Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 02:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 01:36 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Dont be mad at me, Free. In my world it's ok to be wrong & important to admit mistakes. I've never had a problem with that. IF you feel you're right in your argument then go ahead. I support your right to argue. And I fully support the ideology that one cannot prove a negative. Which is what I read in your posts.

I am not angry, and it's very difficult to get angry at an obviously beautiful human being such as you. You are a precious light on this forum, and have my undying gratitude for just being you.

Bowing

I will respond more to what you said it a little bit.

I should have read through chas's posts more thoroughly because I've not ever known him to be wrong in his logical process & I could have been more helpful. But as my perception of Stevi was wrong I m pretty sure I only fucked things up for all of us.
I dont do the number thing. It's more interesting to me what people mean than dead accurate logic.
But when the logic is sound its more helpful than just the meaning behind the words.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2015 04:03 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
WitchSabrina Wrote:And I fully support the ideology that one cannot prove a negative. Which is what I read in your posts.

Many times on this very topic I have seen people confuse two entirely different things:

1. Evidence of Absence.

2. Absence of Evidence.

You may have heard the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This very statement alone tells you that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

An absence of evidence alone only means that there is no evidence to support a given hypothesis.

But evidence of absence is proof that there is an absence of positive evidence to support the existence of something.

In relation to the question of the existence of God, the only available evidence is, in fact, the Evidence of Absence. This evidence is proof of a negative. I am not saying it is conclusive proof of the non existence of God, but only that it is considered proof of a negative, with that negative being in direct relation to the non existence of God.

Now, since there is not a single bit of positive evidence supporting the existence of God, and since the only available evidence is the Evidence of Absence which demonstrates evidence supporting the non existence of God, then the scales of justice clearly drop in favor of non existence.

The Evidence of Absence demonstrates that I- or anyone else- can say with confidence, and with intellectual honesty, "There is no God." Yes, this is a claim of knowledge, but knowledge is justified by the evidence which, in this case, is the evidence of absence. This evidence gives us the knowledge to make and justify the claim.

When there is absolutely no evidence against a person accused of a crime, he is innocent. Completely innocent. It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict anyone when there is not one stitch of evidence to support the accusation.

Likewise, to accuse anyone who is 7.0 of being intellectually dishonest when there is not one single stitch of evidence to support that accusation- and in fact the Evidence of Absence disputes the accusation- is a total and complete miscarriage of justice, especially when the claim of knowledge is totally justified by the knowledge provided by the Evidence of Absence.

It is no different than accusing a completely innocent person.

However, by the very same standard, those who are sub 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale and claim they are not 7.0 because they feel it is intellectually dishonest, make these claims based upon completely unproven assertions. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support any such existence or even possible existence of God, then holding out on an unsupported concept of a possibility is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

After all, since we are speaking about "evidence," and there is absolutely none, then claiming that something is possible with no evidence to support the possibility at all is in fact a claim of knowledge that has absolutely no evidence to support it. This claim of a possibility is a claim of knowledge, and it is completely unjustified.

Therefore, anybody who is under 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale, and claims that the reasons are because "They don't know" (professing total ignorance), or "Can't prove God doesn't exist" (logical fallacy- conclusively proving a negative)", or "Slight possibility God exists" (absolutely no evidence), is merely asserting a conscious concept that does not find itself anchored to anything that actually exists.

In short, they are lying to themselves, and being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

And that is a travesty.

And that's really all I have to say.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2015 04:10 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  
WitchSabrina Wrote:And I fully support the ideology that one cannot prove a negative. Which is what I read in your posts.

Many times on this very topic I have seen people confuse two entirely different things:

1. Evidence of Absence.

2. Absence of Evidence.

You may have heard the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This very statement alone tells you that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

An absence of evidence alone only means that there is no evidence to support a given hypothesis.

But evidence of absence is proof that there is an absence of positive evidence to support the existence of something.

Please explain how you didn't just contradict yourself.

Quote:In relation to the question of the existence of God, the only available evidence is, in fact, the Evidence of Absence.

But there is only absence of evidence; there is no actual evidence of absence.

Quote:This evidence is proof of a negative. I am not saying it is conclusive proof of the non existence of God, but only that it is considered proof of a negative, with that negative being in direct relation to the non existence of God.

Correct - it is not conclusive.

Quote:Now, since there is not a single bit of positive evidence supporting the existence of God, and since the only available evidence is the Evidence of Absence which demonstrates evidence supporting the non existence of God, then the scales of justice clearly drop in favor of non existence.

But there is no evidence of absence, just absence of evidence.

OK - 'scales of justice' is key here. You are making an evidential argument and conclude that the weight of evidence supports your claim. I think most of us agree with you completely on that.

Quote:The Evidence of Absence demonstrates that I- or anyone else- can say with confidence, and with intellectual honesty, "There is no God." Yes, this is a claim of knowledge, but knowledge is justified by the evidence which, in this case, is the evidence of absence.

This is primarily where we differ. You can say with confidence that you don't believe there is a god, that you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no god, but you have not created a logical proof that there is no god.

However, it is not clear what god or gods you are talking about as you capitalize 'God' leading me to believe you are talking about a particular one.

Quote:When there is absolutely no evidence against a person accused of a crime, he is innocent. Completely innocent.

Not in a court. That person is 'Not Guilty'.

Quote:It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict anyone when there is not one stitch of evidence to support the accusation.

Of course it would. It would be a travesty even to try such a person.

Quote:Likewise, to accuse anyone who is 7.0 of being intellectually dishonest when there is not one single stitch of evidence to support that accusation- and in fact the Evidence of Absence disputes the accusation- is a total and complete miscarriage of justice.

It is no different than accusing a completely innocent person.

I don't see that the two are at all alike.

Quote:However, by the very same standard, those who are sub 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale and claim they are not 7.0 because they feel it is intellectually dishonest, make these claims based upon completely unproven assertions. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support any such existence or even possible existence of God, then holding out on an unsupported concept of a possibility is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

You keep insisting that. Making the claim that one lacks knowledge in no way implies that there is knowledge to be had.

Quote:After all, since we are speaking about "evidence," and there is absolutely none, then claiming that something is possible with no evidence to support the possibility at all is in fact a claim of knowledge that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

No one has made that claim.

Quote:Therefore, anybody who is under 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale, and claims that the reasons are because "They don't know" (professing total ignorance),

That's not the reason professed.

Quote: or "Can't prove God doesn't exist" (logical fallacy- conclusively proving a negative)",

The claim is that no proof exists, and that is not a fallacy.

Quote:or "Slight possibility God exists" (absolutely no evidence), is merely asserting a conscious concept that does not find itself anchored to anything that actually exists.

No one here has made that claim.

Quote:In short, they are lying to themselves, and being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

Nope. See above.

Quote:And that is a travesty.

And that's really all I have to say.

I certainly hope so. Drinking Beverage

(Sorry, too good a straight line to pass up.)

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
25-01-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 04:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  Many times on this very topic I have seen people confuse two entirely different things:

1. Evidence of Absence.

2. Absence of Evidence.

You may have heard the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This very statement alone tells you that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

An absence of evidence alone only means that there is no evidence to support a given hypothesis.

But evidence of absence is proof that there is an absence of positive evidence to support the existence of something.

Please explain how you didn't just contradict yourself.

You assert again. So the floor is yours.

Explain to me where the contradiction actually is.

Quote:
Quote:In relation to the question of the existence of God, the only available evidence is, in fact, the Evidence of Absence.

But there is only absence of evidence; there is no actual evidence of absence.

This has all been explained to you. You are simply rejecting proven logistics. Evidence of absence is called evidence of absence because it is EVIDENCE.

Quote:
Quote:This evidence is proof of a negative. I am not saying it is conclusive proof of the non existence of God, but only that it is considered proof of a negative, with that negative being in direct relation to the non existence of God.

Correct - it is not conclusive.

Conclusiveness is neither required nor possible. Since it is not possible, then for you to expect something that is not possible to be presented to you is absolutely fallacious, and completely absurd.

Quote:
Quote:Now, since there is not a single bit of positive evidence supporting the existence of God, and since the only available evidence is the Evidence of Absence which demonstrates evidence supporting the non existence of God, then the scales of justice clearly drop in favor of non existence.

But there is no evidence of absence, just absence of evidence.

Still demonstrating your outdated logistics? Get upgraded. Go ahead. It's free. Here the link:

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

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

Start reading. Start learning. Get educated for fuck sakes.

Quote:OK - 'scales of justice' is key here. You are making an evidential argument and conclude that the weight of evidence supports your claim. I think most of us agree with you completely on that.

Then if you agree, the judgment idemonstrates that God does not exist.

Quote:
Quote:The Evidence of Absence demonstrates that I- or anyone else- can say with confidence, and with intellectual honesty, "There is no God." Yes, this is a claim of knowledge, but knowledge is justified by the evidence which, in this case, is the evidence of absence.

This is primarily where we differ. You can say with confidence that you don't believe there is a god, that you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no god, but you have not created a logical proof that there is no god.

Yes I have. Evidence of Absence.

Quote:However, it is not clear what god or gods you are talking about as you capitalize 'God' leading me to believe you are talking about a particular one.

Since you have asked this so many times, and its been defined as a supernatural god so many times, then for fuck sakes when will you understand it?

Laugh out load

Quote:
Quote:When there is absolutely no evidence against a person accused of a crime, he is innocent. Completely innocent.

Not in a court. That person is 'Not Guilty'.

When there is absolutely no evidence against an accused, he is innocent. If there is some evidence, but not enough for conviction, he is not guilty.

If someone accused you of a crime you did not commit, and there was no evidence whatsoever to support the accusation, would you consider yourself not guilty, or completely innocent?

Quote:
Quote:It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict anyone when there is not one stitch of evidence to support the accusation.

Of course it would. It would be a travesty even to try such a person.

Exactly.

Quote:
Quote:Likewise, to accuse anyone who is 7.0 of being intellectually dishonest when there is not one single stitch of evidence to support that accusation- and in fact the Evidence of Absence disputes the accusation- is a total and complete miscarriage of justice.

It is no different than accusing a completely innocent person.

I don't see that the two are at all alike.

Both are accused. Both have no evidence against them. If you can't see that, can't help ya.

Quote:
Quote:However, by the very same standard, those who are sub 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale and claim they are not 7.0 because they feel it is intellectually dishonest, make these claims based upon completely unproven assertions. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support any such existence or even possible existence of God, then holding out on an unsupported concept of a possibility is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

You keep insisting that. Making the claim that one lacks knowledge in no way implies that there is knowledge to be had.

Really? If one lacks knowledge, it necessarily implies that he lacks knowledge of some thing. If there was nothing, how then could anyone lack knowledge of nothing?

After all Chas, if there was nothing, where's the knowledge to lack?


Quote:
Quote:After all, since we are speaking about "evidence," and there is absolutely none, then claiming that something is possible with no evidence to support the possibility at all is in fact a claim of knowledge that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

No one has made that claim.

Yeah, it's been done so many times here its stupid. "I am agnostic because I can't say for sure that God does or doesn't exist."

Quote:
Quote:Therefore, anybody who is under 7.0 on the Dawkin's Scale, and claims that the reasons are because "They don't know" (professing total ignorance),

That's not the reason professed.

Talk to Stevil. He apparently doesn't know what he doesn't know, yet claims to be agnostic about stuff he doesn't know anything about. How the fuck does that work?

Quote:
Quote: or "Can't prove God doesn't exist" (logical fallacy- conclusively proving a negative)",

The claim is that no proof exists, and that is not a fallacy.

It's a fallacy to expect proof when no proof is possible. Whenever you say that there is no proof to support the non existence of God, you are being fallacious.

Quote:
Quote:or "Slight possibility God exists" (absolutely no evidence), is merely asserting a conscious concept that does not find itself anchored to anything that actually exists.

No one here has made that claim.

Read the thread.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:The claim is that no proof exists, and that is not a fallacy.

It's a fallacy to expect proof when no proof is possible. Whenever you say that there is no proof to support the non existence of God, you are being fallacious.
Lack of belief requires no proof because it makes no claims. It isn't a position that expects proofs, it's a position of being unconvinced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 08:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  It's a fallacy to expect proof when no proof is possible. Whenever you say that there is no proof to support the non existence of God, you are being fallacious.
Lack of belief requires no proof because it makes no claims. It isn't a position that expects proofs, it's a position of being unconvinced.

Let's explore this lack of belief.

If you are saying that you have a complete and total lack of belief in supernatural gods, then you cannot be agnostic, or anything below 7.0. because a pure atheist has absolutely no beliefs.

So do you have a total and complete lack of beliefs in any supernatural gods?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 09:23 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 08:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Let's explore this lack of belief.

If you are saying that you have a complete and total lack of belief in supernatural gods, then you cannot be agnostic, or anything below 7.0. because a pure atheist has absolutely no beliefs.

So do you have a total and complete lack of beliefs in any supernatural gods?
There is no such thing as a pure atheist.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods.

Agnostic has nothing to do with belief.
Agnostic means lacking knowledge of gods.

Most atheists are also agnostic. Some theists are agnostic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2015 09:44 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 09:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 08:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Let's explore this lack of belief.

If you are saying that you have a complete and total lack of belief in supernatural gods, then you cannot be agnostic, or anything below 7.0. because a pure atheist has absolutely no beliefs.

So do you have a total and complete lack of beliefs in any supernatural gods?
There is no such thing as a pure atheist.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods.

Agnostic has nothing to do with belief.
Agnostic means lacking knowledge of gods.

Most atheists are also agnostic. Some theists are agnostic.

An 7.0 atheist says, "There are no gods," denoting a complete absence of any beliefs. He is 100% certain that any kind of supernatural gods do not exist.

That's a pure atheist. That is me.

Agnostics are defined as those who have determined that knowledge of the existence of God is unknown, or unknowable. This does not mean that knowledge concerning god does not exist. The definition actually implies that there is knowledge, but that the agnostics simply don't know what that knowledge is, or can't know what it is. Therefore, agnostics are undecided.

This is why the Dawkin's Scale rates a pure agnostic as " “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

This means that there is a 50/50 chance that God exists or doesn't exist.

That is what agnostic actually means.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 09:42 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  An 7.0 atheist says, "There are no gods," denoting a complete absence of any beliefs. He is 100% certain that any kind of supernatural gods do not exist.

That's a pure atheist. That is me.
Nope, there is no such thing as a pure atheist, you've made that shit up.
You're a gnostic atheist. You're position is a belief based position because there is no proof to back it up. If you think it is fact and not belief then you have the burden of proof upon you, because you are making a claim.

(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Agnostics are defined as those who have determined that knowledge of the existence of God is unknown, or unknowable. This does not mean that knowledge concerning god does not exist.

It also does not mean that knowledge concerning gods does exist. It also does not mean that the person beliefs that gods are possible.
It simply means the person has no knowledge of gods.
This person can be either atheist or theist. If they choose to be theist then they choose to believe that a god/s exist. If they choose to be atheist then they remain without belief.

(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, agnostics are undecided.
Agnostics aren't undecided, they merely recognise that they have no knowledge of gods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 09:54 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(25-01-2015 09:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  An 7.0 atheist says, "There are no gods," denoting a complete absence of any beliefs. He is 100% certain that any kind of supernatural gods do not exist.

That's a pure atheist. That is me.
Nope, there is no such thing as a pure atheist, you've made that shit up.
You're a gnostic atheist. You're position is a belief based position because there is no proof to back it up. If you think it is fact and not belief then you have the burden of proof upon you, because you are making a claim.

I never made anything up. Here is the Dawkin's Scale:

[Image: dawkins-scale.jpg]

These definitions on the Dawkins Scale are virtually universally accepted.

Quote:
(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Agnostics are defined as those who have determined that knowledge of the existence of God is unknown, or unknowable. This does not mean that knowledge concerning god does not exist.

It also does not mean that knowledge concerning gods does exist. It also does not mean that the person beliefs that gods are possible.

On actually no, it doesn't mean it. But the agnostic position defines it that way.

Quote:It simply means the person has no knowledge of gods.

Look at the definition of what a pure agnostic is on the Dawkins Scale. It clearly says that pure agnostics believe that the existence or non existence of God is exactly equal; equiprobable.

Quote:This person can be either atheist or theist. If they choose to be theist then they choose to believe that a god/s exist. If they choose to be atheist then they remain without belief.

There are weak atheists, defacto atheists, and strong atheists. There is a difference between them.

Quote:
(25-01-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, agnostics are undecided.
Agnostics aren't undecided, they merely recognise that they have no knowledge of gods.

Look at the definition on the scale.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: