What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2014, 09:19 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 04:02 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 03:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The naturalist assumes that the nothing exists beyond the natural.Occam's Razor justifies this by removing anything beyond what we can observe.

That would be a strawman Naturalist that you just created, congratulations on the Intelligent Design there, (maybe the intelligent bit is a stretch).

So this implausible "naturalist" cough'strawman , will use his mighty Occams razor to banish every alternative his own dogmatic agenda, that about right.
[Image: slow-clap-gif-2.gif]

If you're a naturalist but you don't believe the physical is all there is, then you're not a naturalist. see here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

It's like saying "oh yes, I'm a theist, but I don't believe in any gods".

So on the above defintion, how exactly is it implausible that occam's razor doesn't suit the naturalist?

I would assume you're using a different definition?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 09:22 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 07:12 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 03:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The naturalist assumes that the nothing exists beyond the natural.Occam's Razor justifies this by removing anything beyond what we can observe.

You're not talking about Materialist Bias, are you? Because, we've talked about that already.

As soon as you use that as a justification for refuting people's arguments, you leave yourself open to asking whether you're in the Matrix or if you're about to be trampled by an invisible unicorn herd at every moment of your life.

I am talking about Naturalism. I haven't read that thread but will do so.

I don't leave myself open for those at all, why would you think so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 07:17 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 03:12 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I would assume this is you attempt to say I'm really an atheist. Some would say I am.

Anyway, as I've always said I will always answer questions put to me. As a teenager I was an atheist, and used similar arguments as many have here. I have changed from this perspective of focusing on what I don't believe, to what I do. Hence my 'strong' agnosticism and realisation that we really have no understanding to justify either side.

I don't identify with the statement of how do I come by my lack of belief. I have no belief towards a god based on the obvious lack of intervention on its part (if it exists). I would require something beyond what I've experienced in life to believe. I cannot rationalise any religion.

I have little interest in defining terms or trying to impose specific definitions upon people. Words are useful only when they convey shared meanings. In my limited observations of your interactions with this board various people have explained what specific terms mean to them but you have tended to try and force your definition and argue against the strawman you create in doing so rather than arguing against the actual positions held by members, leading to general frustration and eventual disengagement with you in discussion.

This is as the term agnostic is used as an inconsequential part of their position. It's rendered entirely pointless, by using the "what you know' stance. My use of the term is something entirely different, and is a position by itself.

How would you feel if a group used the term "atheist" to describe "believe in gods".

Quote:The terms are not important. I don't believe. You don't believe. It seems that is common between us. You came to that disbelief and I came by to that disbelief by some form of rational process. It seems the processes were similar. But you seem critical in this thread about people coming to precisely the same conclusion on a comparable logical foundation. Why be critical of a rational process and a conclusion that you seem to agree with?

The difference is you focus on what people don't believe, I don't focus on this, it doesn't matter what you don't believe. There are many things I don't believe, but don't feel the need to posit naturalism or a dependence on the material to prove an alternative option to a creator. This is common to most people who identify as atheist.




Quote:Let me compare my rational process and yours:
Me: I don't haven't seen compelling argumentation and evidence to lead me to believe that a god or gods exist.
You: "[There is an] ... obvious lack of intervention on its part (if it exists)".
... and our conclusions:

Me: I don't have a belief in god or gods
You: "I have no belief towards a god"

I believe that no argumentation is possible to convince an atheist that evidence is not required. This is a prejudice common amongst atheists. My prejudice is disbelieving evidence is coming, therefore I see no reason to identify with a position whose fundamental basis often asserts the lack of evidence as a viable reason.


Quote:My term for my conclusion: Atheist
Your term for your conclusion: Atheist? I'm not one of those idiots! You just want to poke the religious in the eye! Atheism is reaction to religion. You think you're better than them but your assertion that there is no god is based on no better grounds than theirs! Agnosticism is a reaction to atheism. I know both positions are shit, therefore I am the one who is better than you! Oh. I mean: Agnostic.

As I've said, that is your conclusion not mine. I don't conclude that I lack belief, I believe we lack the means to to possess a truth in this regard, therefore atheism is not appropriate for my position, agnosticism is.

Quote:I'm fine with your choice of terms and the semantic distinction you draw for yourself between your definition of atheist and your definition of agnostic. Just understand that for most people who call themselves atheists the distinction between their "atheist" term and your agnosticism is very fine indeed. You don't get to claim superiority for making exactly the same arguments and coming to the exact same conclusion but choosing a different word to describe your conclusion.

There's a huge difference between claiming a god is unknown or unknowable. One claims the potentiality of knowing, which is a key distinction and often leads to materialistic/naturalistic assertions, claiming unknowable counters these.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 01:45 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So if there was a creator there would be no existence?
Ugh.. wtf why are you assuming a creator exists ?? its almost as logical to assume that a metrosexual superman exists in the 4th dimensions!

for fucks sake man.. understand the absurdity of the idea of God![Image: facepalm.gif]
I'm not assuming it does. I'm simply not discounting a creator as a potential option, Therefore I need to propose options for why it may and may not exist. I could just be bias and propose evolution, singularity, quantum indeterminacy and the multiverse as valid reasons, but they're insufficient proof for me.

The absurdity of existence, seems absurd too.


Quote:Your claim of chaotic and random would be based on what, quantum indeterminacy?
No its based on something called "Common sense"
Quote:some atheists show a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.
Its not our fault that theists can't provide us with Scientific evidence supporting their hypothesis of God.[/quote]

There's no proof for any position.


Quote:
Quote:If you claim it's not potentially false, what evidence do you hold to justify this? .
Oh i have !

We CANNOT observe&interact with anything beyond this world!

That cannot observe react does not mean it's true, it could be a limitation. That said, how do we know what we perceive is as it is? It could be merely our faculties lack the ability to answer this question, and limit our answer to what we can observe.

Quote:If you can provide me evidence to disprove that claim then i'll accept that naturalism is a "potentially false" premise..
Quote:So anything which there is no evidence for, does not exist is untrue? That's quite a claim.
"Extraordinary claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

That you require evidence to prove that naturalism is false, only further demonstrates your dependence on it, and your belief that's all there is.

On that basis, do you have evidence which shows that naturalism is true? I hope so, otherwise your entire basis is unfounded and subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 03:44 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I have been with you guys all the way regarding Brownshirts position. One of his comments was that he neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or gods, to which my reaction was "That is a non-sensical, meaningless statement. You must either believe or not believe".

However, I have been pondering this statement. If it's true that there are levels of belief and disbelief (strong theist to strong atheist), then there must be a middle ground where Brownshirts statement exists. I suppose this stems from coming to the conclusion that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable, and therefore not worth his attention.

The problem I have with this is that it could be said that nothing is 100% knowable. If this is the case, then Brownshirt would have to say that he neither believes nor disbelieves anything and so there is nothing worth his attention.

These are my initial ponderings and may change tomorrow as it is the first time I have considered this middle ground.

I'm unsure if you want me to address this or not, given you didn't seem to write it for me. But will do so anyway...

There is a distinction between what we know by what we have observed. Science in general is based on falsification and given the obvious sceptical focus here, I don't think I need to go into details on here on what is 100% knowable.

The god question lies beyond this for me, and I don't equate "how many apples are in Newton's tree" as the same form of question, nor whether it is knowable.

I am as middle as you can get, which I why I don't wish to identify with a side, via lacking belief in one side's position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 11:26 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief.

It's a general rule, and one that in most cases, we all use without even thinking about it. It's reasonable, from a non-deductive perspective.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 12:25 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 11:26 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief.

It's a general rule, and one that in most cases, we all use without even thinking about it. It's reasonable, from a non-deductive perspective.

I know what it is, but don't see it's relevance here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 12:31 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 12:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I know what it is, but don't see it's relevance here.

The relevence is, that if no gods are necessary, then introducing them is a violation of Ocamm's razor. That obvioulsy isn't any kind of proof that they don't exist, but if naturalism is otherwise consistent, then it does mean it's more reasonable than naturalism+gods.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like toadaly's post
02-02-2014, 03:46 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 12:31 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 12:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I know what it is, but don't see it's relevance here.

The relevence is, that if no gods are necessary, then introducing them is a violation of Ocamm's razor. That obvioulsy isn't any kind of proof that they don't exist, but if naturalism is otherwise consistent, then it does mean it's more reasonable than naturalism+gods.

It means that if an explanation can be provided, then yes its application is useful.
There is no explanation so I don't see why appealing to it helps in any way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 05:32 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Occam's razor is not "true". It doesn't determine what is true. It is a heuristic device we use to choose when we are trying to decide between alternative unfalsified claims: Of two unfalsified hypotheses with equivalent predictive power we should focus our efforts on verifying the one with the least hidden variables and assumptions. All scientific knowledge falls into the "unfalsified" bucket therefore such a heuristic is essential to the progress of science, and Occam seems to be the best available in terms of moving the state of our knowledge forwards.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: