Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 05:09 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that when you hold out from going to the 7.0 position because of the "You cannot prove God doesn't exist" position, it instantly implies that you hold on to some degree of belief that the existence of a supernatural god is possible.

Otherwise you would not be holding out because of that reason, okay?

Now, because you hold out for that reason, the burden of proof falls to you to prove the existence of a supernatural god is possible, because it is a positive claim you are making. When ever you say that something is possible, or imply it, it is a positive claim.

Hence, you have the burden of proof to support it. If you say I somehow have the burden of proof, then that is shifting the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy according to the very definition.

So yes, you are shifting the burden of proof.



That's true. I don't deny it, because it is the truth. All in this discussion so far, except Pablo, Bucky, scotsman, and maybe one or two others, are agnostics.


Not committing that fallacy at all. Since most of you are exhibiting agnosticism, then it's a statement of fact made by yourselves, not me.

There is no burden of proof on me when I'm saying I can't know at this moment. I'm also saying you can't know. So I'm not putting the burden of proof on you...you are.

And yes, you are absolutely committing the fallacy of 'no true scotsman'. My position meets the criteria for agnostic atheist.

But do have a good day my fellow atheist, for I am finished with this conversation. If I beat my head against this wall any longer I'm gonna look like Rocky Dennis.

Please don't beat your head against anything.
Maybe some lines from Bertrand Russell could help against headaches:
Proof of God
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the
street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really
exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 05:21 PM)bencandide Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 05:09 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  There is no burden of proof on me when I'm saying I can't know at this moment. I'm also saying you can't know. So I'm not putting the burden of proof on you...you are.

And yes, you are absolutely committing the fallacy of 'no true scotsman'. My position meets the criteria for agnostic atheist.

But do have a good day my fellow atheist, for I am finished with this conversation. If I beat my head against this wall any longer I'm gonna look like Rocky Dennis.

Please don't beat your head against anything.
Maybe some lines from Bertrand Russell could help against headaches:
Proof of God
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the
street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really
exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Nobody that has posted in this thread is a deist or coming from that position.

It's mainly turned into, since after the first 2 pages, a thread by many of a position against the claims of absolute knowledge on a subject. A god/deity concept specifically of course that could be a deistic god.. but nobody in this thread is proposing any believe or acceptance of such a god.

"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
22-01-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that when you hold out from going to the 7.0 position because of the "You cannot prove God doesn't exist" position, it instantly implies that you hold on to some degree of belief that the existence of a supernatural god is possible.
No it doesn't.
There is a difference between the claims
"the existence of gods is possible but it is unknown whether any actually exist"
and
"I don't know if the existence of gods is possible"
The first claim has a burden of proof because the claimant makes the assertion that the existence of gods is possible, so it begs the question "how does the claimant know that gods are possible?"
This first claim is a strawman that Free has constructed. No-one actually adheres to this claim.
The second claim is a proclamation of lack of knowledge, it makes no assertions and has no burden of proof. This is the claim that most people in this thread are making.
Both the first and second claim qualify as 6 but noone is supporting claim 1.
Free on the other hand makes the claim that "the existence of gods is impossible"
Just like the first claim, Free's claim is an assertion and as such carries the burden of proof. How does "Free" know that the existence of gods is impossible?
Free's claim that there is lack of evidence just highlights his own ignorance and perhaps suggests that he hasn't yet looked in the right places for the evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
22-01-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 05:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that when you hold out from going to the 7.0 position because of the "You cannot prove God doesn't exist" position, it instantly implies that you hold on to some degree of belief that the existence of a supernatural god is possible.
No it doesn't.
There is a difference between the claims
"the existence of gods is possible but it is unknown whether any actually exist"
and
"I don't know if the existence of gods is possible"

How does that eliminate the possibility?

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
22-01-2015, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2015 06:00 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 05:09 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 04:55 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that when you hold out from going to the 7.0 position because of the "You cannot prove God doesn't exist" position, it instantly implies that you hold on to some degree of belief that the existence of a supernatural god is possible.

Otherwise you would not be holding out because of that reason, okay?

Now, because you hold out for that reason, the burden of proof falls to you to prove the existence of a supernatural god is possible, because it is a positive claim you are making. When ever you say that something is possible, or imply it, it is a positive claim.

Hence, you have the burden of proof to support it. If you say I somehow have the burden of proof, then that is shifting the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy according to the very definition.

So yes, you are shifting the burden of proof.



That's true. I don't deny it, because it is the truth. All in this discussion so far, except Pablo, Bucky, scotsman, and maybe one or two others, are agnostics.


Not committing that fallacy at all. Since most of you are exhibiting agnosticism, then it's a statement of fact made by yourselves, not me.

There is no burden of proof on me when I'm saying I can't know at this moment.

What do you think the words "I can't know at this moment" imply to me? It tells me that at this point in time you can't know if God exists or not, with the obvious connotation that perhaps in the future it is possible to know.

It is because of that possibility that you have the burden of proof. You are literally saying to me that it is possible that sometime in the future we can know whether or not god exists.

And that is a positive claim, and a positive claim carries the burden of proof.

I'm not saying this to annoy you, but only because it is true.

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
22-01-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 05:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No it doesn't.
There is a difference between the claims
"the existence of gods is possible but it is unknown whether any actually exist"
and
"I don't know if the existence of gods is possible"

How does that eliminate the possibility?
Saying "I don't know" doesn't eliminate the possibility.
But it isn't claiming that it is possible either.

If someone asks me if it is possible for a bird to be 10 meters tall, my answer would be "I don't know". I would answer that way because I don't know enough about birds and biology to know what are the limits with regards to the possible hight of birds.
Me saying "I don't know" does not mean that I believe that it is possible for birds to be 10 meters tall. It means that I lack the knowledge required to answer the question. I am ignorant with regards to what limits (if any) there are on the possible height of birds.
It might actually be possible, or it might actually be impossible. It can't be both (see Law of Contradiction). It can't be 10% possible and 90% impossible.
I don't know what the answer is, I am unwilling to jump into a belief so I stay on the "I don't know" position. If I were interested in discovering the answer I might refer to some experts in the field of ornithology and biology. If they have an answer, no doubt it would be based on some evidence, perhaps something to do with metabolism, body mass density, bone thickness etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 06:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  How does that eliminate the possibility?
Saying "I don't know" doesn't eliminate the possibility.
But it isn't claiming that it is possible either.

If someone asks me if it is possible for a bird to be 10 meters tall, my answer would be "I don't know". I would answer that way because I don't know enough about birds and biology to know what are the limits with regards to the possible hight of birds.
Me saying "I don't know" does not mean that I believe that it is possible for birds to be 10 meters tall. It means that I lack the knowledge required to answer the question. I am ignorant with regards to what limits (if any) there are on the possible height of birds.
It might actually be possible, or it might actually be impossible. It can't be both (see Law of Contradiction). It can't be 10% possible and 90% impossible.
I don't know what the answer is, I am unwilling to jump into a belief so I stay on the "I don't know" position. If I were interested in discovering the answer I might refer to some experts in the field of ornithology and biology. If they have an answer, no doubt it would be based on some evidence, perhaps something to do with metabolism, body mass density, bone thickness etc.

Here's my problem with this.

From what I can ascertain you and others here are saying that it is possible that there is something you do not know in regards to the existence or non existence of a supernatural god, and that is the reason why you are at a sub 7.0 level.

Answer to this, and I then will expand further following your answer.

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
22-01-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
This thread.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-01-2015, 07:11 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 07:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  This thread.

That's it.. I don't care if you all think I'm a coward, I can't take this thread anymore!

For Free-Absence of Evidence is enough evidence to deem it as proof. For myself and many others, it isn't; but, I see no wavering of these positions occurring.

"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
22-01-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 07:11 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 07:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  This thread.

That's it.. I don't care if you all think I'm a coward, I can't take this thread anymore!

For Free-Absence of Evidence is enough evidence to deem it as proof. For myself and many others, it isn't; but, I see no wavering of these positions occurring.

You are not a coward. It is admirable that you stick to the principles of what it is that you believe. Each of us is subject to the unique educational environments that mold the person that each of us have become.

You are what you are, I am what I am, and we all are who we are. In this mix we vary, but it is without dispute that we are all in this mix together.

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: