Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 06:49 AM)bencandide Wrote:  
(25-01-2015 10:00 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’m back from a few days off the forum, survived sharks, let me see of I can survive this thread Big Grin

I think this diagram is an accurate depiction of Agnostic/Gnostic Theist/Atheist

Dear, the diagram indeed is helpful.

bencandide,
I sincerely hope you are a woman in her 70’s to be calling me dear because if you aren’t it comes across as drippily condescending. Are you trying to be condescending?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 09:18 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Some people here say they are not 7.0 because they think that a 7.0 position means that it is a proclamation of knowledge that "God does not exist, " and then use the "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" to dispute the proclamation.

This can easily be dealt with logically. All that is required is to ask a couple of questions, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

"Why can't we prove that God doesn't exist?"

The answer will be, "Because you cannot prove a negative."

What is the negative? "God doesn't exist."

Uh-huh.

1. If "God doesn't exist" is negative, then there's nothing to prove.

2. If there's "nothing" to prove, then God does not exist.

Not much to that at all.

Sleepy

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
26-01-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 08:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Some people here say they are not 7.0 because they think that a 7.0 position means that it is a proclamation of knowledge that "God does not exist, " and then use the "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" to dispute the proclamation.

This can easily be dealt with logically. All that is required is to ask a couple of questions, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

"Why can't we prove that God doesn't exist?"

The answer will be, "Because you cannot prove a negative."

What is the negative? "God doesn't exist."

Uh-huh.

1. If "God doesn't exist" is negative, then there's nothing to prove.

2. If there's "nothing" to prove, then God does not exist.

Not much to that at all.

Sleepy

Dutch 1696: “Black swans don’t exist”
Dutch 1697: “Would you look at that, a Black swan.”

“The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought."

“According to Taleb, thinkers who came before him who dealt with the notion of the improbable, such as Hume, Mill, and Popper focused on the problem of induction in logic, specifically, that of drawing general conclusions from specific observations.”

“The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:

-The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
-The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
-The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-01-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 09:38 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 08:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Some people here say they are not 7.0 because they think that a 7.0 position means that it is a proclamation of knowledge that "God does not exist, " and then use the "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" to dispute the proclamation.

This can easily be dealt with logically. All that is required is to ask a couple of questions, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

"Why can't we prove that God doesn't exist?"

The answer will be, "Because you cannot prove a negative."

What is the negative? "God doesn't exist."

Uh-huh.

1. If "God doesn't exist" is negative, then there's nothing to prove.

2. If there's "nothing" to prove, then God does not exist.

Not much to that at all.

Sleepy

Dutch 1696: “Black swans don’t exist”
Dutch 1697: “Would you look at that, a Black swan.”

“The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought."

“According to Taleb, thinkers who came before him who dealt with the notion of the improbable, such as Hume, Mill, and Popper focused on the problem of induction in logic, specifically, that of drawing general conclusions from specific observations.”

“The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:

-The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
-The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
-The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Why do you continue to use this false analogy? Do you understand why it is false?

It is a false analogy because you are comparing something that exists in nature with something that does not exist in nature.

It's called the apples and oranges fallacy.

Apples & Oranges:

"A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also be used to indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an apple is faulted for not being a good orange.
"

False Analogy:

"A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning. One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.
"

Since Black Swans are natural existences, and a supernatural god is not, your analogy is a fallacy.

Big Grin

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
26-01-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
That's a bunch of bullshit, FC. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-01-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 09:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That's a bunch of bullshit, FC. Tongue

Problem is, people reading this who don't know any better will think his false analogy is accurate.

Sad

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
26-01-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 09:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 09:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That's a bunch of bullshit, FC. Tongue

Problem is, people reading this who don't know any better will think his false analogy is accurate.

Sad

I don't know any better, I woulda called it a red herring. Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-01-2015, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 10:52 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 10:00 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 09:56 AM)Free Wrote:  Problem is, people reading this who don't know any better will think his false analogy is accurate.

Sad

I don't know any better, I woulda called it a red herring. Big Grin

Yep, it is that also. We could likely pick out a couple more fallacies with that post too. His analogy would work if he compared the Black Swans to some other animal such as a completely Black Zebra. But it utterly fails on every level when he compares one existence in nature (Swans and Blacks Swans) to something that- by definition- is not natural, such as a supernatural omniscient entity.

I mean, since Swans were previously proven to exist, then black colored swans are possible.
But since no other previous instance of any supernatural entity has ever been proven to exist, then why should we expect a supernatural entity to exist at all?

The Black Swans had a precedent; swans.

The Supernatural entity does not have a precedent; a previous supernatural entity.

Let's say there was a green colored supernatural entity in existence. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a red colored supernatural entity to emerge. But ... we don't even have the green colored supernatural entity, so ... completely false analogy.

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
26-01-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
The Black swan analogy is a metaphor. You two are jumping at the subject of the analogy (Black swan) and holding on to it as if this is the sole point of the metaphor.

“The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought.”

met·a·phor noun \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\
: a word or phrase for one thing that is used to refer to another thing in order to show or suggest that they are similar
: an object, activity, or idea that is used as a symbol of something else

I find this discussion to be very important to me and I sincerely hope that you two are correct as strange as that may sound. But I remain skeptical and I will continue to poke at it as long as I perceive a weakness in what you claim.

In the end it may be a personal bias I cannot overcome or vice-versa. Cool

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 11:10 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  In the end it may be a personal bias I cannot overcome or vice-versa. Cool

It's ok. I forgive you. Big Grin

Although me and Free come to the same conclusion from radically different origins. The "fragility of any system of thought" makes the term "agnostic" redundant IMHO.

Besides, my claim is without weakness. As a prophet, I speak for god. We both agree he doesn't exist. Big Grin

Kinda makes me 7.0+. There's no long-term marketing value to a god separate from self, other than at an individual level. As god is reflected in my Gwynnies, my personal profit must be zero.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: