Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 03:42 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I'd hafta wonder why you're surrendering to theistic bullshit?

lol ... I agree. Almost everything he says screams, "Fuck it! I'm 7.0!"

I think he will get here with us. It's only time. He's one of the smarter ones here.
Blush

This whole argument has been very instructive for me. It wasn’t my intent to play Devil’s advocate but my position as argued has been sincere. This exercise for me has been informative and useful for future arguments with theists. It’s good to have an intellectual discussion every now an then, especially when it doesn’t devolve into ad hominems. Quips are great but so are deeper exchanges. One of the great things I like about this forum is the ability to delve into difficult concepts, at least for me personally.

I’m not sure how much further I can take this theme so I’m going to give it a rest and go cogitate some more. Free, thank you as always for your candor and willingness to engage in interesting topics.

HoC, at no time have I “surrendered to theistic bullshit”, I would have thought that my constant battles for atheism spoke for themselves as I believe they have.

Fuck it, I’m a &.0!

“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, 04:09 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 03:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:30 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  Do we really need to quantify and qualify ourselves to each other?

No, not really. It all started like 50 pages ago when I said that I was 7.0, and was accused of being intellectually dishonest. Chas starts saying that we cant prove a negative, we can't prove that God doesn't exist etc. Vosur, who never engaged in the convo at all, neg reps me for -3 based upon what Chas said and says I am intellectually dishonest in the rep.

Yet not one of them has provided a single stitch of any kind of intellectual dishonesty. I don't appreciate when people paint me as being dishonest when there is no evidence of it, so I defended myself as best I could and was forced to show why my position is, in fact, honest.

I not only didn't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, I have never even used that phrase in this thread. So, there's that.

And I never made the claim about "not proving a negative", either. So, there is also that.

Are you simply mistaken when you try to tar me with that brush? Or...

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
26-01-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 04:09 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  HoC, at no time have I “surrendered to theistic bullshit”, I would have thought that my constant battles for atheism spoke for themselves as I believe they have.

Your arguments seem to presuppose gods yet undefined. It is not beyond the possibility that one day I may be able to present a measure of scientific validation for the LC; my fear is that theists would take such an eventuality to say "see I told you so!"

I've got no argument with you and do not necessarily support Free's less than 7.0 dictates. However, I insist thet it is not up to us to account for every and any possibility of a divine presence. My own scripture declares that "no god exists beyond the self," meaning that there is a god. Big Grin

[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, 04:18 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  I have already explained this to you in a previous post.

"Evidence of Absence is the absence of any positive evidence..."
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
You need to provide some evidence, such as a picture of an empty jar, which is evidence that the jar does not contain marbles. This is evidence and it can be categorised as evidence of absence.
You don't have any evidence for your claim.
(26-01-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  "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.
Nope.
Something is evidence if it is something that can be provided (such as a photograph, or a fingerprint etc). That evidence can then be categorised as "evidence of absence" if that evidence shows that something is absent, such as a photo of a jar which is absent of marbles. The claim was that marbles were in the jar, the photo was evidence that the marbles were absent from the jar.
To provide evidence of absence you need a claim that is falsifiable. A claim that marbles are in the jar is easily falsifiable by providing evidence that the marbles are not in the jar.
The claim of god's existence does not offer falsifiable criteria. You cannot show a picture of an empty jar and say that since we cannot see god in the jar therefore this proves that god doesn't exist. The logic does not hold.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 04:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 04:27 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 03:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:30 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  Do we really need to quantify and qualify ourselves to each other?

No, not really. It all started like 50 pages ago when I said that I was 7.0, and was accused of being intellectually dishonest. Chas starts saying that we cant prove a negative, we can't prove that God doesn't exist etc. Vosur, who never engaged in the convo at all, neg reps me for -3 based upon what Chas said and says I am intellectually dishonest in the rep.

Yet not one of them has provided a single stitch of any kind of intellectual dishonesty. I don't appreciate when people paint me as being dishonest when there is no evidence of it, so I defended myself as best I could and was forced to show why my position is, in fact, honest.

This is funny because you are the first person to use the term "intellectually Dishonest" in this thread. Nobody but you began to make that accusation. You declared everyone below 7.0 is intellectually dishonest. Yeah, others and I think myself may of used the term back at you, but after you were the first to slander other people with that claim. (You started using intellectually honest for your position in 116 then made the dishonest accusation in 272)

I'm sure you're fine thinking OH YOU backed up what you claimed of why others are, but if someone through it back on you they probably didn't in your eyes. But you're not an objective observer of the situation, It's likely one would see it's probably equal on both fronts.

I really don't know why you try to defend things falsely here. Or you just misremember like humans are VERY prone to doing and don't look up things before you assert them. If it's the latter, that's why I don't think it's valid for humans to declare definitive knowledge because we routinely experience how we are limited and flawed intellectually.

(26-01-2015 04:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Your arguments seem to presuppose gods yet undefined. It is not beyond the possibility that one day I may be able to present a measure of scientific validation for the LC; my fear is that theists would take such an eventuality to say "see I told you so!"

I've got no argument with you and do not necessarily support Free's less than 7.0 dictates. However, I insist thet it is not up to us to account for every and any possibility of a divine presence. My own scripture declares that "no god exists beyond the self," meaning that there is a god. Big Grin

Doesn't that make us all gods? Including Gwynies?

It may play into the hand of some theists who want to use some range to say they can find their God there... but my drive isn't about what is going to benefit theists or harm theists more, it's just a skeptical drive to the answers Tongue

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
26-01-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 04:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 04:09 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  HoC, at no time have I “surrendered to theistic bullshit”, I would have thought that my constant battles for atheism spoke for themselves as I believe they have.

Your arguments seem to presuppose gods yet undefined. It is not beyond the possibility that one day I may be able to present a measure of scientific validation for the LC; my fear is that theists would take such an eventuality to say “see I told you so!”

I can see why you would think this but that’s not the case. I have no qualm with saying “I have seen no evidence for gods or the supernatural. If you think you have some bring it forth.”

(26-01-2015 04:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I've got no argument with you and do not necessarily support Free's less than 7.0 dictates. However, I insist thet it is not up to us to account for every and any possibility of a divine presence. My own scripture declares that "no god exists beyond the self," meaning that there is a god. Big Grin

You said it best before
(26-01-2015 03:00 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  It is not our job as atheists to debunk every imagined God, rather, the gods presented to us.
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
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-01-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
All I can say further is that Free must possess greater self-esteem than I. Thumbsup

[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, 04:39 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 04:37 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  All I can say further is that Free must possess greater self-esteem than I. Thumbsup

He's a cocksure atheist, one level above 7.

If we were going into ideological battle I'd want him on my side.

“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, 04:53 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:47 PM)Free Wrote:  No, not really. It all started like 50 pages ago when I said that I was 7.0, and was accused of being intellectually dishonest. Chas starts saying that we cant prove a negative, we can't prove that God doesn't exist etc. Vosur, who never engaged in the convo at all, neg reps me for -3 based upon what Chas said and says I am intellectually dishonest in the rep.

Yet not one of them has provided a single stitch of any kind of intellectual dishonesty. I don't appreciate when people paint me as being dishonest when there is no evidence of it, so I defended myself as best I could and was forced to show why my position is, in fact, honest.

I not only didn't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, I have never even used that phrase in this thread. So, there's that.

And I never made the claim about "not proving a negative", either. So, there is also that.

Are you simply mistaken when you try to tar me with that brush? Or...

I dunno Chas, what do you think the following implies?

Quote:"You can only honestly be 7.0 if you can prove there are no gods."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid719733

Quote:"Oh, I could answer that, but you just did.

Since one cannot prove non-existence, one cannot honestly be a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid721817

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, 04:57 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(26-01-2015 04:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  I have already explained this to you in a previous post.

"Evidence of Absence is the absence of any positive evidence..."
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
You need to provide some evidence, such as a picture of an empty jar, which is evidence that the jar does not contain marbles. This is evidence and it can be categorised as evidence of absence.
You don't have any evidence for your claim.
(26-01-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  "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.
Nope.
Something is evidence if it is something that can be provided (such as a photograph, or a fingerprint etc). That evidence can then be categorised as "evidence of absence" if that evidence shows that something is absent, such as a photo of a jar which is absent of marbles. The claim was that marbles were in the jar, the photo was evidence that the marbles were absent from the jar.
To provide evidence of absence you need a claim that is falsifiable. A claim that marbles are in the jar is easily falsifiable by providing evidence that the marbles are not in the jar.
The claim of god's existence does not offer falsifiable criteria. You cannot show a picture of an empty jar and say that since we cannot see god in the jar therefore this proves that god doesn't exist. The logic does not hold.

Please for the love of the FSM go learn something about positive and negative evidence.

Both are considered valid forms of evidence.

Here it is from Oxford:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...e-evidence

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: