Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 05:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 05:28 PM)Free Wrote:  No it hasn't.

Big Grin

I dismiss your ignorant assertion.

I dismiss your dismissal.

Big Grin

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
21-01-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 04:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:   I hold no such belief.

Then welcome to the 7.0 club, because the 7.0 club has no beliefs.
7 = Belief that god does not exist.
People that lack belief in god's existence and lack beliefs pertaining to the possibility of god's existed fit into category 6.
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  If you are anything less, then you have some degree of belief in the possibility and non possibility of god existing.
It is logically impossible to simultaneously hold both the beliefs
I believe in the possibility of god's existence
I believe in the impossibility of god's existence
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Whenever you say "I don't know," you are agnostic. Period.
Yes, I'm an agnostic ignostic atheist.
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Whenever you say, "God does not exist," it expresses knowledge and not a belief. It is a statement of fact.
Unless you can provide compelling evidence to support your claim, this is a belief.
You have not provided any compelling evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-01-2015, 07:27 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 07:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
[Image: dawkins-scale.jpg]

I do not question the existence of God, I just don't know that I exist. Consider ... Consider ... I'm going with sqrt(-1) on the Dawkins scale.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 07:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  [Image: dawkins-scale.jpg]

I do not question the existence of God, I just don't know that I exist. Consider ... Consider ... I'm going with sqrt(-1) on the Dawkins scale.

I'm thinking more [i][b][size=large]i∙

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
21-01-2015, 08:21 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Stevil,

You wrote: I said "There is no necessary relationship " not that there is never a relationship.
You have made a claim that consciousness requires existent objects (a necessary relationship). So your whole argument hangs off this "by necessity" claim.
It's much like Christian apologetics where they try to argue for the existence of god "by necessity".
Assumption - You can't have infinities
Assumption - something can't begin to exist without a cause
Conclusion by necessity - therefore god.


No. My argument hinges on the fact that the objects of consciousness (reality) do not conform to the subject of consciousness and the fact that something cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. That is all that is relevant to the premises of the argument. If you can not demonstrate that either of these is false, then the argument has not been refuted.

You wrote: [QI really don't see anything different with your argument style.
Assumption - God is defined as a consciousness that created existence
Assumption - Consciousness can't exist without having a relationship to existing objects.
Assumption - Existing objects began to exist
Conclusion by necessity - therefore consciousness must have began to exist after existing objects began to exist.


None of this bears any relation to the the argument that I presented. My premises say nothing about necessity or objects beginning to exist. It is clear that you do not have an understanding of the issue of metaphysical primacy. This is not a criticism of you by the way because the issue is completely taken for granted. That's a shame because it has lead to many errors throughout history in philosophy which could have been easily avoided, errors that lead to misery and destruction on a scale never seen before.

I'll briefly explain the issue. The issue of metaphysical primacy has to do specifically with the relationship between a consciousness (subject) and its objects (the things it perceives). Do the objects of consciousness conform to the subject or are they what they are and do they do what they do independent of the conscious activity which perceives them. The principle is a corollary of three axiomatic concepts and is itself an axiomatic concept. The three concepts are "existence", "consciousness" and "identity". The principle is that whatever exists does so independently of anyone's conscious activity. It means that consciousness is the faculty which perceives reality and not the faculty which creates reality. The identities of every object obtain apart from anyone's conscious wishes or desires. This is the conceptual root of the concept "objective". Being an axiomatic concept, the POE is not inferred from any antecedent premises but is directly observable. It is validated by sense perception and does not need to be proved. Indeed, what could the concepts "proof" or "truth" or "fact" possibly mean in a universe where the objects of consciousness did conform to the subject. The shortest way to say it is "wishing doesn't make it so". The epidemiological corollary to the POE is that in order to gain knowledge of reality, one must look outward at reality. Therefore any arbitrary claims that have no connection to percepts cannot be considered knowledge or evidence.

The antithesis of the POE is the principle of the primacy of consciousness. This is the subjective orientation of the subject/ object relationship. This is the view of metaphysical primacy which is affirmed by Christianity and any belief that a conscious god created everything in the universe, maintains everything and can alter the state of affairs at will by conscious activity. On this view, the objects of consciousness conform to the subject of consciousness and do not obtain independently of conscious activity. Wishing does make it so.

So this is the only issue that my argument refers to. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject then the universe was not created by a consciousness. Existence can not hold metaphysical primacy and not hold metaphysical primacy at the same time. It is either one or the other. If you can refute the fact that the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject then the argument will be defeated. If not then it stands. Be prepared. If you reject the POE then I'm going to reply that if I don't want your objection to be true then it won't be true. You will then have to concede the point or affirm the primacy of existence when you defend your objection, contradicting your objection.

So far you have not dealt with this issue at all so the argument stands. It proves its conclusion.

You had written: 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?


I do not make any assumptions about gods. I don't think they exist. I'm just interacting here with what the Bible and believers have to say about their gods. On the objective view of knowledge (POE), we do not define things into existence. This is the glaring flaw in Anselm's ontological argument. Definition is the last stage of concept formation, after perception and identification and integration. So just because someone imagines something does not make it possible. Only things that are actual are possible. If we want to demonstrate that something is possible then we must find evidence of it in reality by looking outward, not inward to the imagination. The fact that you bring up that some definitions of God do not have it creating the universe is very telling. It means that you have already conceded that my argument does prove that the universe wasn't created by an act of conscious will. If you didn't then why bring this up.

By the way, I once watched an apologist refuse to say that his god created the universe in response to this argument . I don't know how one could ever recover from this refusal and still call one's self an apologist, but he rightly saw the peril he was in.




You wrote: Lot's of unfounded assumptions, resulting in a conclusion matching the author's already held beliefs. Not a shred of evidence was provided, no observations or tests necessary. Just mental masturbation.


There are no unfounded assumptions in my premises. You have not shown any of the premises to be untrue. The argument remains unrefuted. As far as evidence, I give you everything that exists and every consciousness that has been observed, not limited only to Human conscious. Indeed all of existence affirms the POE. If it were not true then there would be no need for animals to adapt to their environment. A Cheetah would not need to run 65 miles per hour for its dinner, it could just conjure up a nice fat deer to eat. I shouldn't think that I would need to prove that wishing doesn't make things so. You can test this at any time and in any place. Just go ahead and try to make reality conform to your wishes.

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
21-01-2015, 08:25 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 08:54 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 08:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm thinking more i

Exactly.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 09:36 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 05:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Then welcome to the 7.0 club, because the 7.0 club has no beliefs.
7 = Belief that god does not exist.

7.0 does not equal a "belief" whatsoever. There is a difference between having a belief and stating something as being factual. Therefore, 7.0 = "There is no God."

It is not, "I believe there is no God." That would be you, at a 6.0.

Quote:People that lack belief in god's existence and lack beliefs pertaining to the possibility of god's existed fit into category 6.

No. Those who are not 100% convinced that God does not exist are in the 6.0 category. You could be 99.99999% convinced that God does not exist, but because that is not 100%, it means you would have a 00.00001% belief that it is possible that God exists.

Quote:
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  If you are anything less, then you have some degree of belief in the possibility and non possibility of god existing.
It is logically impossible to simultaneously hold both the beliefs
I believe in the possibility of god's existence
I believe in the impossibility of god's existence

I find it logically impossible that you constantly fail to understand the concept.

Let's say you are 60% certain that God's existence is possible. That means that you are 40% certain his existence is not possible.

How fucking difficult is that to understand? How is that in any way logically impossible?

I mean seriously, a pure agnostic believes that God's existence is possible and also believes that the existence of God is not possible.

Quote:
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Whenever you say "I don't know," you are agnostic. Period.
Yes, I'm an agnostic ignostic atheist.

But you are not fully atheistic.

Quote:
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Whenever you say, "God does not exist," it expresses knowledge and not a belief. It is a statement of fact.
Unless you can provide compelling evidence to support your claim, this is a belief.
You have not provided any compelling evidence.

Yes I have. Pages ago. You just don't understand it, and I won't be repeating it.

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
22-01-2015, 12:16 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 08:21 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is the view of metaphysical primacy which is affirmed by Christianity and any belief that a conscious god created everything in the universe, maintains everything and can alter the state of affairs at will by conscious activity. On this view, the objects of consciousness conform to the subject of consciousness and do not obtain independently of conscious activity. Wishing does make it so.

So this is the only issue that my argument refers to. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject then the universe was not created by a consciousness.
I am struggling with your jargon, but here goes.
You have highlighted the Christian god beliefs. That is only one myth, who is to say that all gods must adhere to that myth?

It would be better if you documented your definition of god, then we can see how your philosophical musing go.
From what I understand is that you are saying the concept of god entails it either creating existence or manipulating existence with conscious thought alone.
That if you prove that objects cannot be manipulated by thought then you are disproving gods.

Let's say a god exists. It is made of a supernatural substance which simply means that it is not bound to the physical laws governing a naturalistic existence. Who is to say that the god isn't using its hand to move objects. It's hand is invisible and undetectable, but it can somehow put its hand into such a form as to be able to manipulate natural objects even though when it is in another form it's hand simply passes through objects as if there is no hand there at all.

Also, let's say the god's consciousness is different from the natural consciousness that we know of. Let's say that this supernatural consciousness does have power over natural existence, how are we to assess that this is not possible?

Or let's say that the god lives in a dimension where it is in direct touch with the fields permeating through space, the electromagnetic field, the higgs field, the up quark field, the down quark field, the strange quark field, the gluon field, the electron nutrino field, the graviton field and so on and so forth. Lets say that the god can reachout and interact with the fields as it sees fit. It can create vibrations, it can move vibrations around, thus impacting the natural objects that we know as manifestations of vibrations within these fields.
We cannot see these fields, how can we know that god isn't there, isn't manipulating them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
22-01-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Whenever you say "I don't know," you are agnostic. Period.

What is one called who says (not that we don't know, but)
... it is not possible for us to know ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2015, 12:34 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  7.0 does not equal a "belief" whatsoever. There is a difference between having a belief and stating something as being factual.
If you can provide compelling evidence in support of your assertion then it is a fact. If you have no evidence then your assertion is a belief.
Therefore, 7.0 = a belief that there is no god.
You can't even provide a falsifiable definition of god.

(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  It is not, "I believe there is no God." That would be you, at a 6.0.
My position is one of lacking belief. I make no claims.

(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  No. Those who are not 100% convinced that God does not exist are in the 6.0 category. You could be 99.99999% convinced that God does not exist, but because that is not 100%, it means you would have a 00.00001% belief that it is possible that God exists.
Nope. I have no beliefs with regards to whether gods are possible or not. I have no knowledge and no belief on the matter.
I cannot say that gods are possible because there isn't a falsifiable testable definition of what a god is. I'm not saying that gods are possible and I'm not saying that gods are impossible. I am saying "I don't know" and I don't know = I don't know.


(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:It is logically impossible to simultaneously hold both the beliefs
I believe in the possibility of god's existence
I believe in the impossibility of god's existence

I find it logically impossible that you constantly fail to understand the concept.
It's because you have a very poor grasp of logic.

(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Let's say you are 60% certain that God's existence is possible. That means that you are 40% certain his existence is not possible.
Then you don't know whether it is possible or not. You are pulling figures out your arse.

Let's say that I have no idea whether a god's existence is possible or not. I cannot evaluate the odds until someone provides me with a falsifiable and testable definition.


(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  How fucking difficult is that to understand? How is that in any way logically impossible?
I've already shown you the inconsistency. You cannot belief that god's existence is possible and at the same time believe that god's existence is impossible.
It is either possible or it is impossible it cannot be 60% of one and 40% of the other.
A square circle is impossible. It isn't 99.99% impossible, it is completely impossible.

(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  I mean seriously, a pure agnostic believes that God's existence is possible and also believes that the existence of God is not possible.
Nope. An agnostic means the person has no knowledge of god.
agnostic pertains to knowledge, not belief.
Some agnostics are atheists, some are theists. There are no agnostics that are neither theist or atheist.


(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, I'm an agnostic ignostic atheist.

But you are not fully atheistic.
I am completely atheist. To qualify all I need to do is lack belief in gods.

(21-01-2015 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Unless you can provide compelling evidence to support your claim, this is a belief.
You have not provided any compelling evidence.

Yes I have. Pages ago. You just don't understand it, and I won't be repeating it.
Yes, please don't. I almost pissed myself laughing the first time you stated that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: