Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 01:34 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 08:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.
I've stated that I don't know what god is made of.
I know that I don't know what god is made of.

Do I know that god is made of something?
No, I don't know that god is made of something, I don't even know if god exists or not.
If god doesn't exist then god isn't made of anything other than the hopes and dreams of believers.

But even if god doesn't exist, it doesn't change the fact that I don't know what god is made of.

"Free" in his dickish way is trying to assert that I have stated that
There is "knowledge in existence" about god, that I have not yet discovered.

This of course is a strawman, but hey, whatever, it seems to get Free excited.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 01:37 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Stevil is saying that there is an existence of "something he does not know" when there is no evidence either.
For the record, I have never said that there is an existence of blah blah.

Give it a break Free.
I have clarified and yet you still insist on this rubbish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 01:46 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 04:39 PM)Free Wrote:  You cannot be ignorant of "something" until the "something" has been demonstrated as possibly existing.
People living back in the caveman days knew nothing about bacteria. They were completely ignorant of the knowledge of bacteria. No-one had demonstrated the possibility of bacteria existing. And yet they were ignorant.

Sir Isac Newton was ignorant of evolution and DNA and yet in his day no-one had demonstrated the possibility of these things existing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-01-2015, 06:09 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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

You continue to confuse argument and proof. You have presented an argument, not a proof.

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
24-01-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 10:32 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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?

It is these types of questions that true scotsman and I have been talking about. To you, the question appears to be perfectly legitimate. But in pure logic, such a question needs to be questioned itself. For example:

1. Since we are speaking of a supernatural god, then assuming the "something" is in regards to something supernatural as Stevil appears to suggest, is there any precedence of anything supernatural ever being detected in the past?

2. Is your question itself based upon reality, or is it a concept only?

3. If your question is conceptual only, and there is no precedence of a supernatural entity being discovered, then is your question grounded in reality?

So here is how your mind formulated this question:

1. It assumes that the "something" identified as supernatural existed. <--- the assumed "concrete."
2. It questioned that the something supernatural may be detected by current technology. <---- the "concept."
3. It concludes that there is a possibility that the something supernatural may be detected.

Now here is the logical reply to 1, 2, and 3.

1. What concrete evidence do you have to assume that the something supernatural has any possibility of existing?
2. You are assuming that something natural- such as modern technology- is capable of discovering something supernatural which has no precedence or evidence of possibly existing.
3. Since 1 and 2 have been proven that there is no evidence in reality, then your original question is conceptual only.

Basically, this tells you that you are using only your imagination to ask this question, and the question itself is not grounded in reality.

In other words- and meaning no disrespect- but the question is meaningless.


Quote: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.

You are basing this position on precedence regarding discoveries involving nature. This is exactly why I keep saying "false comparison." Since we are speaking of something defined as "supernatural," then we cannot compare that which is natural to that which is supernatural.

In short, in the natural world you have precedence to make these comparisons, but in the supernatural world, you have none.

Do you understand that we are speaking about 2 completely different things?


Quote: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.

But when you understand that you are only conceptualizing a "something"- which has been defined as being in regards to the supernatural- and you know there is no precedence for anything supernatural ever existing, then you cannot possibly compare an unsupported concept to actual nature and actual reality.

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
24-01-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 06:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:  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

You continue to confuse argument and proof. You have presented an argument, not a proof.

Proof and evidence are the same thing.

Evidence of absence is proof.

Prove it isn't.

Simple enough?

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
24-01-2015, 08:46 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 08:54 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 01:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Stevil is saying that there is an existence of "something he does not know" when there is no evidence either.
For the record, I have never said that there is an existence of blah blah.

Dude you don't even understand what you are saying. When you say, "There is SOMETHING I don't know," how the fuck do you not understand that you are are saying that there is something in existence that you do not know?

If the something did not exist, then there would be NOTHING. Some THING most definitely points to a reality; an existence, otherwise it would not be a "thing."

You need to concede because your lack of intellectual honesty is quickly evaporating the little respect I have for you.

Drinking Beverage

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
24-01-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 06:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  You continue to confuse argument and proof. You have presented an argument, not a proof.

Proof and evidence are the same thing.

Evidence of absence is proof.

Prove it isn't.

Simple enough?

There was absence of evidence for black holes 1000 years ago for humanity. Black Holes Exist by our current tools of evidence... despite there being an absence of evidence, black holes did exist 1000 years ago and 1000 million years ago.

Evidence compounds to proof. Pieces of evidence don't create absolute proof.

If you are fine being potentially wrong through further study, accepting absence of evidence as definitive proof is a fitting choice. I find that dishonest as a position if you claim to care that your position is justly true in all situations.

"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
24-01-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Quote:There was absence of evidence for black holes 1000 years ago for humanity. Black Holes Exist by our current tools of evidence... despite there being an absence of evidence, black holes did exist 1000 years ago and 1000 million years ago.

Evidence compounds to proof. Pieces of evidence don't create absolute proof.

If you are fine being potentially wrong through further study, accepting absence of evidence as definitive proof is a fitting choice. I find that dishonest as a position if you claim to care that your position is justly true in all situations.

This is exasperating. You people constantly confuse "evidence of absence" with "absence of evidence."

They are not the same thing.

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
24-01-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 08:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:There was absence of evidence for black holes 1000 years ago for humanity. Black Holes Exist by our current tools of evidence... despite there being an absence of evidence, black holes did exist 1000 years ago and 1000 million years ago.

Evidence compounds to proof. Pieces of evidence don't create absolute proof.

If you are fine being potentially wrong through further study, accepting absence of evidence as definitive proof is a fitting choice. I find that dishonest as a position if you claim to care that your position is justly true in all situations.

This is exasperating. You people constantly confuse "evidence of absence" with "absence of evidence."

They are not the same thing.

And the same positions applies to both.

You do not have all the evidence you could potentially have.. .so how do you definitively know something?

Just avoiding questions of people and proposal brought to you isn't intellectually honest. Which is the only point of really getting through to you.

Your supernatural claim you've avoided constant criticisms of too. Because it's CURRENTLY LABELED "supernatural" doesn't mean it can't be found out to be something natural. Lightning/Germs/elemental forces were considered "supernatural" until we had tools to study them and then we found out they were natural. How do you know some things are limited fit to that?

Who is to say we have the tools/knowledge to find everything that could be?

"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: