Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
It is absurd, you seem to have a problem with that. Not everyone else does, it's perfectly fine if that's what you're willing to draw the line on. None of it really matters but I don't see anything making you likely to see it differently.

To say it simply by part of your quote in your argument, "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."

You seem to think we are qualified investigators.. I don't see the evidence for thinking we are on many subjects. When we look at all the discoveries we are constantly still making and deeper understandings we are stumbling upon we didn't have previously, that's good reason for me to think we are far from a point we can claim certainty in our knowledge. The problem is we don't know what we would be looking for in terms of evidence for many things. What humans are thinking up and working on now is drastically different from 200 years ago and likely will drastically be different in the future after all of us on this forum are dead.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2015, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2015 12:39 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 11:12 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It is absurd, you seem to have a problem with that. Not everyone else does, it's perfectly fine if that's what you're willing to draw the line on. None of it really matters but I don't see anything making you likely to see it differently.

To say it simply by part of your quote in your argument, "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."

You seem to think we are qualified investigators.. I don't see the evidence for thinking we are on many subjects. When we look at all the discoveries we are constantly still making and deeper understandings we are stumbling upon we didn't have previously, that's good reason for me to think we are far from a point we can claim certainty in our knowledge. The problem is we don't know what we would be looking for in terms of evidence for many things. What humans are thinking up and working on now is drastically different from 200 years ago and likely will drastically be different in the future after all of us on this forum are dead.

This argument is weak. The entire argument from 6.9 and less atheists is:

1. Since we do not "know" that there is no god or that there is no possibility of a supernatural god, we cannot conclusively say that God does not exist.

2. Since there is no evidence to support the non existence of God, then we cannot conclusively say that God does not exist.

Let's examine # 1:

What is the definition of "knowledge?"

1. Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. Familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. Acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. The fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. Awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6. Something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7. The body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.


Knowledge is universally defined as consisting of facts, truths, familiarity, the state of knowing, awareness, and something capable of knowing.

This leads us to # 2:

What is evidence?

1.Grounds for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

2.A mark or sign that makes evident; indication: his pallor was evidence of ill health

3.Matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence.


Evidence is described as data, visible mark or sign, witnesses, documents, and material objects.


In all definitions of evidence, it is described as something that is physically observable.

Both 1 and 2 are based upon a "possibility." They both say that since we cannot conclusively disprove the existence of God, we cannot therefore say with 100% certainty that God does not exist.

Aside from this being exactly like a a theist argument in which a theist says, "You cannot disprove God exists, so you are wrong," both arguments must first provide evidence to support the position that it is "possible."

So now we go to the definition of "possible."

1.capable of existing, taking place, or proving true without contravention of any natural law

2.capable of being achieved: it is not possible to finish in three weeks

3.having potential or capabilities for favourable use or development: the idea is a possible money-spinner


The # 1 definition makes it perfectly clear. Things can only possibly exist if they do not contradict natural law. Therefore, in regards to a supernatural entity such as God, it cannot exist.


Summary:

1. There is no knowledge of any facts, truths, familiarity, the state of knowing, awareness, or something capable of knowing in regards to either the existence, or the possibility, of any supernatural God existing.

Appeal to Ignorance (we have no knowledge) is a fallacious argument that cannot be applied here:

"Argument from ignorance - also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (ie; god can possibility exist).



2. There is no evidence to support the possibility proposed by atheists who are under the 7.0 Dawkins Scale.

Conclusion:

Due to no evidence to support either the existence of a supernatural God, or even the possibility of a supernatural God, then we can conclude that God cannot, and does not, exist.

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
16-01-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 10:19 AM)Free Wrote:  And if I turn the tables on you and say, "We don't know everything yet about geometry, so you cannot conclude this to be true," what then?
You would have to redefine the definition of circle, redefine the definition of square.
Given the definitions as they stand, they are incompatible. You can't have a square circle.



(16-01-2015 10:19 AM)Free Wrote:  No, I am talking about 1 million POLKA DOTTED elephants, basically an animal that fits the imaginary category.

Now prove they are not there.

Point is, absurdity.
Are you going to provide a falsifiable definition of your polka dotted elephants?
If so, I may attempt to disprove them.
If not, then I am not going to entertain your idea, I simply disbelieve, but I will not go so far as to be dishonest and categorically state that they don't exist, I merely disbelieve.
It's up to you to provide a more comprehensive definition of your elephants.

But for now you can colour me not interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
16-01-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 12:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 10:19 AM)Free Wrote:  And if I turn the tables on you and say, "We don't know everything yet about geometry, so you cannot conclude this to be true," what then?
You would have to redefine the definition of circle, redefine the definition of square.
Given the definitions as they stand, they are incompatible. You can't have a square circle.

What if God is a square circle?

My point being, all realities and possibilities are determined by evidence to support both. Just like your square circle analogy- which cannot exist in nature- a supernatural God also cannot exist in nature.

Just because we say something is "possible" does not mean it actually is possible. Existence depends on being existent in nature, in that it cannot contradict natural law.

The proposal of a supernatural God having any possibility of existing is voided by natural law alone, aside from the obvious fact that no evidence exists.



Quote:
(16-01-2015 10:19 AM)Free Wrote:  No, I am talking about 1 million POLKA DOTTED elephants, basically an animal that fits the imaginary category.

Now prove they are not there.

Point is, absurdity.
Are you going to provide a falsifiable definition of your polka dotted elephants?
If so, I may attempt to disprove them.
If not, then I am not going to entertain your idea, I simply disbelieve, but I will not go so far as to be dishonest and categorically state that they don't exist, I merely disbelieve.
It's up to you to provide a more comprehensive definition of your elephants.

But for now you can colour me not interested.

That's my point, exactly.

Can you provide falsifiable data that can prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God in which it would enable you to hold to a 6.9 position (as opposed to a 7.0) on the Dawkin's Scale?

Smile

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
16-01-2015, 01:14 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  What if God is a square circle?
If the definition of a god demands that it is in the shape of a square circle then that god does not exist.
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  a supernatural God also cannot exist in nature.
We don't have the ability to validate this assertion.

(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Just because we say something is "possible" does not mean it actually is possible.
If we don't know if it's possible or not, perhaps we should say that we don't know.

(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you provide falsifiable data that can prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God in which it would enable you to hold to a 6.9 position (as opposed to a 7.0) on the Dawkin's Scale?
It's not up to me to prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural god. My position is that I disbelieve in god's existence. I do not make a claim that god doesn't exit. That claim would either require me to provide evidence or embarrassingly state that it is a belief of mine (from wishful thinking) or incredulity or whatever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
16-01-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 01:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  What if God is a square circle?
If the definition of a god demands that it is in the shape of a square circle then that god does not exist.

Why is it not possible that a square circle possibly exists?

You're getting closer...

Smile

Quote:
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  a supernatural God also cannot exist in nature.
We don't have the ability to validate this assertion.

Of course we do, because if we did not then we could never be able to determine nor define existence. Since existence is defined by that which is observable, then that which is not observable in nature does not exist.

We cannot speak to what can or cannot exist outside of nature, such as a supernatural entity, but only to what we can determine to exist within the confines of natural law.



Quote:
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Just because we say something is "possible" does not mean it actually is possible.
If we don't know if it's possible or not, perhaps we should say that we don't know.

But we do "know" if it's possible or not by simply taking the logical steps of understanding what constitutes a possibility. Something is only possible if there is evidence to support the possibility.

Since there is no evidence to support the possibility, then we can reasonably, logically, and honestly conclude that the proposal of a possibility is false.

Quote:
(16-01-2015 01:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you provide falsifiable data that can prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God in which it would enable you to hold to a 6.9 position (as opposed to a 7.0) on the Dawkin's Scale?
It's not up to me to prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural god.

Yes it is.

If you are holding back from going from a 6.9 to a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale, and arguing for the reasoning for your 6.9 position being that it is "possible" that a supernatural god can exist, then it is only fair to yourself and to honesty in general that you demonstrate some evidence to support the possibility that a supernatural god could exist.

You do not need to prove that a supernatural god exists, but only demonstrate with evidence how it is possible.

If that cannot be done, then you do not have an intellectually honest reason to remain at a 6.9 position, sine that position is not grounded in a single shred of support.


Quote: My position is that I disbelieve in god's existence. I do not make a claim that god doesn't exit. That claim would either require me to provide evidence or embarrassingly state that it is a belief of mine (from wishful thinking) or incredulity or whatever.

The burden of proof is always upon those making the positive claim of existence.

Here's how the logic actually works:

1. Those making a positive claim need to provide positive evidence ie; observable/detectable in some way.

2. Those making a negative claim need to provide negative evidence. Negative evidence in this case refers to demonstrating a complete lack of positive evidence.

You cannot prove a negative with positive evidence, nor can you prove a positive with negative evidence.

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
16-01-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 02:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 01:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If the definition of a god demands that it is in the shape of a square circle then that god does not exist.

Why is it not possible that a square circle possibly exists?

You're getting closer...

Smile

Quote:We don't have the ability to validate this assertion.

Of course we do, because if we did not then we could never be able to determine nor define existence. Since existence is defined by that which is observable, then that which is not observable in nature does not exist.

We cannot speak to what can or cannot exist outside of nature, such as a supernatural entity, but only to what we can determine to exist within the confines of natural law.



Quote:If we don't know if it's possible or not, perhaps we should say that we don't know.

But we do "know" if it's possible or not by simply taking the logical steps of understanding what constitutes a possibility. Something is only possible if there is evidence to support the possibility.

Since there is no evidence to support the possibility, then we can reasonably, logically, and honestly conclude that the proposal of a possibility is false.

Quote:It's not up to me to prove the possibility of the existence of a supernatural god.

Yes it is.

If you are holding back from going from a 6.9 to a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale, and arguing for the reasoning for your 6.9 position being that it is "possible" that a supernatural god can exist, then it is only fair to yourself and to honesty in general that you demonstrate some evidence to support the possibility that a supernatural god could exist.

You do not need to prove that a supernatural god exists, but only demonstrate with evidence how it is possible.

If that cannot be done, then you do not have an intellectually honest reason to remain at a 6.9 position, sine that position is not grounded in a single shred of support.


Quote: My position is that I disbelieve in god's existence. I do not make a claim that god doesn't exit. That claim would either require me to provide evidence or embarrassingly state that it is a belief of mine (from wishful thinking) or incredulity or whatever.

The burden of proof is always upon those making the positive claim of existence.

Here's how the logic actually works:

1. Those making a positive claim need to provide positive evidence ie; observable/detectable in some way.

2. Those making a negative claim need to provide negative evidence. Negative evidence in this case refers to demonstrating a complete lack of positive evidence.

You cannot prove a negative with positive evidence, nor can you prove a positive with negative evidence.

You are arguing against a straw man of your own devising.

Neither you nor I can prove there are no gods. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence that there are no gods, but not prove it.

Claiming 7.0 (or 1.0) is a faith claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-01-2015, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2015 02:54 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 02:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 02:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Why is it not possible that a square circle possibly exists?

You're getting closer...

Smile


Of course we do, because if we did not then we could never be able to determine nor define existence. Since existence is defined by that which is observable, then that which is not observable in nature does not exist.

We cannot speak to what can or cannot exist outside of nature, such as a supernatural entity, but only to what we can determine to exist within the confines of natural law.




But we do "know" if it's possible or not by simply taking the logical steps of understanding what constitutes a possibility. Something is only possible if there is evidence to support the possibility.

Since there is no evidence to support the possibility, then we can reasonably, logically, and honestly conclude that the proposal of a possibility is false.


Yes it is.

If you are holding back from going from a 6.9 to a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale, and arguing for the reasoning for your 6.9 position being that it is "possible" that a supernatural god can exist, then it is only fair to yourself and to honesty in general that you demonstrate some evidence to support the possibility that a supernatural god could exist.

You do not need to prove that a supernatural god exists, but only demonstrate with evidence how it is possible.

If that cannot be done, then you do not have an intellectually honest reason to remain at a 6.9 position, sine that position is not grounded in a single shred of support.



The burden of proof is always upon those making the positive claim of existence.

Here's how the logic actually works:

1. Those making a positive claim need to provide positive evidence ie; observable/detectable in some way.

2. Those making a negative claim need to provide negative evidence. Negative evidence in this case refers to demonstrating a complete lack of positive evidence.

You cannot prove a negative with positive evidence, nor can you prove a positive with negative evidence.

You are arguing against a straw man of your own devising.

Neither you nor I can prove there are no gods. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence that there are no gods, but not prove it.

Claiming 7.0 (or 1.0) is a faith claim.

7.0 is a claim based upon all known facts, whereas a 1.0 position is a claim based upon religious tenants.

Apples and Oranges, Chas. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, you can prove the claim of "God does not exist" by demonstrating conclusive negative evidence ie; a total and complete lack of positive evidence.

And I have done that.

None of us would have any problem accepting the existence of God if credible and conclusive positive evidence were to be supplied.

Therefore, by the very same standard, none of us should have any problem accepting the non existence of God if credible and conclusive negative evidence were to be supplied.


Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
16-01-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 02:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 02:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are arguing against a straw man of your own devising.

Neither you nor I can prove there are no gods. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence that there are no gods, but not prove it.

Claiming 7.0 (or 1.0) is a faith claim.

7.0 is a claim based upon all known facts, whereas a 1.0 position is a claim based upon religious tenants.

Apples and Oranges, Chas. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, you can prove the claim of "God does not exist" by demonstrating conclusive negative evidence ie; a total and complete lack of positive evidence.

And I have done that.

None of us would have any problem accepting the existence of God if credible and conclusive positive evidence were to be supplied.

Therefore, by the very same standard, none of us should have any problem accepting the non existence of God if credible and conclusive negative evidence were to be supplied.


Drinking Beverage

This is where you view definitions differently from me.

4.1-6.9 is also "accepting the non-existence" in my book. 7.0 Is proclaiming TO KNOW there is no existence. Chas is correct to say it is a Faith claim.

And you frequently, not only in this topic, ignore how Human instincts, common sense, etc are not that valid for understanding the world. We know this through things making no "sense" to us via quantum levels or universal scale levels compared to our evolutionary made sensibilities. How do you conclude that we are qualified investigators to make many certainty claims?

Your also manipulating use to say it's supernatural therefore not natural therefore not valid at all is a misnomer. Not all god claims are definitively supernatural? What is supernatural but a label people use before studying more about it.. thunder was supernatural, the planets were, germs, etc. Hanging onto definitions and dumb labels is a very low intellectual way of trying to get at points. It's the furthest thing from likelyhood... I don't know how but maybe your view of a Big Crunch universe expanding back and forth through a point is being directed by a entity. I believe there is no reason to believe it, but I also believe there is no reason to think that view of the universe is valid either, but you said previously it is the only one that makes sense to you, so you accept it. There isn't a good rational reason to ever claim 100% knowledge for these subjects, nor is there even a benefit to do so. Comments like, well theists say these things and that thing shouldn't be relevant if what matters to you is actually the facts of the situation.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-01-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(16-01-2015 04:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-01-2015 02:14 PM)Free Wrote:  7.0 is a claim based upon all known facts, whereas a 1.0 position is a claim based upon religious tenants.

Apples and Oranges, Chas. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, you can prove the claim of "God does not exist" by demonstrating conclusive negative evidence ie; a total and complete lack of positive evidence.

And I have done that.

None of us would have any problem accepting the existence of God if credible and conclusive positive evidence were to be supplied.

Therefore, by the very same standard, none of us should have any problem accepting the non existence of God if credible and conclusive negative evidence were to be supplied.


Drinking Beverage

This is where you view definitions differently from me.

4.1-6.9 is also "accepting the non-existence" in my book. 7.0 Is proclaiming TO KNOW there is no existence. Chas is correct to say it is a Faith claim.

Yes, I can claim to know there is no existence of any supernatural god for the exact same reason that you can claim to know there is no such thing as a square circle.

There is no evidence to support either one. None.

Since I can claim to "know" how can that therefore be compared to a "belief?'

One denotes conclusive knowledge, and I have demonstrated how that knowledge is ascertained.

The other denoted a belief that cannot be confirmed, and is therefore taken on "faith" only.

One cannot be compared to the other with any degree of intellectual honesty whatsoever.

Quote:And you frequently, not only in this topic, ignore how Human instincts, common sense, etc are not that valid for understanding the world.

That is not true.

What you are referring to is what is called "counter intuitiveness" and it does not apply to the world, or for better clarification, "naturalism."

It applies to those things which currently defy a natural explanation, which by no means indicates that the explanation must by necessity be "supernatural."

Therefore, your accusation here is non sequitur to this topic of a "supernatural" entity.


Quote: We know this through things making no "sense" to us via quantum levels or universal scale levels compared to our evolutionary made sensibilities. How do you conclude that we are qualified investigators to make many certainty claims?

Here you are doing it again; you are comparing an existence which is currently unknown- YET HAS POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT'S EXISTENCE- with that which is deemed "supernatural," and HAS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS EXISTENCE.

This is a False Comparison.

Quote:Your also manipulating use to say it's supernatural therefore not natural therefore not valid at all is a misnomer. Not all god claims are definitively supernatural? What is supernatural but a label people use before studying more about it.. thunder was supernatural, the planets were, germs, etc. Hanging onto definitions and dumb labels is a very low intellectual way of trying to get at points. It's the furthest thing from likelyhood... I don't know how but maybe your view of a Big Crunch universe expanding back and forth through a point is being directed by a entity. I believe there is no reason to believe it, but I also believe there is no reason to think that view of the universe is valid either, but you said previously it is the only one that makes sense to you, so you accept it. There isn't a good rational reason to ever claim 100% knowledge for these subjects, nor is there even a benefit to do so. Comments like, well theists say these things and that thing shouldn't be relevant if what matters to you is actually the facts of the situation.

We are speaking of a supernatural entity, such as what is described in theology by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.

We are not speaking of any entity that is natural. If such a natural entity could exist, then "god" would hardly be the word for it.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: