Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2015, 08:21 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Aren't we supposed to get a toaster that burns the face of Hitchens into our bread?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
19-01-2015, 08:28 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 08:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Why do atheists become atheists?"

They have a good union. Good shift differential and weekend differential benefits.
It's all about the money. Drinking Beverage

Profit sharing. Don't forget the profit sharing. $$$

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
19-01-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
The God they had described all my life was nowhere in my copy of the Old King James. I said "no thanks" while believing there was a god.

"Oh, this book isn't for me! ptht! I'm not going to church to bow to that either! To think I felt like some expert! Horrible bible! 'rip rip rip rip' ah.... This kind of feels nice. 'rip rip rip' 'pant pant pant' 'rip claw shred' Evil_monster You stupid Censored!" Yep.. In the park. Nobody was close enough to hear me though.

Believing he wasn't real came later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lienda Bella's post
19-01-2015, 09:06 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015 10:09 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  You seem to be constantly confused between Evidence of Absence and absence of evidence.

1. Evidence (proof) of Absence (something that should be there but isn't.)

This is proof.

No, it's not. You are assuming what evidence should exist; that is unfounded.

I assume absolutely nothing. It is the agnostic/atheistic 6.9 and under position that makes the assumption that a god either exists or possibly exists. Any rating under 7.0 necessarily implies at least the possible existence of a supernatural deity. This is completely indisputable.

Therefore, since YOU assume that evidence for existence is possible, since you are 6.9, then the Evidence of Absence proof demonstrates that you have absolutely no basis to hold that position.

None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch.

Quote:If a deity created the Big Bang, what evidence would you deem must be there that is absent?

Positive evidence would be the deity itself; positive proof.

Negative evidence would be the Evidence of Absence; negative proof.

It's like ... -3 .. -2 ..-1 .. 0 .. 1 .. 2 .. 3

Evidence of Absence demonstrates that both the existence of God and the possible existence of God is less than 0.

Negative.

If it was simply 0, then there is both a chance of a god existing or not existing. But when it is -1, which Evidence of Absence demonstrates, it eliminates the possibility of existence and demonstrates the impossibility of existence.

Quote:
Quote:2. Absence (something not there) of Evidence (proof).

This is an absence of proof.


They are two entirely different things.

And the math is within the links I supplied on This Post under Propositional Calculus.

I followed. The error is primarily in your assumptions.

I made none.

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
19-01-2015, 10:20 PM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015 10:26 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 09:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's not. You are assuming what evidence should exist; that is unfounded.

I assume absolutely nothing. It is the agnostic/atheistic 6.9 and under position that makes the assumption that a god either exists or possibly exists. Any rating under 7.0 necessarily implies at least the possible existence of a supernatural deity. This is completely indisputable.

No, I don't. I am stating that there is no proof that no gods exist. Evidence, yes. Proof, no.

Quote:Therefore, since YOU assume that evidence for existence is possible, since you are 6.9, then the Evidence of Absence proof demonstrates that you have absolutely no basis to hold that position.

But I don't. My only claim is you have not presented a proof - that no one has.

Quote:None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch.

Quote:If a deity created the Big Bang, what evidence would you deem must be there that is absent?

Positive evidence would be the deity itself; positive proof.

Negative evidence would be the Evidence of Absence; negative proof.

One more time. There is neither evidence for nor evidence against.
If your argument were logically valid, then the absence of evidence against proves there is a deity.
R.A.A., dude.

But the argument is not fucking valid. You do not have a logically valid 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-01-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Into the melee.

So Free is inferring that there are no gods because of the absence of evidence.

Chas does not infer this from the absence of evidence.

So...

"Thus, what people call the "you can't prove a negative" axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can't test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it. ~ Richard Carrier
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...heory.html

The above would support Chas’ position.


Russell’s Teapot:

"In addition, the point where the teapot becomes "undetectable" is analogous to numerous ideas used in the construction of scientific theories regarding how the universe works. Namely, if something is entirely undetectable and as such has no effect that can be measured or observed, directly or indirectly, then its existence or otherwise essentially makes no difference to the world. Thus, it can happily be discarded if convenient to a better theory.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

The Dragon in my garage:

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

These two (basically the same argument) would support Free’s position.

LEA (Lack-of-evidence Argument)

(A) Probably, if God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for that.
(B) But there is no good objective evidence for God's existence.
© Therefore, probably God does not exist.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theod...vslea.html

The key to me here is the word “probably” which would support Chas.

Next...

The Unprovability Objection: is it possible to prove a universal negative?

"Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles[8], married bachelors, etc.). I shall refer to arguments that rely on this method as "incompatible-properties arguments."[9] Because incompatible-properties arguments attempt to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the very concept of the thing in question, incompatible-properties arguments are deductive arguments.”

and

"The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing."[10] The basic idea is that some objects are said to be detectable in some way. Either their existence is directly observable or their existence is not directly observable but the object causes effects which are directly observable. “
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_...negep.html

Interesting exercise for me, I suppose Free approaches the question from a deductive pov while Chas from a pragmatic pov. Who is right?

I don’t know but I found the exercise interesting. Any thoughts from the bleachers?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 10:31 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Into the melee.

So Free is inferring that there are no gods because of the absence of evidence.

Not you too? lol

EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.


Laugh out load

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
19-01-2015, 11:35 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
It's about standards of what is strong or nto strong evidence. Sure absence is "evidence" but not definitive evidence. It's just like people who say the Bible is evidence of God/Jesus/Solomons 1000 wives; It's not good evidence for anyone with strong standards. So it's not something someone should ever judge something definitive off of.

I was beginning to wonder if this was potentially a personality type difference of viewing things, because it's on my mind lately due to talking to a friend about it, but I'm not so sure. Actually because of our old studies on the insanely high accounts of INTJ-INTP active members on this forum I thought it could of come from ones of that type being in a particular way... but if that was true, it wouldn't hold true for Chas who didn't proclaim a result of that way in these old threads. Then again he still did fit the strong other status of Thinking stronger types over a lesser Feeling strong types. Consider http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ology-Test

"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
20-01-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 10:31 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Into the melee.

Don't know if that is brave or foolish...

Quote: Any thoughts from the bleachers?

I've been sort-of following this argument and part of the problem is that it keeps waffling between the possibility that the Christian god exists and the possibility that anything that could reasonably be called a god exists.

I'm satisfied that the absence of evidence is sufficient to prove that Yahweh is a figment of bronze age imagination. That god has defined characteristics and all the available evidence points to him being fictional. If it existed then other evidence would be expected and that lack IS evidence of absence. I'm a 7 on the Dawkins scale regarding the god described in the Christian bible.

On the question of whether any thing that could possibly be called a god exists I see the absence of evidence as compelling, but not definitive because I don't know what evidence to expect. I'd have to know the capabilities and motives of every possible "god" in order to be completely convinced that none exist. There's certainly no reason to think any do exist so I live as if none do, but I can't honestly say that I know with absolute certainty that none exist. I'm probably somewhere between 6.9999 and 7 on the scale for ANY "god".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
20-01-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(19-01-2015 10:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 10:31 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Into the melee.

So Free is inferring that there are no gods because of the absence of evidence.

Not you too? lol

EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.


Laugh out load

Po-tay-to, Po-ta-toe

Big Grin

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: