Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
My balls itch.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I have provided the proof. I'm not starting out with nothing and then seeking evidence for non-existence. I'm starting out with existence and showing that the idea of a creator god is a direct contradiction of the facts of reality, namely the axioms "existence", "consciousness", "identity" and the primacy of existence principle which is the corollary of all three.

I don't have a definition of "God". I'm going by what others claim God is. I don't think the concept "definition" applies to God. A concept is a mental integration of two or more concretes or two or more concepts which themselves are interrogations of concretes. What concretes does the concept "God" subsume? At most "God" is a concept in the way that a cartoonist or a writer comes up with a concept for a character.

Now a whole lot of arbitrary claims have been put up as objections but unless you can show us what objective inputs inform those claims, they are not evidence and the argument remains unrefuted.

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
23-01-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  My balls itch.

You assert this with no evidence. Do your balls itch in reality, or is it all in your mind? You are making a faith based claim that does not connect to anything concrete in reality.

Your itchy balls are summarily dismissed.

Bowing

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
23-01-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  My balls itch.

You assert this with no evidence. Do your balls itch in reality, or is it all in your mind? You are making a faith based claim that does not connect to anything concrete in reality.

Your itchy balls are summarily dismissed.

Bowing

I've tried to eliminate scratching by mind over itch, I have failed every time.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 08:33 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:27 PM)Free Wrote:  You assert this with no evidence. Do your balls itch in reality, or is it all in your mind? You are making a faith based claim that does not connect to anything concrete in reality.

Your itchy balls are summarily dismissed.

Bowing

I've tried to eliminate scratching by mind over itch, I have failed every time.

Damn, now that you said that mine are itching too. Thanks ever so much.

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, 08:34 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:27 PM)Free Wrote:  You assert this with no evidence. Do your balls itch in reality, or is it all in your mind? You are making a faith based claim that does not connect to anything concrete in reality.

Your itchy balls are summarily dismissed.

Bowing

I've tried to eliminate scratching by mind over itch, I have failed every time.

Then by all means ... scratch your balls.

Thumbsup

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
23-01-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:34 PM)Free Wrote:  Then by all means ... scratch your balls.

Done and done. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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?

Truthfully. I don't understand it at all. Because he isn't making a claim other than he knows there is knowledge he doesn't know... He is saying there is knowledge he doesn't know.. you're saying to him, "define something you don't know." How does someone define or claim anything about something they don't know? He isn't claiming something exists.

In my position, proclaiming you know something definitively is a faith claim because I don't know how anyone knows they absolutely know something. That takes faith in my view.

I don't get how you can know something you can't define.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
23-01-2015, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 09:38 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Perhaps I’m not understanding the “objective theory of knowledge” (looking it up I found this http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist_epistemology with lots of references to Ayn Rand Dodgy ) .

I have a few questions and observations:

What defines arbitrary?
Can “things” that do not exist today exist tomorrow?
If I have no evidence of something today can I have evidence for it tomorrow?

Take for instance the following example:

The interweb.

-Before it was invented and created it was not actual and not known it was a possibility.
-Depending on the definition of arbitrary, the first attempt at describing the web probably met the “arbitrary’ criteria.
-There was no evidence for it before it “existed”. I don’t know if there would have been any evidence against it.
-Before its existence there was no evidence for its reality.

Is this an accurate or false analogy within the context of “objective theory of knowledge”?

“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
23-01-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:07 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

Truthfully. I don't understand it at all. Because he isn't making a claim other than he knows there is knowledge he doesn't know... He is saying there is knowledge he doesn't know.. you're saying to him, "define something you don't know." How does someone define or claim anything about something they don't know? He isn't claiming something exists.

In my position, proclaiming you know something definitively is a faith claim because I don't know how anyone knows they absolutely know something. That takes faith in my view.

I don't get how you can know something you can't define.

You either believe that logic is a valid means of knowledge or you don't. If there is no evidence for a claim and objective evidence that contradicts the claim, then the claim is false. Just like the claim that there was a world wide flood is false. There is no evidence for the claim and there is literally mountains of evidence against it. Lake varves alone disprove the claim of a world wide flood 5,000 years ago. Now we could all imagine as some creationists do, that God cleaned up after the flood and that is why there is no evidence, but the imaginary is just that and the arbitrary is not admissible as evidence.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: