Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Now you are simply being ignorant.

(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.



And what part of the following do you so desperately fail to understand?

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

Those are the common, casual definitions, not the definitions required in this kind of discussion. That definition of 'proof' does not apply to logical or mathematical proof.

Do you see the difference in the definitions?
You have provided evidence that leads one to believe the conclusion, but does not logically prove the conclusion.

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, 12:38 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  And what part of the following do you so desperately fail to understand?

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

Those are the common, casual definitions, not the definitions required in this kind of discussion. That definition of 'proof' does not apply to logical or mathematical proof.

Do you see the difference in the definitions?
You have provided evidence that leads one to believe the conclusion, but does not logically prove the conclusion.

Like I said in the post, it's all the evidence that is known to be possible.

Asking for conclusive evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, you take what is available, and work with that. And what is available demonstrates evidence to support the non existence of any kind of supernatural entity.

And like I said, to dispute this evidence will require positive testable evidence of a supernatural entity commonly known as god.

Since the only evidence available is what I have given you, then it is by no means unreasonable to say "God does not exist," especially when the evidence demonstrates that the chance of a supernatural god existing is less than 0.

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
24-01-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And you a literally not answering the questions in the thread you are responding to by asking this other question... that's just foolish on it's own.

Some questions you ask required questions to get to the point of the question itself.

Quote:And what's relevant to this first point I made. I asked you why are you limiting your scope of understanding? Meaning why are you focused on current things and not the entire thread as a hole?

Because the current things are where my interests lie, and what I am focused upon.

Quote: I also recently asked you if you get the difference between belief and knowledge I'm talking about when discussing the rock scenario.

Yes. Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs are not, for they are faith based.

Quote:In the past I asked you about personality tests if you found any merit to them, or what actual position you would be on them.

I have no idea. I have never taken any.

Quote:The Myers-Briggs type tests and I gave a link to it. Because if they have an acceptance most of the people here come from a thinking perspective in their dominant functions and that may alter a way people desire to perceive this. Since only 2 of you seem to be on the case I thought maybe there could be a connection. Most people here are a rare type in the real world of intj which may be a reflection of those with skeptical atheistic approaches. I thought perhaps you could view things different based on these ideas.

I am moderate in all areas of the INTJ. (I just took it.)

Quote:I thought of another I would actually like most answered. You asked me if I was religious at a point.. I actually saw your post, then saw you edit it in before I answered my post. I answered as no I never was. Since even though I was raised occasionally going to church until highschool but never had any believe and always rationalized how foolish it all was. Later I asked you why did you ask me that question? That I found rather despicable that you think it was indicative of anything enough to be asked. So if I had to have 1 answer questioned you avoided it would be that one because I don't know where you were even going to go with that if I said yes. I admit I'm assuming you were going somewhere with it, since you ignored it when I said no.

It will tell me whether or not theistic influences alone could account for your reliance on conceptualizations for perception as opposed to the logical reality that me and true scotsman advocate.

Thanks, and of course you fit right in the square hole of so many constant members on this forum, it's quite interesting.

Okay the only confusion I have here is why it is you say "belief" is a faith claim. I would say knowledge is a faith claim. What is it we both mean by the term "faith?" It does have multiple usages but in this context I would say Faith means something held with strong conviction or without question.

I don't characterize any belief claims as a strong conventional claim. I think they're loose flimsy positions. To me if it becomes a knowledge claim when it is a firm believe. A firm believe is something with a stronger conviction to the point of it being knowledge. My questioning is to what we can considered actual knowledge. I would put that line of knowledge and faith very close to eachother.

That last part maybe be true. It's because I don't accept logical reality is truthfully as understandable. It's why I don't accept a 7.0 stance on anything, not just in this blank generic deistic god like thing.

"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, 12:56 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Define those possibilities.
The dumbest fuck on the planet.

I have clearly stated that I don't know if it is possible or not.

You clearly can't understand what "I don't know" means.


You're the one who claims that it (god's existence) is impossible and you're the one unable to substantiate that claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  Some questions you ask required questions to get to the point of the question itself.


Because the current things are where my interests lie, and what I am focused upon.


Yes. Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs are not, for they are faith based.


I have no idea. I have never taken any.


I am moderate in all areas of the INTJ. (I just took it.)


It will tell me whether or not theistic influences alone could account for your reliance on conceptualizations for perception as opposed to the logical reality that me and true scotsman advocate.

Thanks, and of course you fit right in the square hole of so many constant members on this forum, it's quite interesting.

Okay the only confusion I have here is why it is you say "belief" is a faith claim. I would say knowledge is a faith claim. What is it we both mean by the term "faith?" It does have multiple usages but in this context I would say Faith means something held with strong conviction or without question.

I don't characterize any belief claims as a strong conventional claim. I think they're loose flimsy positions. To me if it becomes a knowledge claim when it is a firm believe. A firm believe is something with a stronger conviction to the point of it being knowledge. My questioning is to what we can considered actual knowledge. I would put that line of knowledge and faith very close to eachother.

That last part maybe be true. It's because I don't accept logical reality is truthfully as understandable. It's why I don't accept a 7.0 stance on anything, not just in this blank generic deistic god like thing.

Belief, by definition, in regards to this conversation is regarded as the following:

Belief

"Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

Knowledge:

"Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation."

In regards to beliefs, if such beliefs become subjected to the rigors of proofs such as what is described in the definition of knowledge, then those beliefs become knowledge.

If they are not subjected to those proofs, then they stand as unsubstantiated concepts.

That is the difference between what we believe and what is knowledge. When we do mathematics, for example, we know that 1 + 1 = 2. It is not a belief.

Knowledge takes you beyond belief, and into the status 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
24-01-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Define those possibilities.
The dumbest fuck on the planet.

I have clearly stated that I don't know if it is possible or not.

You clearly can't understand what "I don't know" means.


You're the one who claims that it (god's existence) is impossible and you're the one unable to substantiate that claim.

You cannot defend yourself. Instead, you use ad homs.

Bore me some more, will you?

Facepalm

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
24-01-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:38 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 12:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Those are the common, casual definitions, not the definitions required in this kind of discussion. That definition of 'proof' does not apply to logical or mathematical proof.

Do you see the difference in the definitions?
You have provided evidence that leads one to believe the conclusion, but does not logically prove the conclusion.

Like I said in the post, it's all the evidence that is known to be possible.

Asking for conclusive evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, you take what is available, and work with that. And what is available demonstrates evidence to support the non existence of any kind of supernatural entity.

And like I said, to dispute this evidence will require positive testable evidence of a supernatural entity commonly known as god.

Since the only evidence available is what I have given you, then it is by no means unreasonable to say "God does not exist," especially when the evidence demonstrates that the chance of a supernatural god existing is less than 0.

I am a very firm atheist and live as though I were 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale. However, without a logical proof of the non-existence of any gods I must honestly remain 6.9999+.

So, in theory I'm at 6.9999+, I am 7.0 in practice. That is the difference between having a convincing argument based on evidence and having a valid proof.

We can logically prove the non-existence of the Christian god as its definition contradictory. The same with the Muslim god and many others.

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, 01:08 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 01:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 12:38 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I said in the post, it's all the evidence that is known to be possible.

Asking for conclusive evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, you take what is available, and work with that. And what is available demonstrates evidence to support the non existence of any kind of supernatural entity.

And like I said, to dispute this evidence will require positive testable evidence of a supernatural entity commonly known as god.

Since the only evidence available is what I have given you, then it is by no means unreasonable to say "God does not exist," especially when the evidence demonstrates that the chance of a supernatural god existing is less than 0.

I am a very firm atheist and live as though I were 7.0 on the Dawkins Scale. However, without a logical proof of the non-existence of any gods I must honestly remain 6.9999+.

So, in theory I'm at 6.9999+, I am 7.0 in practice. That is the difference between having a convincing argument based on evidence and having a valid proof.

We can logically prove the non-existence of the Christian god as its definition contradictory. The same with the Muslim god and many others.

Meh.

I have always considered you 7.0 anyways, regardless of what you say. The only difference between you and me is that I accept that there is no supernatural gods completely, while you hold on to a thread because you believe it is more intellectually honest.

But I also view my position as being intellectually honest for all the reasons I stated through this thread. So it all comes down to a matter of opinion, and opinions can be strong and substantiated, and both can be justified.

There's really no right or wrong here.

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
24-01-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  The objections you have raised are easily defeated
OK, please defeat them.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  "because they are all premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics."
No, I don't accept that they are.
You have assumed that god is a consciousness without any other properties. I have not made that assumption. I do not assume what god is or isn't.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You didn't arrive at them objectively but by looking inward to the imagination.
Sure, I imagined some scenarios that may or may not be true. Can you prove that they are untrue?

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If I can imagine something then it is possible.
Perhaps you are falling for the same fallacy as Free is.
I have not made a claim that my scenarios are possible. I admit to imagining them up. Pulling them out my arse, so to speak. These scenarios might be possible or they might be impossible. I don't have the means to validate them so I don't know whether they are possible or not.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  On the objective theory of knowledge only what is actual is possible.
This is a false statement.
Unless the universe is infinite then there are many things that are possible but haven't occurred yet and us humans only know of a fraction of what is possible.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  On the objective theory of knowledge something is possible if there is at least some evidence for it and no evidence against it.
In an absolute sense, it is irrelevant whether there is evidence for something, it is possible regardless.

Because us humans only have limited knowledge we must go through a discovery process to find things that are actual and to find out what is possible. There are many things that are possible but of which us humans haven't discovered the evidence for yet.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  But if evidence is the facts of reality, then there is overwhelming evidence against creator gods.
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. It maybe that we don't know what evidence to look for, we don't know where to look.

(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.
Where is the definition of god saying that gods must be able to create things via the act of conscious will?


(23-01-2015 07:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.
Actually the higgs bosson was defined decades before it was discovered.
Billions of dollars were spent, thousands of scientists used to confirm this discovery. The new particle that they found, they could have worked out that it wasn't a higgs bosson if it didn't match the definition. If order to state categorically that god doesn't exist, you need a falsifiable definition of god and then you need to find the evidence that falsifies it.
You don't even have a definition and yet you think you have falsified it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-01-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 01:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 12:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The dumbest fuck on the planet.

I have clearly stated that I don't know if it is possible or not.

You clearly can't understand what "I don't know" means.


You're the one who claims that it (god's existence) is impossible and you're the one unable to substantiate that claim.

You cannot defend yourself. Instead, you use ad homs.
Ad homs, you dumb fuck. Read the post again.

If i tell you that I don't know if it is possible or not, then why do you ask me to "define those possiblities?"
Your question is logically absurd given what I have told you about my position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: