Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 10:25 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 09:17 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  So Free, are you a gnostic atheist? Because that's a problematic position to sustain.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not meaning to get into the middle of this but I have to correct you on this PA. Absence of evidence actually CAN be evidence of absence. Even though you can't disprove the whole orbiting teapot analogy at this time, the fact that the teapot has not been seen does in fact support the assertion that there is no teapot. While I agree that you that as long as there are stones left unturned you can't really say that something is absent (or false), as you turn over more stones and there are fewer stones left to hide under, you are in fact using lack of evidence to support the assertion that the subject in question is false. Do you seriously think that you, after looking under 9,999 stones of 10,000, that after you turn over the last one and find nothing are still going to argue that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence? That is not rational, that is theological.

Very well said.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
I think natural curiosity is a big factor.

From my experience, hardline theists happily live in their own little bubble, and generally pay no attention to universe outside.

Those who are genuinely curious will seek out information and are much more likely to question established doctrine.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 11:04 AM by The Polyglot Atheist.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 10:17 AM)Free Wrote:  You see, my point here is really all about atheism verses agnosticism. To me, if you are not 7.0, then you are simply not an atheist. We all know what atheism is, and we all know what agnosticism is.

Then you're wrong. And that's exactly because we know what atheism is.

(14-01-2015 10:25 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Not meaning to get into the middle of this but I have to correct you on this PA. Absence of evidence actually CAN be evidence of absence. Even though you can't disprove the whole orbiting teapot analogy at this time, the fact that the teapot has not been seen does in fact support the assertion that there is no teapot. While I agree that you that as long as there are stones left unturned you can't really say that something is absent (or false), as you turn over more stones and there are fewer stones left to hide under, you are in fact using lack of evidence to support the assertion that the subject in question is false. Do you seriously think that you, after looking under 9,999 stones of 10,000, that after you turn over the last one and find nothing are still going to argue that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence? That is not rational, that is theological.

Two points:

1- The teapot would be a physical event, deities are supposed to be invisible, untouchable, etc, so I don't know whether the comparison exists. But let's say the teapot had these features: Would you be able to claim with 100% absolute certainty that there is no teapot? I don't believe there is one, but I cannot claim: "There isn't one." What's the basis for it? Just because I don't know about it? That's weak. The fact that I personally lack evidence for it, does not prove it's not there, it's just proof that there isn't enough proof to support it. If you get what I mean.

2- Are we at "9,999 stones of 10,000"? That doesn't really apply to reality now, does it? I don't understand how that is helpful. But if I was looking for something and I had 10,000 things to turn then yes, until 100% of those have been verified, I would withhold belief, but that's not how knowledge works.

(14-01-2015 09:59 AM)Free Wrote:  I have proven it with evidence.

Read this post.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid720005

I'm reading your posts, but maybe you didn't read mine. You have not proven it. You're claiming knowledge you don't have.

The second premise you state is not proven. You don't know about "any possibility", you're a regular human being like me, so how do you know what is the requirement for there being a god or not?

You don't, that's the answer.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
14-01-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 10:58 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 10:17 AM)Free Wrote:  You see, my point here is really all about atheism verses agnosticism. To me, if you are not 7.0, then you are simply not an atheist. We all know what atheism is, and we all know what agnosticism is.

Then you're wrong. And that's exactly because we know what atheism is.

Since we are using the Dawkins Scale here, then that is our criteria:

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.


Atheism is modernly described as a "lack of belief in gods." Yet, when anyone says that there is a possibility that god exists based upon what they do not know, then that is not a lack of belief.

To claim a possibility is, in fact, a positive claim of belief that the existence of God is possible.

And that is not a "lack of beliefs in gods."


Quote:
(14-01-2015 09:59 AM)Free Wrote:  I have proven it with evidence.

Read this post.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid720005

I'm reading your posts, but maybe you didn't read mine. You have not proven it. You're claiming knowledge you don't have.

I am claiming knowledge I don't have? You are now making a positive claim that there is knowledge in existence I do not have.

Please produce that knowledge.

Quote:The second premise you state is not proven. You don't know about "any possibility", you're a regular human being like me, so how do you know what is the requirement for there being a god or not?

You don't, that's the answer.

Again, here's your answer:

1. There is no evidence that any god exists.
2. There is no evidence to support any possibility that any god exists.

Therefore, the evidence I provide is, in fact, within the lack of evidence.

No evidence is, in fact, evidence. It is known as ...

Evidence of Absence

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Atheism is modernly described as a "lack of belief in gods." Yet, when anyone says that there is a possibility that god exists based upon what they do not know, then that is not a lack of belief.

To claim a possibility is, in fact, a statement of belief that the existence of God is possible.

And that is not a "lack of beliefs in gods."

That is a lack of belief in gods, it's the dictionary definition. It can't be any more standard than that.

(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  I am claiming knowledge I don't have? You are now making a positive claim that there is knowledge in existence I do not have.

Please produce that knowledge.

I am making a positive claim? What are you talking about? You're the one saying that you know that God is not there, not me.

(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Again, here's your answer:

1. There is no evidence that any god exists.
2. There is no evidence to support any possibility that any god exists.

Therefore, the evidence I provide is, in fact, within the lack of evidence.

No evidence is, in fact, evidence. It is known as ...

Evidence of Absence

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

If you're just going to re-paste what you've said in the past then I no longer find this conversation productive and I'll let others continue it if they wish to do so.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
14-01-2015, 11:27 AM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 12:19 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 11:20 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Atheism is modernly described as a "lack of belief in gods." Yet, when anyone says that there is a possibility that god exists based upon what they do not know, then that is not a lack of belief.

To claim a possibility is, in fact, a statement of belief that the existence of God is possible.

And that is not a "lack of beliefs in gods."

That is a lack of belief in gods, it's the dictionary definition. It can't be any more standard than that.

No. When you believe it is possible that God exists, then that is not a lack of beliefs whatsoever.

This is just common sense.

Quote:
(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  I am claiming knowledge I don't have? You are now making a positive claim that there is knowledge in existence I do not have.

Please produce that knowledge.

I am making a positive claim? What are you talking about? You're the one saying that you know that God is not there, not me.

The positive claim you made is that there is some kind of knowledge in existence that I do not possess. Here again is that exact statement:

Quote:You're claiming knowledge you don't have.

Therefore, what knowledge exists that you claim that I do not have?

If you cannot produce this supposed missing knowledge, then your positive claim is without evidence to support, and is meaningless.


Quote:
(14-01-2015 11:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Again, here's your answer:

1. There is no evidence that any god exists.
2. There is no evidence to support any possibility that any god exists.

Therefore, the evidence I provide is, in fact, within the lack of evidence.

No evidence is, in fact, evidence. It is known as ...

Evidence of Absence

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

If you're just going to re-paste what you've said in the past then this conversation is no longer productive. I find that really tedious.

But that is my evidence, which you keep saying doesn't exist.

It exists.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Dawkins, what have you done?

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SunnyD1's post
14-01-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(12-01-2015 06:39 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  Sooner or later, everyone is exposed to the idea that it is possible to not believe in a god, or at least act like you don't. Some people look into this new viewpoint and become atheists. Some people recoil like a cat hit by water and scream at the position until it goes away, remaining theists.

Sometimes, I wonder why that is. What is it that causes some people to accept that their faith is wrong, while others who see the exact same evidence, can't accept that?

Anyone else think about this? Got any ideas? All I can think of is basic open-mindedness.

Edit: I guess it's be better to say "What makes atheists go back to atheism" since it's the default before indoctrination. Or, "What makes atheists stay atheists if they weren't indoctrinated but exposed later".

In my case it was honesty. I discovered upon examination that he arguments I used to try and justify my belief were all fallacious and I couldn't make or find one that wasn't. I had a choice to make: honesty or evasion. I chose honesty.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
14-01-2015, 10:39 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(12-01-2015 06:39 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  Sometimes, I wonder why that is. What is it that causes some people to accept that their faith is wrong, while others who see the exact same evidence, can't accept that?

Most of the time, I wonder what it is that causes "some people" to accept that their faith is right, as opposed to any other, while the rest of us are still waiting for evidence...actual, that is.

The second mouse gets the cheese.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 10:41 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(14-01-2015 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  When there is no evidence to either support the existence of something, and/or no evidence to support even the possibility of something existing, then we DO have knowledge of it's non existence.
Ummm, Really?

Lack of evidence does not equate to knowledge.
It equates to lack of knowledge.


(14-01-2015 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, since we have knowledge of its non existence, we know it does not exist.
Lack of knowledge does not equate to knowledge of something's non existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: