Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2015, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 09:14 PM by Free.)
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.

Let me try to explain it another way.

As you know, Stevil is making a claim that there is "something he does not know."

That "something" needs to be a verifiable concrete reality. Its reality is determined by demonstrating its existence.

Therefore, Stevil must demonstrate that the "something he does not know" actually exists so that he can validate his claim that the reason why he is sub-7.0 is because there is something he doesn't know.

If that "something" cannot be demonstrated to exist as a real falsifiable reality, then it does not exist in reality, but rather it only exists in his mind.

In short, he is asserting that there is "something he does not know" without any evidence to support that there actually is something he does not know.

This puts him in the exact same boat as a theist because a theist says "God exists" with no evidence, and Stevil is saying that there is an existence of "something he does not know" when there is no evidence either.

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, 09:13 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:27 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

You have proposed a proof. I do not accept it as true.

Quote:I don't have a definition of "God".

And you cannot disprove what you cannot define.

Quote:I'm going by what others claim God is. I don't think the concept "definition" applies to God.


It's easy to disprove any particular, defined god. But you can't go from particular to universal, that is a logical error.

Quote: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.

Since you do not have a definition of a god, then you cannot assert that.

Quote: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.

I am not offering any evidence as none is needed. You have yet to prove the knowledge claim that there are no gods.

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
23-01-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not offering any evidence as none is needed. You have yet to prove the knowledge claim that there are no gods.

Yeah, about that. it's been done.

And of course you cannot offer any kind of refutation of it other than some silly little "I don't accept it."

Big Grin

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, 09:19 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 08:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

Let me try to explain it another way.

As you know, Stevil is making a claim that there is "something he does not know."

That "something" needs to be a verifiable concrete reality. Its reality is determined by demonstrating its existence.

Therefore, Stevil must demonstrate that the "something he does not know" actually exists so that he can validate his claim that the reason why he is sub-7.0 is because there is something he doesn't know.

If that "something" cannot be demonstrated to exist as a real falsifiable reality, then it does not exist in reality, but rather it only exists in his mind.

In short, he is asserting that there is "something he does not know" without any evidence to support that there actually is something he does not know.

No he doesn't.. he doesn't need to demonstrate why he doesn't know something that he doesn't know what it would take to know. Based on what does he NEED to? I don't get your stance HE needs to define what he claims "i don't know" but you don't need to define something to claim to know it.

The only thing needed to demonstrate justification for not being 7.0 is understanding you don't know everything. I gave you in my last post 1 example of something I don't know.. That's evidence there is something I don't know. I also gave you countless examples of human collective knowledge in the past being limited. They didn't know of things like black holes but found them out later. We don't know all that we don't know.

To me, perpetual skepticism is the only thing that is actually honest. I know NTS already kinda soughed at the idea as overblown but it's honest and truthful for the sake of it.

"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, 09:20 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  My balls itch.

That's 'cause you keep sucking the chocolate off of them. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
23-01-2015, 09:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 09:33 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Let me try to explain it another way.

As you know, Stevil is making a claim that there is "something he does not know."

That "something" needs to be a verifiable concrete reality. Its reality is determined by demonstrating its existence.

Therefore, Stevil must demonstrate that the "something he does not know" actually exists so that he can validate his claim that the reason why he is sub-7.0 is because there is something he doesn't know.

If that "something" cannot be demonstrated to exist as a real falsifiable reality, then it does not exist in reality, but rather it only exists in his mind.

In short, he is asserting that there is "something he does not know" without any evidence to support that there actually is something he does not know.

No he doesn't.. he doesn't need to demonstrate why he doesn't know something that he doesn't know what it would take to know. Based on what does he NEED to? I don't get your stance HE needs to define what he claims "i don't know" but you don't need to define something to claim to know it.

The only thing needed to demonstrate justification for not being 7.0 is understanding you don't know everything. I gave you in my last post 1 example of something I don't know.. That's evidence there is something I don't know. I also gave you countless examples of human collective knowledge in the past being limited. They didn't know of things like black holes but found them out later. We don't know all that we don't know.

To me, perpetual skepticism is the only thing that is actually honest. I know NTS already kinda soughed at the idea as overblown but it's honest and truthful for the sake of it.

You are still not understanding it, despite me making it as simple as possible. I don't know what I can do to help you. I am not trying to demean you in any way, nor am i saying I am more intelligent than you or anyone else. Like true scotsman said, some people are good at certain things, while others are not, and vice versa.

Perhaps true scotsman can help you.

Can you tell me if you were once religious?

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, 09:32 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:23 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No he doesn't.. he doesn't need to demonstrate why he doesn't know something that he doesn't know what it would take to know. Based on what does he NEED to? I don't get your stance HE needs to define what he claims "i don't know" but you don't need to define something to claim to know it.

The only thing needed to demonstrate justification for not being 7.0 is understanding you don't know everything. I gave you in my last post 1 example of something I don't know.. That's evidence there is something I don't know. I also gave you countless examples of human collective knowledge in the past being limited. They didn't know of things like black holes but found them out later. We don't know all that we don't know.

To me, perpetual skepticism is the only thing that is actually honest. I know NTS already kinda soughed at the idea as overblown but it's honest and truthful for the sake of it.

You are still not understanding it, despite me making it as simple as possible. I don't know what I can do to help you.

Perhaps true scotsman can help you.

No, I was never religious.

Maybe if you didn't ignore routinely asked questions you would be able to communicate it.

I'd also like to ask you. Is it possible for you to change your position? Do you accept a possibility for you to change your position? or are you staunchly unwavering?

But I put it out there multiple times to you... do you need to define something to know it doesn't exist? Why do you think the burden of proof is not on all knowledge claims? Do you not think default positions are of no knowledge-no claim?

"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, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 10:23 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:01 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(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 an 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”?

An arbitrary claim is one which is not supported by any objective evidence. For instance the claim that creationists often make about time being faster in the past or that the speed of light could have been faster at one time is an arbitrary claim. When they submit claims like that as counter evidence they are making a mockery of reason.

I can't teach you the objective theory of concepts here. I reccomend you read An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology if you are interested in the objective theory of concepts. You will find that a great many of the so called problems of philosophy have their root in an improper understanding of concepts and this book will be very enlightening.

As far as your example, you must be very careful to avoid lumping the man made with the metaphysically given. Yes it is possible for there to be evidence for something tomorrow that doesn't exist today. For instance, at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there was no evidence that the internet was possible. Indeed at that time it was impossible. Now that it exists we can say with certainty that it is possible. But this is a different situation because the idea of the internet does not contradict any laws of nature while the idea of God does.

That'll have to be all for tonight.

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, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 10:10 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:32 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:23 PM)Free Wrote:  You are still not understanding it, despite me making it as simple as possible. I don't know what I can do to help you.

Perhaps true scotsman can help you.

No, I was never religious.

Maybe if you didn't ignore routinely asked questions you would be able to communicate it.

I'd also like to ask you. Is it possible for you to change your position? Do you accept a possibility for you to change your position? or are you staunchly unwavering?

Since reality is determined by whatever can be demonstrated to exist, then by demonstrating that the existence or possible existence of a supernatural entity commonly known as "God" is the only thing that could change my position.

I regard my position to be intellectually honest for the simple reason that there is no reality to the possible existence of this god. Saying that something is possible needs to be qualified with concrete evidence to even support the possibility.

Since there is none, I remain 7.0 because that is the most honest position to take.

Quote:But I put it out there multiple times to you... do you need to define something to know it doesn't exist?

To know that something doesn't exist is to simply test it to see if it meets the requirements of what is determined to be reality. Let me demonstrate:

1. There is a rock.
2. The rock can be observed and detected.
3. Therefore the rock exists in reality.

Now, here is Stevil's position:

1. There is "something he does not know."
2. That "something he does not know" cannot be observed or detected in any way.
3. Therefore, that "something he does not know" does not exist in reality.

That is how reality and non reality is determined. To be real, it must be demonstrated to exist. If it does not meet this simple requirement, then it does not exist.

Since we can know that something exists because of its placement in reality, then we can also know that it doesn't exist because it finds no place in reality.

Quote: Why do you think the burden of proof is not on all knowledge claims? Do you not think default positions are of no knowledge-no claim?

Modern logistics demonstrate that the burden of proof can be applied to all claims. Even claims that appear to be negative claims are actually now being understood to be positive claims. For example, when I say "There is no God," it is a negative claim for sure, but it is also a positive claim of knowledge because I profess an underlying truth.

So where does the knowledge come from? The knowledge to support my claim is found in the evidence of the absence of positive evidence to support the existence of a supernatural entity commonly referred to as God.

Although not tangible, this is real evidence because we can observe and detect the non existence of positive evidence to support the existence of God. For example:

1. John claims that there is water in the jar.
2. The jar is observed as having no water.
3. John's claim of water in the jar is false.

And that is how a knowledge claim is supported. This is proof, and this meets the burden of proof.

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, 10:32 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
It's rather simple to me. The rock can be detected right now. "IF" a "something" did exist, why do you think it ought or must be observable now by our current technology?

Everything can't be currently observed or detected... we are limited by our range of study and keep expanding our range and knowledge with no reason to think that will be stunted anytime soon.

I don't accept your formula to concluding to 7.0 because this idea that we can't observe it now therefore it doesn't exist applies horribly to countless things in humans discoveries over ages. A constant skeptical approach is never wrong in it's position.. it may not be assertively right when others are fine being certain about something... but to me that's the intellectually honest position. To be more sure your position is never wrong based on pure principle of the formula.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: