Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 12:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 08:14 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Stevil, you do realize you’re preaching to the choir right?
Oh, yeah. I know you said you were a 6. I just felt it important in a broader sense to highlight the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

Somehow Free thinks absence of evidence = evidence of absence in the special case of the supernatural. It's special pleading.

And yet you still don't understand. Surprising.

Evidence of Absence:

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

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, 12:16 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 12:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Somehow Free thinks absence of evidence = evidence of absence in the special case of the supernatural. It's special pleading.

Good enough, as far as I'm concerned. Speak up, if you have evidence; if not, embrace your atheism. It is not up to us to define the delusion of the delusional. Thumbsup

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
26-01-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 12:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Good enough, as far as I'm concerned. Speak up, if you have evidence; if not, embrace your atheism. It is not up to us to define the delusion of the delusional. Thumbsup
The position of "I don't know" isn't a delusion. It's a proclamation of lack of knowledge.

"I don't know" doesn't require evidence.
"I do know" does require evidence.

Lack of evidence does not equal evidence.

Tell me HOC, if gods exist, what evidence would you expect there to be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 12:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Evidence of Absence:

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."
So what evidence to you have that suggests god is missing or suggests that god doesn't exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 01:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 12:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Evidence of Absence:

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."
So what evidence to you have that suggests god is missing or suggests that god doesn't exist?

Prophecy. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 01:20 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 01:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 12:14 PM)Free Wrote:  Evidence of Absence:

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."
So what evidence to you have that suggests god is missing or suggests that god doesn't exist?

The evidence of absence demonstrates that there is no positive evidence suggesting the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god.

It demonstrates that the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god equates to a negative i.e.; nothing.

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, 01:17 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 12:08 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 11:58 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I disagree because the topic of the metaphor is “system of thought”.

How does this system of thought relate to this discussion?

When I use the term “Black swan”, I am using it in the same vein as Taleb uses it, i.e. “First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.”

So when Taleb says, “The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought” I take this to mean that our (human) abilities to arrive at precise/perfect/complete/total/all-encompassing knowledge is fragile, I prefer to think of it as open to further corrections.

As unlikely the existence of anything supernatural (and so far totally unobserved) phenomena may be it seems a leap of hubris to claim definitive knowledge NOT for any other reason than our constant refinement of our collective human knowledge.

In this regard I am paying tribute to our ever growing body of scientific findings as opposed to defending or making any god claim. Does this make sense?

(26-01-2015 12:08 PM)‘Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 11:58 AM)‘Full Circle Wrote:  Trust me when I tell you that I am and you are helping challenge the bias, if it indeed exists.

Meh ... you'll be 7.0 by the time I'm done with ya!

Big Grin

I look forward to it. Thumbsup

“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, 01:41 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 01:53 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 01:17 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 12:08 PM)Free Wrote:  How does this system of thought relate to this discussion?

When I use the term “Black swan”, I am using it in the same vein as Taleb uses it, i.e. “First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.”

So when Taleb says, “The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought” I take this to mean that our (human) abilities to arrive at precise/perfect/complete/total/all-encompassing knowledge is fragile, I prefer to think of it as open to further corrections.

This doesn't indicate that because it is fragile it means that it is necessarily broken, nor that it is fragile in all situations. He uses the metaphor/analogy of a particular example regarding Black Swans with particular circumstances.

Can he say this is true with all situations in all circumstances?

Quote:As unlikely the existence of anything supernatural (and so far totally unobserved) phenomena may be it seems a leap of hubris to claim definitive knowledge NOT for any other reason than our constant refinement of our collective human knowledge.

Firstly, defining what constitutes "knowledge" needs to be addressed.

Knowledge:

"Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning."

Therefore, regarding the question of the existence or possible existence of God, we need to ask whether or not any knowledge or possible knowledge exists.

1. Can we know if God exists?

2. Can we know if God does not exist?

Now we go to a previous post of mine and place it here:

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."

1. If "God doesn't exist" is negative, then there's nothing to prove, and no knowledge in existence

2. If there's "nothing" to prove and no knowledge in existence, then God does not exist.

What this demonstrates is that since all available evidence clearly indicates that there is absolutely no positive evidence supporting the existence of God, then there is also no knowledge regarding the existence of God.

But what it also demonstrates is that by using the Evidence of Absence, then it shows that there is evidence of a negative presence of any kind of a supernatural god. This Evidence of Absence provides knowledge supporting the non existence of both a supernatural god, and the possibility of a supernatural god.

Hence, when you look at both questions 1 & 2 above, the first question is answered that there is no knowledge available to know.

But the second question above demonstrates that in regards to non existence, we do indeed have knowledge to know via the Evidence of Absence.

Therefore, since the Evidence of Absence supplies the only knowledge available, and it demonstrates non existence, then it is intellectually honest to go with what we know and claim, "God does not exist."

That is why I say it is intellectually dishonest to not be 7.0, because anyone sub 7.0 is denying themselves this knowledge.

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, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 02:30 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 01:12 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 01:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So what evidence to you have that suggests god is missing or suggests that god doesn't exist?

The evidence of absence demonstrates that there is no positive evidence suggesting the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god.

It demonstrates that the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god equates to a negative i.e.; nothing.
Yeah but.

What is your evidence of absence?

You do realise that "evidence of absence" is merely a category of evidence?
It does not mean that absence is evidence (in special cases).

For example
A photo of a hammer covered in blood at a crime scene is evidence.
A finger print is evidence.
A black swan feather is evidence.
A photo of an empty jar is evidence.


Now let's categorise the evidence that we have.
A photo of a hammer at a crime scene is "evidence of locality" this evidence shows that the hammer was at the location of the scene.
A photo of a hammer with blood on it is "evidence of contact" this evidence shows that the hammer was in contact with the victim.
A finger print is "evidence of identity", it shows that a specific person handled the hammer.
A black swan feather is "evidence of existence" it shows that at least one swan has at least one black feather.
A photo of an empty jar is "evidence of absence", it shows that the jar is empty, that it contains no marbles. This is positive evidence that there are no marbles in the jar.

Now, what evidence do you have, that could be classified as "evidence of absence" that gods don't exist? When answering this question remember that "absence of evidence" does not qualify as "evidence of absence".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 02:37 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 02:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 01:12 PM)Free Wrote:  The evidence of absence demonstrates that there is no positive evidence suggesting the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god.

It demonstrates that the existence or possible existence of any supernatural god equates to a negative i.e.; nothing.
Yeah but.

What is your evidence of absence?

You do realise that "evidence of absence" is merely a category of evidence?
It does not mean that absence is evidence.

I have already explained this to you in a previous post.

"Evidence of Absence is the absence of any positive evidence to support the existence or possible existence of any kind of supernatural entity commonly regarded as God."

Quote:For example
A photo of a hammer covered in blood at a crime scene is evidence.
A finger print is evidence.
A black swan feather is evidence.
A photo of an empty jar is evidence.

All of this is positive evidence, and if it exists, then it is evidence.


Quote:Now, what evidence do you have, that could be classified as "evidence of absence" that gods don't exist? When answering this question remember that "absence of evidence" does not qualify as "evidence of absence".

It's been explained.

"Evidence of Absence is evidence of the absence of any positive evidence to support the existence or possible existence of any kind of supernatural entity commonly regarded as God."

That is why they call it "Evidence" of Absence.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: