Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2015, 03:50 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(12-01-2015 08:08 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(12-01-2015 07:40 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Well it's very simple. Some people are reasonable and others are not. Most are not, in fact. Which is why most of the world is religious.
There's reasonable, and then there's reasonable. It depends on the perspective.

Nope; belief in unsubstantiated, faith-based bullshit is pretty unreasonable any way you slice it. Drinking Beverage

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Misanthropik's post
18-01-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(17-01-2015 06:25 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My proof has to do specifically with the necessary relationship between existence and consciousness and shows that the idea of a god creating existence through an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence and therefore is false.
This sounds like some sort of atheist apologetics.

I find apologetic arguments to be quite insane.
There are some obvious unfounded assumptions in your "proof".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-01-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(17-01-2015 06:25 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 06:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  That assumes there was no existence prior to the Big Bang; unproven assumption.

No. I happen to believe there has always been something. That has nothing to do with my proof. My proof has to do specifically with the necessary relationship between existence and consciousness and shows that the idea of a god creating existence through an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence and therefore is false.

No violation. The greater universe/multiverse exists and something creates our local universe.

Not that I believe any of that to be so, but your argument is not a proof.

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
18-01-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(17-01-2015 06:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 05:37 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Chas,

Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I can provide the proof you ask for.

1. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness then existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

2. If existence holds metaphysical primacy then it was not created by a god.

3. The objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness.

Therefor, existence holds metaphysical primacy and the universe was not created by a god.

God iff Absurd. It's all Absurd. Ergo God. Checkmate existentialists. Tongue

Finally someone who sees it all on my level on this thread Big Grin

Though it was mentioned above about perpetual skepticism... and yes I greatly support that idea as well as just embrace it's all absurd guys. We get nowhwere by denying that Thumbsup

"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
18-01-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(18-01-2015 12:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 06:25 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My proof has to do specifically with the necessary relationship between existence and consciousness and shows that the idea of a god creating existence through an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence and therefore is false.
This sounds like some sort of atheist apologetics.

I find apologetic arguments to be quite insane.
There are some obvious unfounded assumptions in your "proof".

Hi Stevil,

I'm guessing you're referring to TAG. This argument is nothing like the apologists' argument which just asserts that God is a necessary precondition for logic. This argument makes no unfounded assumptions. It deals with real axioms which are inescapable. To test this, go ahead and try refuting the primacy of existence without using it. Anyone who tries will end up with no choice but to accept the primacy of existence in defending their conclusion when I tell them that if I don't want their objection to be true, it won't be. If the primacy of existence is not a true principle then they will have no problem with this statement, but I'm guessing they won't let me get away with saying this, thereby refuting their own objection.

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
18-01-2015, 08:28 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(18-01-2015 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-01-2015 06:25 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  No. I happen to believe there has always been something. That has nothing to do with my proof. My proof has to do specifically with the necessary relationship between existence and consciousness and shows that the idea of a god creating existence through an act of conscious will violates the primacy of existence and therefore is false.

No violation. The greater universe/multiverse exists and something creates our local universe.

Not that I believe any of that to be so, but your argument is not a proof.

Hi Chas. Thanks for responding.

I see a couple of problems here. The arbitrary is not admissible as evidence, so the argument is not refuted. The argument is valid and sound so the conclusion must be true. If the thing you are proposing(I know you're just talking hypothetically here) as the creator did so by an act of conscious will, then it very definitely does violate the POE. Whether it existed in a time before the big bang or in another universe isn't relevant. If you want to say that something caused the big bang then that's fine. I don't believe there are any floating actions out there. If you want to call this cause "God" I don't have a problem with that either. This argument is not designed to prove that the big bang did not have a cause just that it wasn't a consciousness doing it by conscious activity. Every description of "God" that I have heard has this as a feature. A purely natural cause for the big bang is not going to satisfy a theist who wants to propose that there is a magical being who directs everything and helps him find a good parking spot at the grocery store.

Secondly, your objection itself violates the POE. The fact that we can imagine something doesn't make it possible. Our thoughts and imaginings don't have any effect on reality because existence has primacy. I can imagine an all powerful creator willing the universe into existence out of nothing, but the imaginary is not real and does not actually exist.

I call this the TBA for the non-existence of gods. The tar baby argument. Any opponent who attacks it is caught. If he says that the primacy of existence is false, then when I tell him that his objection won't be true if I don't want it to be true, he will be well and truly be stuck. He'll have no choice but to affirm the primacy of existence in defending his objection. He could do as you did and assert some arbitrary evidence, but the arbitrary is inadmissible and doesn't refute the argument.
He could produce an example of a consciousness which enjoys metaphysical primacy over its objects. Good luck with that one. He could say that his God belief's contradiction of the POE is not a problem but then he will have completely run off the rails and will have committed the fallacy of the stolen concept. The problem for him will be that the argument is valid and the premises are true. I need not actually convince him, just present a valid and sound argument and my burden is met.

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
18-01-2015, 10:39 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(18-01-2015 07:37 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'm guessing you're referring to TAG. This argument is nothing like the apologists' argument which just asserts that God is a necessary precondition for logic. This argument makes no unfounded assumptions. It deals with real axioms which are inescapable. To test this, go ahead and try refuting the primacy of existence without using it. Anyone who tries will end up with no choice but to accept the primacy of existence in defending their conclusion when I tell them that if I don't want their objection to be true, it won't be. If the primacy of existence is not a true principle then they will have no problem with this statement, but I'm guessing they won't let me get away with saying this, thereby refuting their own objection.
You are making assumptions about consciousness and assumptions about the "supernatural" realm.
If we have a supernatural consciousness which doesn't require physical existence then your primacy of existence does not apply.
Sure we can say that all observed conscious entities have required a physical brain, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a conscious entity that doesn't require an underlying physical entity.
As far as I am concerned consciousness is an emergent property of physical structures, but I can't prove that a consciousness can't be a supernatural entity (whatever that may be).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-01-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(18-01-2015 10:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 07:37 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'm guessing you're referring to TAG. This argument is nothing like the apologists' argument which just asserts that God is a necessary precondition for logic. This argument makes no unfounded assumptions. It deals with real axioms which are inescapable. To test this, go ahead and try refuting the primacy of existence without using it. Anyone who tries will end up with no choice but to accept the primacy of existence in defending their conclusion when I tell them that if I don't want their objection to be true, it won't be. If the primacy of existence is not a true principle then they will have no problem with this statement, but I'm guessing they won't let me get away with saying this, thereby refuting their own objection.
You are making assumptions about consciousness and assumptions about the "supernatural" realm.
If we have a supernatural consciousness which doesn't require physical existence then your primacy of existence does not apply.
Sure we can say that all observed conscious entities have required a physical brain, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a conscious entity that doesn't require an underlying physical entity.
As far as I am concerned consciousness is an emergent property of physical structures, but I can't prove that a consciousness can't be a supernatural entity (whatever that may be).

No. You don't understand the POE. It has nothing to do with the origins or cause of consciousness. It has specifically to do with the necessary relationship between a conscious subject and its objects. It is an axiomatic concept. It is a precondition of any truth and when I say that it's true unlike the presuppositionalists' "axiom" of God. I'll explain it tonight but for now just remember that the arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence. Unless you can demonstrate that the objects of consciousness conform to the subject of consciousness (that wishing makes things so) or if you can show how a contradiction can exist in reality, then the argument stands and you have no more rational basis for claiming that gods are possible than the theist does.

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
19-01-2015, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015 12:33 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 09:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It has specifically to do with the necessary relationship between a conscious subject and its objects.
Apparently, as the myth goes, the god is complete (perfect) with no requirements. There is no necessary relationship between the consciousness of the god and any existent objects.

I think you must remember that the theists haven't provided a falsifiable definition of god.
You are presenting a strawman. Disproving the strawman then flying back to your pigeon coup and claiming victory to your mates.


Another thing that you are assuming is that the definition of god requires the god to have created existence.
There are many mythological gods that didn't create the universe. How do you disprove them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-01-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 12:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 09:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It has specifically to do with the necessary relationship between a conscious subject and its objects.
Apparently, as the myth goes, the god is complete (perfect) with no requirements. There is no necessary relationship between the consciousness of the god and any existent objects.

I think you must remember that the theists haven't provided a falsifiable definition of god.
You are presenting a strawman. Disproving the strawman then flying back to your pigeon coup and claiming victory to your mates.


Another thing that you are assuming is that the definition of god requires the god to have created existence.
There are many mythological gods that didn't create the universe. How do you disprove them?

The same way I did with the application of Evidence of Absence which mathematically demonstrates conclusively that no supernatural gods exist, or could possibility exist.

It has not gone unnoticed by me that no one here has actually disputed the application of Evidence of Absence, but rather simply deny it. Deny it fails miserably unless it has been successfully disputed.

Cool

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: