Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2015, 04:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 07:03 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 03:43 PM)Free Wrote:  The quote above conclusively demonstrates that you believe there is some knowledge in existence that you are currently unaware of, otherwise you would not be saying "It's not just possible that there is something we don't know. It is a fact that there is something we don't know."

Now produce some kind of evidence to support the existence of this "something"- this supposed knowledge- that you insist is factual, according to your very own words.

Drinking Beverage
You're being a dick again.
I've never said there was knowledge in existence.
I said that there was something that I don't know.

What is that "something" you don't know? Can you prove that "something" exists? Oh yes! You can't tell me because you don't know what you don't know!

So you are arguing that your position is the right position to take based upon your ignorance? And how can you even prove that you are ignorant when you don't even know what it is that you are ignorant of? To claim ignorance means that you are in a state of a lack of knowledge, but you cannot even prove that there is any knowledge that you are ignorant about.

Ignorance can only exist if there is knowledge to be ignorant of.

You cannot be ignorant of "something" until the "something" has been demonstrated as possibly existing.

Your position is ridiculous. You sit there sub 7.0 based upon the false possibility that there is "something" you don't know.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support even the possibility- in relation to the existence or non existence of a supernatural god- that there is something you don't know.

That proves nothing. It demonstrates nothing. There's no evidence at all to support that position.

It is a wholly fallacious position to hold on to.

Fucking joke ...

Drinking Beverage

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
23-01-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
This thread.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-01-2015, 07:18 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(22-01-2015 12:16 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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?

It is completely understandable that you would be struggling with these concepts. It's not a mark against you. These issues are simply taken for granted by 99.99 percent of thinkers. There's a very good reason for that. We all learn these things implicitly at a very early age, long before we have the words to state the principles explicitly. We learn them early and then when we are older and start to philosophize we have forgotten all about them. Very few thinkers ever even consider the need to go back and state these earliest concepts explicitly, and that's very unfortunate. That has led to many errors in thinking which could have been avoided easily if these first principles were know consciously and explicitly.

The objections you have raised are easily defeated, because they are all premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. You didn't arrive at them objectively but by looking inward to the imagination. This is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. If I can imagine something then it is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge only what is actual is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge the arbitrary is not admissible. On the objective theory of knowledge something is possible if there is at least some evidence for it and no evidence against it. But if evidence is the facts of reality, then there is overwhelming evidence against creator gods. The primacy of existence is a fact of reality. Therefor it is evidence against the existence of gods, at least those that are said to be able to create things by an act of conscious will.

Also, on the objective theory of knowledge, definition is the final step in concept formation, after perception and identification. Definitions are a posteriori. We don't define things into existence. We discover existents and then define them.

Since your objections are premised on the primacy of consciousness, I can easily defeat them on there own terms. I'll just say that if I don't want your objections to be true then they won't be true. On your own implicit POC premise this is a completely valid claim. Now what do you do? If you deny that reality will bend itself to my wishes then you have refuted your own objection and conceded my argument.

Let's just consider for a minute what it would mean if arbitrary claims could count as counter evidence to objective evidence. It would mean the destruction of logic. Logic is man's only means of making sure his concepts adhere to reality. It is the method of adhering to reality by a process of non-contradictory identification of facts. It is the process of connecting concepts to perceptual concretes. Now if we allow concepts into our knowledge that are unconnected to perceptual concretes then we have abandoned logic all together and we are now operating on faith which is the epistemological corollary of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. On a POC premise, logic is a stolen concept.

There is much, much more I could say on the subject but I am pressed for time. The notion that we must look throughout the universe for evidence before we can declare that something doesn't exist is rooted in an improper view of concepts. The so called problem of induction is solvable and has been solved but that will have to wait for another day.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
23-01-2015, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 07:38 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 12:16 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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?

It is completely understandable that you would be struggling with these concepts. It's not a mark against you. These issues are simply taken for granted by 99.99 percent of thinkers. There's a very good reason for that. We all learn these things implicitly at a very early age, long before we have the words to state the principles explicitly. We learn them early and then when we are older and start to philosophize we have forgotten all about them. Very few thinkers ever even consider the need to go back and state these earliest concepts explicitly, and that's very unfortunate. That has led to many errors in thinking which could have been avoided easily if these first principles were know consciously and explicitly.

The objections you have raised are easily defeated, because they are all premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. You didn't arrive at them objectively but by looking inward to the imagination. This is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. If I can imagine something then it is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge only what is actual is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge the arbitrary is not admissible. On the objective theory of knowledge something is possible if there is at least some evidence for it and no evidence against it. But if evidence is the facts of reality, then there is overwhelming evidence against creator gods. The primacy of existence is a fact of reality. Therefor it is evidence against the existence of gods, at least those that are said to be able to create things by an act of conscious will.

Also, on the objective theory of knowledge, definition is the final step in concept formation, after perception and identification. Definitions are a posteriori. We don't define things into existence. We discover existents and then define them.

Since your objections are premised on the primacy of consciousness, I can easily defeat them on there own terms. I'll just say that if I don't want your objections to be true then they won't be true. On your own implicit POC premise this is a completely valid claim. Now what do you do? If you deny that reality will bend itself to my wishes then you have refuted your own objection and conceded my argument.

Let's just consider for a minute what it would mean if arbitrary claims could count as counter evidence to objective evidence. It would mean the destruction of logic. Logic is man's only means of making sure his concepts adhere to reality. It is the method of adhering to reality by a process of non-contradictory identification of facts. It is the process of connecting concepts to perceptual concretes. Now if we allow concepts into our knowledge that are unconnected to perceptual concretes then we have abandoned logic all together and we are now operating on faith which is the epistemological corollary of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. On a POC premise, logic is a stolen concept.

There is much, much more I could say on the subject but I am pressed for time. The notion that we must look throughout the universe for evidence before we can declare that something doesn't exist is rooted in an improper view of concepts. The so called problem of induction is solvable and has been solved but that will have to wait for another day.

Stevil, I hope you can understand what true scotsman is saying because this is precisely what I have been saying. Things are not possible just because you assert they are. When you assert that there is something you do not know, then that is a faith claim, not an actuality.

As you sit there with your arbitrary claims, do you understand that you are mocking logic? You make these claims that there is something you do not know, without providing any evidence to support it. You have no concretes to make the connection to your arbitrary claims. Hence, your claims are empty, and clearly faith based.

Therefore, before you can claim your 6.9 position to be intellectually honest, you must first discover what exists, define it, then connect to your claims. But instead, you are making claims with no concretes to connect them to.

That is faith based. And that is theism.

Edit: thanks to true scotsman, for this beautiful articulation of reality.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
23-01-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is completely understandable that you would be struggling with these concepts. It's not a mark against you. These issues are simply taken for granted by 99.99 percent of thinkers. There's a very good reason for that. We all learn these things implicitly at a very early age, long before we have the words to state the principles explicitly. We learn them early and then when we are older and start to philosophize we have forgotten all about them. Very few thinkers ever even consider the need to go back and state these earliest concepts explicitly, and that's very unfortunate. That has led to many errors in thinking which could have been avoided easily if these first principles were know consciously and explicitly.

The objections you have raised are easily defeated, because they are all premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. You didn't arrive at them objectively but by looking inward to the imagination. This is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. If I can imagine something then it is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge only what is actual is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge the arbitrary is not admissible. On the objective theory of knowledge something is possible if there is at least some evidence for it and no evidence against it. But if evidence is the facts of reality, then there is overwhelming evidence against creator gods. The primacy of existence is a fact of reality. Therefor it is evidence against the existence of gods, at least those that are said to be able to create things by an act of conscious will.

Also, on the objective theory of knowledge, definition is the final step in concept formation, after perception and identification. Definitions are a posteriori. We don't define things into existence. We discover existents and then define them.

Since your objections are premised on the primacy of consciousness, I can easily defeat them on there own terms. I'll just say that if I don't want your objections to be true then they won't be true. On your own implicit POC premise this is a completely valid claim. Now what do you do? If you deny that reality will bend itself to my wishes then you have refuted your own objection and conceded my argument.

Let's just consider for a minute what it would mean if arbitrary claims could count as counter evidence to objective evidence. It would mean the destruction of logic. Logic is man's only means of making sure his concepts adhere to reality. It is the method of adhering to reality by a process of non-contradictory identification of facts. It is the process of connecting concepts to perceptual concretes. Now if we allow concepts into our knowledge that are unconnected to perceptual concretes then we have abandoned logic all together and we are now operating on faith which is the epistemological corollary of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. On a POC premise, logic is a stolen concept.

There is much, much more I could say on the subject but I am pressed for time. The notion that we must look throughout the universe for evidence before we can declare that something doesn't exist is rooted in an improper view of concepts. The so called problem of induction is solvable and has been solved but that will have to wait for another day.

Stevil, I hope you can understand what true scotsman is saying because this is precisely what I have been saying. Things are not possible just because you assert they are. When you assert that there is something you do not know, then that is a faith claim, not an actuality.

As you sit there with your arbitrary claims, do you understand that you are mocking logic? You make these claims that there is something you do not know, without providing any evidence to support it. You have no concretes to make the connection to your arbitrary claims. Hence, your claims are empty, and clearly faith based.

Therefore, before you can claim your 6.9 position to be intellectually honest, you must first discover what exists, define it, then connect to your claims. But instead, you are making claims with no concretes to connect them to.

That is faith based. And that is theism.

Edit: thanks to true scotsman, for this beautiful articulation of reality.

Thanks Free, and I want to reiterate that I am not dogging on Stevil or Chas. I happen to have made this my special area of study and so I have knowledge that others may not just as many on these forums have knowledge that I don't, such as an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, which I don't have.

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
23-01-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is completely understandable that you would be struggling with these concepts. It's not a mark against you. These issues are simply taken for granted by 99.99 percent of thinkers. There's a very good reason for that. We all learn these things implicitly at a very early age, long before we have the words to state the principles explicitly. We learn them early and then when we are older and start to philosophize we have forgotten all about them. Very few thinkers ever even consider the need to go back and state these earliest concepts explicitly, and that's very unfortunate. That has led to many errors in thinking which could have been avoided easily if these first principles were know consciously and explicitly.

The objections you have raised are easily defeated, because they are all premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. You didn't arrive at them objectively but by looking inward to the imagination. This is an affirmation of the primacy of consciousness. If I can imagine something then it is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge only what is actual is possible. On the objective theory of knowledge the arbitrary is not admissible. On the objective theory of knowledge something is possible if there is at least some evidence for it and no evidence against it. But if evidence is the facts of reality, then there is overwhelming evidence against creator gods. The primacy of existence is a fact of reality. Therefor it is evidence against the existence of gods, at least those that are said to be able to create things by an act of conscious will.

Also, on the objective theory of knowledge, definition is the final step in concept formation, after perception and identification. Definitions are a posteriori. We don't define things into existence. We discover existents and then define them.

Since your objections are premised on the primacy of consciousness, I can easily defeat them on there own terms. I'll just say that if I don't want your objections to be true then they won't be true. On your own implicit POC premise this is a completely valid claim. Now what do you do? If you deny that reality will bend itself to my wishes then you have refuted your own objection and conceded my argument.

Let's just consider for a minute what it would mean if arbitrary claims could count as counter evidence to objective evidence. It would mean the destruction of logic. Logic is man's only means of making sure his concepts adhere to reality. It is the method of adhering to reality by a process of non-contradictory identification of facts. It is the process of connecting concepts to perceptual concretes. Now if we allow concepts into our knowledge that are unconnected to perceptual concretes then we have abandoned logic all together and we are now operating on faith which is the epistemological corollary of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. On a POC premise, logic is a stolen concept.

There is much, much more I could say on the subject but I am pressed for time. The notion that we must look throughout the universe for evidence before we can declare that something doesn't exist is rooted in an improper view of concepts. The so called problem of induction is solvable and has been solved but that will have to wait for another day.

Stevil, I hope you can understand what true scotsman is saying because this is precisely what I have been saying. Things are not possible just because you assert they are. When you assert that there is something you do not know, then that is a faith claim, not an actuality.

As you sit there with your arbitrary claims, do you understand that you are mocking logic? You make these claims that there is something you do not know, without providing any evidence to support it. You have no concretes to make the connection to your arbitrary claims. Hence, your claims are empty, and clearly faith based.

Therefore, before you can claim your 6.9 position to be intellectually honest, you must first discover what exists, define it, then connect to your claims. But instead, you are making claims with no concretes to connect them to.

That is faith based. And that is theism.

Edit: thanks to true scotsman, for this beautiful articulation of reality.

I know I don't know plenty of things. Sometimes it's a faith claim.. but I know I don't know how to do Sin or Cos-sin or any mathematical formula information like that. I never learned it; I could look it up but I see no purpose for it because I don't even know what they figure out other than they're functions that used to be on my highschool calculator. It also figures to the problems I've had saying I really know almost anything without faith. I MAY have that knowledge within my brain if I could tap the signals to my remember freshman math. I don't know really what I know or don't know. And I don't know what humanity can or can not ever know. I will always question how does one know that even their logic is solid and known to be valid when they have experienced how flawed humanity's knowledge and personal knowledge is.

I seriously still don't get your difference in view on 6.9 vs 7.0... if you claim to 6.9 Needs to have a defined idea of what you claim to not know about? If I can't know about it, how can I define it? If you claim to know something, you have to define what it is exactly you know.

How do you know something you haven't defined?

Clearly NTS is far better at explaining the ideas behind the position because all you've done for pages upon pages is state assertions that other people are making assertions or faith claims.

"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
23-01-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:35 PM)Free Wrote:  Stevil, I hope you can understand what true scotsman is saying because this is precisely what I have been saying. Things are not possible just because you assert they are. When you assert that there is something you do not know, then that is a faith claim, not an actuality.

As you sit there with your arbitrary claims, do you understand that you are mocking logic? You make these claims that there is something you do not know, without providing any evidence to support it. You have no concretes to make the connection to your arbitrary claims. Hence, your claims are empty, and clearly faith based.

Therefore, before you can claim your 6.9 position to be intellectually honest, you must first discover what exists, define it, then connect to your claims. But instead, you are making claims with no concretes to connect them to.

That is faith based. And that is theism.

Edit: thanks to true scotsman, for this beautiful articulation of reality.

Thanks Free, and I want to reiterate that I am not dogging on Stevil or Chas. I happen to have made this my special area of study and so I have knowledge that others may not just as many on these forums have knowledge that I don't, such as an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, which I don't have.

I think we have very similar trains of thought, but I concede to your education as it is expertly trained and seems better suited to articulate persuasively, whereas I am more aggressive and have a much lower tolerance for fallaciousness.

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
23-01-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:35 PM)Free Wrote:  Stevil, I hope you can understand what true scotsman is saying because this is precisely what I have been saying. Things are not possible just because you assert they are. When you assert that there is something you do not know, then that is a faith claim, not an actuality.

As you sit there with your arbitrary claims, do you understand that you are mocking logic? You make these claims that there is something you do not know, without providing any evidence to support it. You have no concretes to make the connection to your arbitrary claims. Hence, your claims are empty, and clearly faith based.

Therefore, before you can claim your 6.9 position to be intellectually honest, you must first discover what exists, define it, then connect to your claims. But instead, you are making claims with no concretes to connect them to.

That is faith based. And that is theism.

Edit: thanks to true scotsman, for this beautiful articulation of reality.

Thanks Free, and I want to reiterate that I am not dogging on Stevil or Chas. I happen to have made this my special area of study and so I have knowledge that others may not just as many on these forums have knowledge that I don't, such as an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, which I don't have.

You elide the difference between belief and knowledge. Unless a proof is provided, we can only believe beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence or the lack thereof.

But since there is no definition of what any god might be, we can't completely specify the nature of the evidence that should be there.

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
23-01-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:51 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I seriously still don't get your difference in view on 6.9 vs 7.0... if you claim to 6.9 Needs to have a defined idea of what you claim to not know about? If I can't know about it, how can I define it? If you claim to know something, you have to define what it is exactly you know.

How do you know something you haven't defined?
Clearly NTS is far better at explaining the ideas behind the position because all you've done for pages upon pages is state assertions that other people are making assertions or faith claims.

I haven't stated any assertions. True Scotsman knows exactly what I have been saying. It is almost verbatim to what he has been saying.

What we are both saying is that the 6.9 position is holding out on advancing to the 7.0 position because of faith based claims that do not connect to actual reality.

For example, Stevil claims his position is based upon "something he does not know." Therefore, I asked him to define that "something" (the concrete) so that he could connect his claim to it and validate his claim.

But he cannot do that because the concrete - the "something- is not in existence, nor been demonstrated to possibly exist.

He is making a claim of an existence- "something" - without providing evidence that it actually exists. Until he can demonstrate that the "something" actually exists, then it simply doesn't exist in reality, but only in his mind.

Do you understand this?

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
23-01-2015, 08:11 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  But since there is no definition of what any god might be, we can't completely specify the nature of the evidence that should be there.

Seriously? How many times have you seen me define god here as being "a supernatural entity commonly referred to as God?"

God has been defined here ad nausium.

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: