Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 09:10 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?

Now I see the problem. They are not the same - you are flat out wrong.

You are conflating preponderance of evidence with logical 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, 09:20 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:02 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 08:56 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

No, you do not understand.

1. Evidence of absence is real evidence of the lack of positive evidence. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance.

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <- do you see they are not the same thing? If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad.

Evidence of absence is used to determine whether or not there is an evidence to support a positive claim of existence. If no such evidence is discovered, then the claim is false due to a lack of positive evidence. One does not need to turn over every rock in the universe looking for something that does not exist.

But, when a claim of existence is made, one MUST turn over every rock in the universe to prove the claim.



Quote:Absence of evidence merely means that there is a lack of evidence. For example,

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

What we know is reliant on the available evidence; on the reality. The evidence of absence is negative proof that demonstrates that no supernatural gods exist or possibly exist.

The only way to over-turn this evidence is to prove it to be false, or prove the existence or possible existence of a supernatural god.

Until that is done (and cannot be) the current reality is that a supernatural god does not exist, nor does it possibly exist.


Quote: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.

Look, I have answered all your questions. You simply don't understand the answers.

I have already suggested that true scotsman may help you, because I cannot help you when you cannot grasp the reality due to your conceptual interference.

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, 09:32 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  Proof and evidence are the same thing.

Evidence of absence is proof.

Prove it isn't.

Simple enough?

Now I see the problem. They are not the same - you are flat out wrong.

You are conflating preponderance of evidence with logical proof.

As suspected, you would assert something with no proof at all to support the assertion.

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
24-01-2015, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 09:38 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:20 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:02 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And the same positions applies to both.

No, you do not understand.

1. Evidence of absence is real evidence of the lack of positive evidence. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance.

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <- do you see they are not the same thing? If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad.

Evidence of absence is used to determine whether or not there is an evidence to support a positive claim of existence. If no such evidence is discovered, then the claim is false due to a lack of positive evidence. One does not need to turn over every rock in the universe looking for something that does not exist.

But, when a claim of existence is made, one MUST turn over every rock in the universe to prove the claim.



Quote:Absence of evidence merely means that there is a lack of evidence. For example,

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

What we know is reliant on the available evidence; on the reality. The evidence of absence is negative proof that demonstrates that no supernatural gods exist or possibly exist.

The only way to over-turn this evidence is to prove it to be false, or prove the existence or possible existence of a supernatural god.

Until that is done (and cannot be) the current reality is that a supernatural god does not exist, nor does it possibly exist.


Quote: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.

Look, I have answered all your questions. You simply don't understand the answers.

I have already suggested that true scotsman may help you, because I cannot help you when you cannot grasp the reality due to your conceptual interference.

I never said they weren't different. I said they don't both apply in this situation. Can you not read peoples thoughts for what they are actually saying?

You literally cut out and didn't answer the "supernatural" position quarry for again the half dozenth time I brought it up. To honestly sit there and say, I am answering all your questions is delusional. Just like earlier in this thread when you claimed to not have said something I quoted you having said.

You don't seem to understand your flaws, nor want to ever come to admitting them. I can firmly say I am not confident in all my knowledge or claims on here so I don't accept I know things.

Again your flaws are constantly equating evidence=proof. That's just not valid. Or saying other people are making assumptions or other people are making claims(that they are not making) You've continued to keep doing it without changing. You need to learn to grasp what people are saying and think they are assuming things.

Also, why did you ask me if I was religious in background and then never respond to me saying no? Would that prove anything? That seems like more dishonest natured presumption on your part if you wanted to respond if I said yes but left it untouched with a no response.

"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, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 09:56 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:20 AM)Free Wrote:  No, you do not understand.

1. Evidence of absence is real evidence of the lack of positive evidence. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance.

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <- do you see they are not the same thing? If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad.

Evidence of absence is used to determine whether or not there is an evidence to support a positive claim of existence. If no such evidence is discovered, then the claim is false due to a lack of positive evidence. One does not need to turn over every rock in the universe looking for something that does not exist.

But, when a claim of existence is made, one MUST turn over every rock in the universe to prove the claim.




What we know is reliant on the available evidence; on the reality. The evidence of absence is negative proof that demonstrates that no supernatural gods exist or possibly exist.

The only way to over-turn this evidence is to prove it to be false, or prove the existence or possible existence of a supernatural god.

Until that is done (and cannot be) the current reality is that a supernatural god does not exist, nor does it possibly exist.



Look, I have answered all your questions. You simply don't understand the answers.

I have already suggested that true scotsman may help you, because I cannot help you when you cannot grasp the reality due to your conceptual interference.

I never said they weren't different. I said they don't both apply equally. Can you not read peoples thoughts for what they are actually saying?

And I said "No' and explained it.

Quote:You literally cut out and didn't answer the "supernatural" position quarry for again the half dozenth time I brought it up. To honestly sit there and say, I am answering all your questions is delusional. Just like earlier in this thread when you claimed to not have said something I quoted you having said.

Yeah okay, what part of this did you not understand:

Quote: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?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid725695

Drinking Beverage

Quote:You don't seem to understand your flaws, nor want to ever come to admitting them. I can firmly say I am not confident in all my knowledge or claims on here so I don't accept I know things.

You keep insisting this, and I keep demonstrating it to be wrong as I did just above.

Will you now continue to insist it? For what purpose?

Quote:Again your flaws are constantly equating evidence=proof. That's just not valid. Or saying other people are making assumptions or other people are making claims(that they are not making) You've continued to keep doing it without changing.

Here is the definition of the word "evidence":

Evidence:

"That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

And here is the definition of "proof":

Proof

"Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

How many levels of utter stupidity does this need to elevate to?

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, 09:57 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:43 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I never said they weren't different. I said they don't both apply equally. Can you not read peoples thoughts for what they are actually saying?

And I said "No' and explained it.

Quote:You literally cut out and didn't answer the "supernatural" position quarry for again the half dozenth time I brought it up. To honestly sit there and say, I am answering all your questions is delusional. Just like earlier in this thread when you claimed to not have said something I quoted you having said.

Yeah okay, what part of this did you not understand:

Quote: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?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid725695

Drinking Beverage

Quote:You don't seem to understand your flaws, nor want to ever come to admitting them. I can firmly say I am not confident in all my knowledge or claims on here so I don't accept I know things.

You keep insisting this, and I keep demonstrating it to be wrong as I did just above.

Will you now continue to insist it? For what purpose?

Quote:Again your flaws are constantly equating evidence=proof. That's just not valid. Or saying other people are making assumptions or other people are making claims(that they are not making) You've continued to keep doing it without changing.

Here is the definition of the word "evidence:

Evidence:

"That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

How many levels of utter stupidity does this need to elevate to?

Drinking Beverage

What I don't understand is how you keep ignoring history: We defined things as supernatural in the past that we later learned they were natural... so the argument "we currently label it supernatural so it can't exist" isn't valid. It's an argument based on our current labeling. There are cases of it not holding true in the past, so it's not universally correct.

The "Label" doesn't matter nor does our "current" level of knowledge because we know these are limiting human factors that don't represent what is or isn't real.

I want my method of knowledge to work across all situations in all positions. I don't want to say something like, because it's absurdly likely, it's true. If it's absurdly likely, I'm saying it's absurdly likely. The same applies for unlikelihood.

Dictionary's reflect human languages usage, but they don't stand as utmost arbiters. MAINLY because they don't always represent philosophical or scientific language in the process the same way since it's not the same as everyday use. IF THAT is your argument and it alone for why evidence=proof... then I will repeat we have different standards. For me, proof is something requiring lots of compound evidence.

"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, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 10:37 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:57 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:43 AM)Free Wrote:  And I said "No' and explained it.


Yeah okay, what part of this did you not understand:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid725695

Drinking Beverage


You keep insisting this, and I keep demonstrating it to be wrong as I did just above.

Will you now continue to insist it? For what purpose?


Here is the definition of the word "evidence:

Evidence:

"That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

How many levels of utter stupidity does this need to elevate to?

Drinking Beverage

What I don't understand is how you keep ignoring history: We defined things as supernatural in the past that we later learned they were natural... so the argument "we currently label it supernatural so it can't exist" isn't valid. It's an argument based on our current labeling.

Since you are labeling it as "supernatural," and there is no precedence of anything supernatural ever being discovered at any time in history, and the evidence of absence demonstrated with proof that it does not exist, it is therefore a perfectly valid argument.

But those things in the past were not supernatural, were they? We are not speaking about something that could possibly turn out to be a natural entity, but rather a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

Again, your argument is a conceptualization that is not grounded in concrete reality.


Quote:The "Label" doesn't matter nor does our "current" level of knowledge because we know these are limiting human factors that don't represent what is or isn't real.

All you need to do is demonstrate one single instance of anything supernatural ever existing in a supernatural state to prove that your concept has any degree of validity.

You are stating a concept, but failing to connect it to a real observable existence. Until you can connect that concept to the purported existence, then the concept is completely invalid as an argument.

Quote:I want my method of knowledge to work across all situations in all positions. I don't want to say something like, because it's absurdly likely, it's true. If it's absurdly likely, I'm saying it's absurdly likely. The same applies for unlikelihood.

You are speaking about something known as "conclusive evidence." This is not required to determine whether or not something exists, for if even 1 person in a hundred looks at a rock and says, "It doesn't exist" when the other 99 says it does, then does the rock exist or not?

You need to reason as to what is acceptable in regards to determining reality and non reality. Things exist because they can be observed in the state of existence. Likewise, things can be determined to not exist because they are absent from a state of existence.

That's how reality is determined. That is how logic works. I don't make up this stuff, because this is the reality of life.

Quote:Dictionary's reflect human languages usage, but they don't stand as utmost arbiters. MAINLY because they don't always represent philosophical or scientific language in the process the same way since it's not the same as everyday use. IF THAT is your argument and it alone for why evidence=proof... then I will repeat we have different standards. For me, proof is something requiring lots of compound evidence.

Again, you are conceptualizing, and attempting to change the methods we use to define things.

In regards to proof, if all that is possibly available is the "evidence of absence," then requesting greater proof than what is capable commits a couple of logical fallacies:

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy):

when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy


Moving the goalpost (raising the bar):

argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

You and all others here who are sub 7.0 need to understand that almost all your arguments are invalid conceptualizations or logical fallacies. This is not me asserting it, but rather it is the way logic actually works.

I can't change that, and because of that, I cannot change who I am and being 7.0.

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, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 11:04 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:57 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What I don't understand is how you keep ignoring history: We defined things as supernatural in the past that we later learned they were natural... so the argument "we currently label it supernatural so it can't exist" isn't valid. It's an argument based on our current labeling.

Since you are labeling it as "supernatural," and there is no precedence of anything supernatural ever being discovered at any time in history, and the evidence of absence demonstrated with proof that it does not exist, it is therefore a perfectly valid argument.

But those things in the past were not supernatural, were they? We are not speaking about something that could possibly turn out to be a natural entity, but rather a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

That's EXACTLY what I have been talking about the entire time. And we are not talking about a positive claim of a supernatural entity, because nobody is making a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

You seem to not understand WHAT is being argued at all.

Quote:
Quote:The "Label" doesn't matter nor does our "current" level of knowledge because we know these are limiting human factors that don't represent what is or isn't real.

All you need to do is demonstrate one single instance of anything supernatural ever existing in a supernatural state to prove that your concept has any degree of validity.

You are stating a concept, but failing to connect it to a real observable existence. Until you can connect that concept to the purported existence, then the concept is completely invalid as an argument.

Quote:I want my method of knowledge to work across all situations in all positions. I don't want to say something like, because it's absurdly likely, it's true. If it's absurdly likely, I'm saying it's absurdly likely. The same applies for unlikelihood.

You are speaking about something known as "conclusive evidence." This is not required to determine whether or not something exists, for if even 1 person in a hundred looks at a rock and says, "It doesn't exist" when the other 99 says it does, then does the rock exist or not?
And I would answer, I DON'T KNOW if the rock exists or not. I do demand conclusive evidence to make a CONCLUSIVE claim. To me the position of knowledge is a absolute conclusive case. I would BELIEVE it exits and act accordingly to it's existence.. but I wouldn't proclaim to know it exists. You understand there is a positional and informational difference right?

Quote:You need to reason as to what is acceptable in regards to determining reality and non reality. Things exist because they can be observed in the state of existence. Likewise, things can be determined to not exist because they are absent from a state of existence.

That's how reality is determined. That is how logic works. I don't make up this stuff, because this is the reality of life.

Quote:Dictionary's reflect human languages usage, but they don't stand as utmost arbiters. MAINLY because they don't always represent philosophical or scientific language in the process the same way since it's not the same as everyday use. IF THAT is your argument and it alone for why evidence=proof... then I will repeat we have different standards. For me, proof is something requiring lots of compound evidence.

Again, you are conceptualizing, and attempting to change the methods we use to define things.

In regards to proof, if all that is possibly available is the "evidence of absence," then requesting greater proof than what is capable commits a couple of logical fallacies:

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy):

when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy


Moving the goalpost (raising the bar):

argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

It may be that.. I don't know it well enough via example. I want a method that is universal in ways to be accurate. Skepticism is that... and proclaiming knowledge based on less than optimal standards to me, the less honest position. You talk about things like determining reality like they are a forgone conclusion and that it's not possible we are inaccurate in our positions. I'm not raising the bar or making a special case... because my position is ALWAYS this. I don't accept anything, almost not even tautologies like I mentioned before as definitive knowledge.

"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, 11:06 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 09:32 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Now I see the problem. They are not the same - you are flat out wrong.

You are conflating preponderance of evidence with logical proof.

As suspected, you would assert something with no proof at all to support the assertion.

Big Grin

Now you are simply being ignorant.

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
24-01-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 10:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  Since you are labeling it as "supernatural," and there is no precedence of anything supernatural ever being discovered at any time in history, and the evidence of absence demonstrated with proof that it does not exist, it is therefore a perfectly valid argument.

But those things in the past were not supernatural, were they? We are not speaking about something that could possibly turn out to be a natural entity, but rather a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

This is not true at all.. that's EXACTLY what I have been talking about the entire time. And we are not talking about a positive claim of a supernatural entity, because nobody is making a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

You seem to not understand WHAT is being argued at all.

Let me demonstrate something to you about Stevil's assertion. I will quote it below:

(22-01-2015 07:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-01-2015 06:57 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

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. Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = "I don't know"

Take your time and read what I am saying below thoroughly.

In Stevil's post above it is very clear that his position on whether or not a supernatural god could possibly exist is based upon a lack of knowledge.

This absolutely necessarily implies that the knowledge he asserts that he is lacking must necessarily have the possibility of existing.

But does it? He proposes the concept that there is knowledge he is lacking, but fails to connect that concept to the proposed knowledge (the observable and demonstrably true reality) because he cannot demonstrate that the proposed knowledge he claims he is lacking even has the possibility of existing.

I gave him the following statement:

"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."

He replied directly to that statement with:

"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. Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = 'I don't know.'"

I underlined and placed in bold the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods" to demonstrate to you that that is what he is in fact talking about. He responded directly to my query regarding teh existence of gods with the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods."

So what the fuck are you trying to say when you assert that this is not about supernatural gods? This entire conversation has always been all about whether or not supernatural gods have a possibility of existing and/or if it can be demonstrated that they do not exist.

It isn't me who has no fucking clue about what is being talked about here, that's for fucking sure.

Quote:
Quote:All you need to do is demonstrate one single instance of anything supernatural ever existing in a supernatural state to prove that your concept has any degree of validity.

You are stating a concept, but failing to connect it to a real observable existence. Until you can connect that concept to the purported existence, then the concept is completely invalid as an argument.


You are speaking about something known as "conclusive evidence." This is not required to determine whether or not something exists, for if even 1 person in a hundred looks at a rock and says, "It doesn't exist" when the other 99 says it does, then does the rock exist or not?

And I would answer, I DON'T KNOW if the rock exists or not.

You would say "I don't know" because 1 person out of 100 says it doesn't? Now I am really zeroing in on where your head actually is. That's all I need to see.


Again, talk to true scotsman, if he will even talk to you. I have no time for this bullshit.

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: