrong onto others (even if that opinion is mine because that is hypocritical). So what is to be the standard of our laws?
To answer that question, I feel we need to first define the purpose of government.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You took particular offense to the idea of a law that was established to end infanticide among Amazonian tribes, who buried children alive just for having physical impairments. You seemed to advocate for the tribe’d autonomy, and freedom to hold their own moral opinions, even if outsiders found them offensive.
I know you may consider me to be splitting hairs with this but its not about letting the tribes hold their own moral opinions, its about not forcing moral opinions of others onto them.
The difference being that the tribe might have an established system that is not based on moral opinions. I don't want to assume that moral opinions is the default position.
For example, most people in Western societies consider infidelity as immoral however we don't outlaw it. This is an indication that our laws are not entirely based on moral opinions (however I do think unfortunately there is currently too much influence based on people's moral opinions).
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you feel that communities in the US, should also be able to decide on their own moral opinions, at least to the extant of the Amazonian tribes, that if they wanted to engage in similar infanticide practices, we should grant them the freedom to do so, without punitive repercussions?
I'm not sure why your question focuses on US. I'm from NZ so I am not overly concerned with the goings on in US.
Let's generalise the question.
"Do I think the government should forcibly ensure that infanticide doesn't occur?"
This is a great question and given the current climate of thinking the vast majority of people would consider me somewhat of a monster or "morally bankrupt" if I said that I support parent's choice on the matter.
I'm not automatically closed off to the idea, I think it would be interesting to consider the consequences within a large scale society. But in saying that I'm not a proponent of the idea either. I'm somewhat on the fence.
One thing to consider is the resistance to change. For example within Saudi Arabia I don't think a government could get away with giving Women equal rights over night. Many people would rebel, many women would be attacked and killed as a consequence of making such a law. You would need to soften the public opinion before making a change in law would be realistically possible.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So in order to justify my own stance on law I had to come up with a reasoning that wasn't based on my own opinions of right and wrong. I have come to the conclusion that right and wrong are nonsensical phrases.
So you ditched the phrases, and came up with other reasons to justify those same things you once held as morally right and wrong? Was that reasoning already present previously when you viewed these things as moral and immoral? Or did you acquire those reasons after you rejected morality?
No, my view now is less judgmental, less controlling. I no longer think I know best. I no longer think people should behave according to my own opinions. I think government and law should have limited scope and if people don't like something based on moral opinion then they could seek a non law based avenue to influence society.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m just trying to see where and if your views changed substantially, or was it just a matter of using a different vocabulary.
I've changed regarding prostitution, polygamy, abortion, ...
Personally I'd like to outlaw religious studies for young children, religious books for young children etc, I see it as brainwashing. But I respect that other parents feel differently to me and want to brainwash their kids. It's not my place to interfere despite how much I despise the practice.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I did my own thinking and pieced together my current stance, that morals are illusionary, unnecessary and often incite people towards violence in an attempt to force others to comply to their own morals.

Was it something you pretty much worked out on your own? Were there any particularly philosophical works that advocated your views, that assisted you here?
Mostly on my own. I think lack of belief is more easily understood than belief. A person doesn't need to be taught to not believe in god, or taught not to believe in fairies, a person doesn't need to be taught to not believe in morality.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  From my understanding, most secular philosophers that argue that morality is illusory, tend to avoid exploring this, don’t particularly account for the various aspects of our moral beliefs, and perceptions, such as guilt, guilty knowledge, our perceptions of obligations and duties. As far as I know there’s hardly any secular philosopher exploring the shaping of human moral beliefs, counting for our sense of moral facts, and objectivity.
Well hopefully someone picks this up. I tend to think those people invested in ethics and morality want these things to exist. It doesn't make sense to be an "expert" or "authority" in something that you don't believe exists.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only people I know that even dare take on this endeavor, are theist, like Alasdair Macintyre’s After Virtue, that explore the certain incoherencies of our moral beliefs, particularly in relationship to enlightenment, post religious thought.
The problem with people exploring a worldview that they don't believe in, is that it is far too easy for them to construct a strawman. I have seen many, many strawmen of moral nihilism.
(03-05-2015 06:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think your view, that morality is illusory, is not particularly a good explanation of morality, and involves all sorts of missing parts regarding human moral perceptions as of now. While I may think that the view that morality is “illusory” is only position tenable for atheists, it’s also a bit premature in it’s current form. There’s not particularly anyone who thought this explanation through, but perhaps one day there will be. If you do have any recommendations, for philosophers I may not be familiar with on this subject, I would be interested in hearing this.
Personally, I'd suggest to avoid the philosophers who try to talk in terms of normative morality and ethics.
I consider descriptive egoism (psychological egoism) to be the likely correct view. Ayn Rand is a proponent of rational and ethical egoism but I reject those as they make normative claims.
Unfortunately my attempt to explain my position to you seem to have failed. I have highlighted that objective morality is unproven and un-discoverable and i have suggested that things like murder are commonly outlawed because people belonging to a society probably see murder as a threat to their own lives and the lives of their loved ones hence they use law to protect themselves. (and since abortion is no threat to them or their loved ones that they don't see anything wrong with it even though it is the killing of a human life).
You see this explanation (offered by me) less compelling than the idea that written into the fabric of the universe is the set of moral rules as to what is right and wrong and that humans (and potentially other sentient life) are uniquely linked to this universal truth (instantiated by their own feelings, emotions, empathy and guilt) whereas other animals do not have this special link to the truths perveying the universe.
I'm not sure how you then reason the situation that abortion was once illegal and is now legal? Do you consider abortion to be immoral? If so then how to you reason this claim?
To me your explanation is remarkable and magical, my explanation is mundane and natural. I think your explanation requires some proof supporting this magical objective moral standard and some proof supporting why humans are able to tap into this universal knowledge and why non human animals are not able to tap into it.
My position is merely that of disbelief in objective morality. I can offer a suggestion of a natural explanation for most things but I don't really have a burden of proof upon me to disprove objective morality. Your position is much more difficult, it is making a special claim, the proof you have offered so far is merely a fantastical story fitting your perception of a pattern (a pattern that has many exceptions), of which you explain away and say that although people hold these moral beliefs it doesn't mean that they will adhere to them which is why we have people behaving to the contrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
Quote:My position is merely that of disbelief in objective morality. I can offer a suggestion of a natural explanation for most things but I don't really have a burden of proof upon me to disprove objective morality.

Your disbelief in objective morality, is similar to your disbelief in subjective morality, in that you believe morality is illusionary. You lack of belief is predicated on this belief.

It's like if I were to define my position as merely that of disbelief in subjective morality, a disbelief that morality is illusionary. This is all quite true.

I can even go on to claim that I don't have the burden of proof upon me to disprove the view that morality is illusionary. In reality the burden of proof only falls on the person who wants to convince the other of their view. I'm not so much interested in your lack of belief here, I'm interested in what you actually believe. I'm not asking you to prove to me, I'm just inquiring about it for the most part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm interested in what you actually believe.

Everything is illusory. Many have tried to dispute it. All have failed. ... Don't mean Girly can't play your game and take your money and bitches and shit.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-05-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:My position is merely that of disbelief in objective morality. I can offer a suggestion of a natural explanation for most things but I don't really have a burden of proof upon me to disprove objective morality.

Your disbelief in objective morality, is similar to your disbelief in subjective morality,
I really don't understand subjective morality.
I mean, I understand that a person can hold a personal opinion as to whether something is right or wrong given whatever criteria they have personally decided upon with regards to "right" or "wrong". That's fine. They can call that a personal opinion of right vs wrong or they can call that a subjective morality. That's their perogotive.
I get annoyed however, when they make public claims "You can't do X because X is immoral". It's annoying because they admit that it is their own opinion and yet they somehow expect others to adhere to it. I don't know how this makes logical sense.
(03-05-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  in that you believe morality is illusionary. You lack of belief is predicated on this belief.
I suspect that morality is illusionary. I have no belief either way. My position is lack of belief.
(03-05-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's like if I were to define my position as merely that of disbelief in subjective morality, a disbelief that morality is illusionary. This is all quite true.
No, there is a big difference.
If I say that I lack a belief in god this doesn't mean that I believe there is no god. I merely lack a belief in it and don't take it seriously until there is evidence in support of it.
Well same goes for moral truths.
I lack a belief in them. I suspect they are illusionary. I don't know that they are illusionary.

(03-05-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In reality the burden of proof only falls on the person who wants to convince the other of their view. I'm not so much interested in your lack of belief here, I'm interested in what you actually believe. I'm not asking you to prove to me, I'm just inquiring about it for the most part.
OK, well, I lack a belief in moral truths. I don't consider them necessary to explain human behaviour or human emotions.
If you think they are necessary to do this explanation then out of necessity you must have discounted all other alternative explanations. However I have provided some explanations which you haven't discredited.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2015, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 08:16 PM by Stevil.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 03:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They don't employ the scientific method to evaluate evolution.

So there's a methodology that people can use to free them of their biases, and delusions? Or would delusional people just believe their thought process adhered to scientific methodology?
The scientific method relies upon skepticism. All claims are challenged. A person making a claim or refutation needs to get their ideas peer reviewed and published. If they aren't adhering to the scientific method then they will struggle to pass this gate. It becomes quickly evident if a person does not adhere to the scientific method. Even Michael Behe recognised that he wasn't doing science and he was suggesting in court that the scientific method would need to be expanded in order for his (creationist) ideas to be seriously considered.

(03-05-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You have chosen a non skeptical path with regards to the things your religious advisor tells you.
I don't think I have any real religious advisors, lol. Nor do I have a particular church, or pastor to credit for me being a believer. I only became a believer in my late 20s, and I don't think my thought process is any different than when I was an unbeliever. I rely a great deal on my common sense, and often evaluate the world, and human things, from the starting point of the human that I know the best, myself, and work upwards from there.
OK, Thanks for the clarification. In order to avoid a double up I will observe your conversation with Dark Phoenix.
(03-05-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To me if there's no evidence of God, then it would mean the evidence used for this, is better suited for explanations declaring his non-existense, i.e God's are imaginary, delusions, that morality is illusory, etc...
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
You've heard of the Black swan saga right?
(03-05-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't particularly get this whole lack of belief craze. If I were to ever become an atheists, it would have to be an atheism that asserts that God does not exist.
You don't like sitting on the fence? You need answers even if there is insufficient data to come to a conclusion?
Religions often claim to have all the answers.
Science is a method of discovery. If all the answers where known then there would be no need for science.
(03-05-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's evident to me that the way in which many atheists here would think through things, is quite different that how I would, but this has nothing to do with my theism. My thought process has been fairly consistent, and has served me well in a variety of other areas, even when I didn't believe in God. God didn't change the way I think, the question of God, just gave me more to consider.
I think the "god" approach gives us much less to consider. "God did it" doesn't really seem to me to be an appropriate answer to everything let alone anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 05:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  [If I say that I lack a belief in god this doesn't mean that I believe there is no god.

But if you believe God does not exist, it does mean you lack a belief in God. In fact if you believe Gods are imaginary, delusions, this also means you lack a belief in God. Just like my belief in God, means that I lack a belief that he does not exist.

None of my above mentioned examples merely lacks a belief. To merely lack a belief, relates to things for which we have no view or opinion one way or the other, such as I lack a belief in you having a dog, or a german automobile. I don’t merely lack a belief in regards to you being married or having kids, you’ve mentioned that here, and I take your word that you do.

Quote:I lack a belief in them. I suspect they are illusionary. I don't know that they are illusionary.

It’s because you suspect they are illusionary that you ack a belief. For me to join you and lack a belief as well, I would have to acquire your suspicion that they are illusionary and not real.

Your basic objections, criticism amount to nothing, unless they are objections that advocate for illusionary as a better explanation, a more sound and viable alternative. In fact all your objections would be incomprehensible, unless they are seen as begging me to consider a more viable alternative.

When you tell me you’re just suspect, and don’t really know, it seems you’re just telling me that you’re not really confident with this illusionary conclusion, that you consider your conclusion weak, and not all that persuasive, so you prefer not to bring in to the table, and wish that I would just treat you as someone who merely lacks belief instead. That doesn’t really work though, and you’ve perhaps been drinking on the koolaid of the lack of belief meme for too long, which is popular among certain atheists. If you don’t see yourself as defending and advocating an alternative, then you’re coming to the table empty handed, and naked.

Quote:OK, well, I lack a belief in moral truths.

Ok, well, I lack a belief that morality is a matter of opinions, of likes and dislikes, illusionary.

Quote:I don't consider them necessary to explain human behaviour or human emotions.
If you think they are necessary to do this explanation then out of necessity you must have discounted all other alternative explanations. However I have provided some explanations which you haven't discredited.

See, I’ve addressed this issue previously, of you conflating behavior and emotions with moral beliefs and perceptions. On numerous occasions you’ve answered questions, offered explanations for moral perceptions, that had nothing to do with perceptions at all, but rather about behavior. You offered answers unrelated to the actual questions being proposed.

I’m considering attempting to answer my own questions, with the view that morality is illusionary as true. So, let’s see if you agree. I asked why do people feel guilt when committing certain actions? Guilt is something that typically follows when a person feels they have done some wrong, or violated some principle.

One explanation could be that, is that society, like churches may have indoctrinated people into believing certain things are wrong, like the catholic church on masturbation. Even though there’s nothing wrong with masturbation. But since some people are cajoled into believe it’s wrong, guilt follows as a result.

Since Amazonian tribes advocate for infanticide, as a necessity, as right, members of this tribe would not feel guilt when killing their handicapped young, because the same indoctrination present in other cultures, against such practices is non-existent. Guilt would not follow in this instance, like guilt wouldn’t follow folks who were taught there’s nothing wrong with masturbation.

Is this something you believe?

My mileage will likely be quite short, since you’re not really confident in your alternative conclusion, and just have some suspicions. But I’d still be curious as to how you see all this.

Quote:You see this explanation (offered by me) less compelling than the idea that written into the fabric of the universe is the set of moral rules as to what is right and wrong and that humans (and potentially other sentient life) are uniquely linked to this universal truth (instantiated by their own feelings, emotions, empathy and guilt) whereas other animals do not have this special link to the truths perveying the universe….To me your explanation is remarkable and magical, my explanation is mundane and natural.

There’s a problem here. It doesn’t particularly follow that if objective morality exist, that it need be magical or remarkable, it could just as well be mundane and natural, depending on how one looks at it. In fact there seems to be a variety of people who don’t hold any real magical beliefs, who subscribe to objective morality, some who even classify themselves as atheists, as you likely already know.

My particular christian beliefs and objective morality are not one and the same thing here. While my religious beliefs may be dependent on this being true, objective morality itself is not dependent on my religious beliefs, or magical beliefs as you put it, being true.

A recent convert to moral realism, is the philosopher Thomas Nagel, who considers himself an atheist, and who is opposed to the idea of their being a God at all. He accepts moral realism because it just makes more sense than the alternative, and I would classify his views as mundane and unremarkable, a common sense perception. While the alternative, of morality being illusionary, as being quite radical, so radical in fact, that folks like Dennet who hold this to be the case, believe if word got out it would lead to the upheaval of civilizations itself. That’s not a mundane alternative here.

Let’s consider this for a minute. You see the very same things, but consider them illusions, while I consider them real. Off the bat it’s clear we’re not particularly speaking of common subjective preferences, of likes or dislikes. When I say I find scrambled eggs tastier than over easy eggs, we don’t call this an illusion. My taste buds, do find one more tasty than the other.

If you argue that morality is subjective, or an illusion, you have to account for the perception otherwise, and make better sense of them, than assuming they are real.

The view that they are real, doesn’t require an explanation as to how they came to be so, what mechanics, on what area of chemical makeup they exist in, or etc… It’s a conclusion, like concluding the wounds on a body were intended, which doesn’t require us to know who or what did it, or even the exact weapon being used, before drawing this conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(03-05-2015 08:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You don't like sitting on the fence? You need answers even if there is insufficient data to come to a conclusion?

None of us are sitting on the fence here, if think we are, we’re likely just fooling ourselves. When we hold beliefs such as Gods as imaginary, that believers are wrong in their views, Gods are delusional beliefs, religious were created for the sake of controlling power, etc.. we’re on a side,

I’m not sure why atheists such as yourself, often puts these particular beliefs that they commonly hold in the background, as if they’re not factors in their disbelief. The difference between me and them, is that what they put in the background, is what I would place in the foreground, and these beliefs would serve as the basis for my disbelief. To hold these sorts of view, and that declare that I merely lack a belief, to me is just dishonest.

This does mean that I would have to know for a fact that these conclusions are true, I would just have to accept that these are more likely to be true than the alternative, or at least, to use your word “suspect” it to be true, rather than not.

Quote:Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
You've heard of the Black swan saga right?

It wouldn’t be an absence of evidence, as much as it would be evidence better accounted for by alternative explanations. i.e that the evidence is in favor of God being a delusion, imaginary, rather than real. Or that evidence is in favor of morality being illusory, rather than real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2015 12:05 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
Quote:One thing to consider is the resistance to change. For example within Saudi Arabia I don't think a government could get away with giving Women equal rights over night. Many people would rebel, many women would be attacked and killed as a consequence of making such a law. You would need to soften the public opinion before making a change in law would be realistically possible.

But you think saudi woman should be afforded equal rights? Your objection seems to revolve around the means for change, rather than the principles here. Who cares if the Saudi's view women as no more than a man's personal property, to be discarded and used no differently than a mule. In your view they are no more wrong, or incorrect in their views, than you are in your belief that they are to be viewed as equals? Your view that women are deserving of rights, to be treated as equals, is because you're indoctrinated by western society to believe this.

Quote:IThis is a great question and given the current climate of thinking the vast majority of people would consider me somewhat of a monster or "morally bankrupt" if I said that I support parent's choice on the matter.
But you support a parents choice on the matter? That parents should be granted the freedom to commit infanticide? That you should be granted the freedom to murder your child up to a certain age? If so what age would that be?

I’m guessing you subscribe to something along the lines of Peter Singer’s view, that abortion rights should extended to at least 28 days after a child’s birth, since even chickens and fish show more signs of consciousness and rationality at this point? Or perhaps you extend it much further than this up to a year, perhaps till the child hits puberty, or adult hood or something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 09:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-05-2015 05:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  [If I say that I lack a belief in god this doesn't mean that I believe there is no god.

But if you believe God does not exist, it does mean you lack a belief in God. In fact if you believe Gods are imaginary, delusions, this also means you lack a belief in God. Just like my belief in God, means that I lack a belief that he does not exist.

None of my above mentioned examples merely lacks a belief. To merely lack a belief, relates to things for which we have no view or opinion one way or the other,
This is not quite true
There are an infinite imaginary things but only a finite real things.
Real things pale in comparison to imaginary things.

For me to consider something as true there needs to be compelling evidence for it otherwise I behave as if it doesn't exist.
This does not mean that I believe it doesn't exist. It does mean that I put the burden of proof onto the claimant.
You need to prove to me that it exists otherwise I don't entertain the idea of its existence.

It would be impossible to prove a negative, I cannot disprove the toothfairy, I cannot disprove tinkerbell. I cannot disprove big foot or the loch ness monster.
Should I go in search of something that there is no evidence for?
Or
Should I wait for those saying that it exists to provide some compelling proof first?

I don't entertain the existence of gods until someone can provide some compelling evidence. I don't even think god is even defined enough as a term to even consider if an entity is a god or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: