Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(27-01-2015 09:00 PM)Free Wrote:  POINT: The reason why the Atheistic 7.0 position can claim absolute knowledge is because the Evidence of Absence provides the only possible knowledge regarding the non existence of any supernatural god(s). No other knowledge exists. No other choices exist.

And that is why Atheism 7.0 is the most intellectually honest status to hold.

All of your colorful shouting doesn't make that true. Your logic sucks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rik's post
28-01-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(27-01-2015 11:42 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I can prove gods do not exist. = False statement
I cannot prove gods do not exist. = True statement

I have determined that it is more accurate to say it is impossible to prove gods do not exist. Therefore, considering the definition of impossible as to refer to "incapable of existing," we can honestly say that providing any "conclusive proof of the non existence of god is, in itself, incapable of existing."

Smile

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
28-01-2015, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2015 10:11 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(28-01-2015 07:25 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 09:00 PM)Free Wrote:  POINT: The reason why the Atheistic 7.0 position can claim absolute knowledge is because the Evidence of Absence provides the only possible knowledge regarding the non existence of any supernatural god(s). No other knowledge exists. No other choices exist.

And that is why Atheism 7.0 is the most intellectually honest status to hold.

All of your colorful shouting doesn't make that true. Your logic sucks.

You may assert what you wish, but without any reasoning, logic, or evidence, your assertions are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

That may sound crude, but it is absolutely true. What you imagine- in regards to your unsupported opinion- does not find itself attached to reality. What this means is that until you can anchor your opinion to something concrete outside of your mind (such as reasoning, evidence, logical argument) then everything you said exists only in your mind.

If unsupported opinions were permissible as evidence of things, then isn't that exactly the same idea as a theist who says, "God exists" but provides no supporting evidence?

Regardless if you like me or not, opinions based upon an emotion response only- and not qualified by evidence, reasoning, logic etc- are a waste of your intellectual capacities as they demonstrate nothing more than what is going on in your mind.

They are not grounded in reality.


Consider

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
28-01-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(28-01-2015 08:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 07:25 AM)Rik Wrote:  All of your colorful shouting doesn't make that true. Your logic sucks.

You may assert what you wish, but without any reasoning, logic, or evidence, your assertions are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

That may sound crude, but it is absolutely true. What you imagine- in regards to your unsupported opinion- does not find itself attached to reality. What this means is that until you can anchor your opinion to something concrete outside of your mind (such as reasoning, evidence, logical argument) then everything you said exists only in your mind.

If unsupported opinions were permissible as evidence of things, then isn't that exactly the same idea as a theist who says, "God exists" but provides no supporting evidence?

Regardless if you like me or not, opinions based upon an emotion response only- and not qualified by evidence, reasoning, logic etc- are a waste of your intellectual capacities as they demonstrate nothing more than what is going on in your mind.

They are not grounded in reality.


Consider

As others have said, you have provided an argument with evidence but not a proof.

Absence of evidence is insufficient; you keep claiming it as proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2015, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2015 01:41 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(28-01-2015 11:10 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 08:44 AM)Free Wrote:  You may assert what you wish, but without any reasoning, logic, or evidence, your assertions are nothing more than a fart in the wind.

That may sound crude, but it is absolutely true. What you imagine- in regards to your unsupported opinion- does not find itself attached to reality. What this means is that until you can anchor your opinion to something concrete outside of your mind (such as reasoning, evidence, logical argument) then everything you said exists only in your mind.

If unsupported opinions were permissible as evidence of things, then isn't that exactly the same idea as a theist who says, "God exists" but provides no supporting evidence?

Regardless if you like me or not, opinions based upon an emotion response only- and not qualified by evidence, reasoning, logic etc- are a waste of your intellectual capacities as they demonstrate nothing more than what is going on in your mind.

They are not grounded in reality.


Consider

As others have said, you have provided an argument with evidence but not a proof.

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

Evidence and proof are defined as being the same.

If you are requesting conclusive proof- which would require completing the impossible task of of demonstrating non existence- when conclusive proof cannot exist because it is impossible, then you requesting that which does not exist.

In essence, since that which does not exist is "nothingness," then you are requesting absolutely nothing. This makes your request absolutely meaningless.

Therefore, the Evidence of Absence provides the only conclusive proof possible.

Quote:Absence of evidence is insufficient; you keep claiming it as proof.

And like so many others here, you confuse "Absence of Evidence" with the logically sound Evidence of Absence. They are not the same.

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

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

Since it is the only evidence in existence; the only possible evidence, then that is all the evidence that is available. It is sufficient because there is no other possible evidence. To suggest that it is not sufficient necessarily implies that greater evidence must exist. But since this is the only and greatest evidence possible to demonstrate either existence or non existence, then nothing greater can possibly exist to render this as not being sufficient.

To say that it is "not sufficient" necessarily implies that it is deficient in some way. Here is the definition of deficient:

Deficient:

adjective

"1. lacking in some necessary quality or element ."


Therefore, to qualify Evidence of Absence to be deficient- which means in this conversation as lacking greater evidence- you must first demonstrate that greater evidence is even possible.

But that is impossible. Consider

Also, when we apply the most simple form of binary to the two questions listed below, with Evidence of Absence being applied as the only evidence possible, and with 0 equaling "No", and 1 equaling "Yes", we see this result:

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: 0 = No.

Question: Does God not exist?
Answer: 1 = Yes.


And that is as honest as this whole situation can possibly be.

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
28-01-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  How can someone not claim knowledge and at the same time not believe? If someone doesn't believe in gods, that means there is some knowledge, some evidence or lack of thereof, that allows to make a judgement - An agnostic atheist supposedly claims to not possess knowledge on god, but by not believing you are necessarily making a fair use of current knowledge and rationality to dismiss the god hypothesis - You are basically "not believing that you don't believe". How can you not believe if you don't claim any knowledge?
Think of it this way.
The very moment a baby is born, this baby has never heard of the idea of god, has never been indoctorined, doesn't even know what a god is supposed to be.
This new born baby holds no belief in gods.
This new born baby is an agnostic atheist.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  We can claim knowledge on everything else but god - Why treat god differently?
I have no knowledge of fairies, vampires, ghosts, gobblins, warewolves, dragons, the lochness monster, big foot...
God is no different.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  God has as much evidence for him as unicorns or leprechauns, yet I'm not saying I "lack belief in unicorns", I'm saying "they don't exist".
It's not inconceivable to me that somewhere in the universe are horse like creatures with a single horn on their heads.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  Lack of evidence, in my opinion, is enough to assume something doesn't exist, if it hasn't been proven true, if there is no proof, then it doesn't exist until someone proves otherwise.
Does this mean that germs didn't exist until the time in human history as when they were proven to exist?
Did the wombat and the platypus only come into existence after they were discovered by humans?

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  Moreover, this isn't about just lack of proof, it is that there is contradictory evidence against god. For example, the number of phenomenon that was attributed to god and science has proven that it's not really like that, or the illogical, incompatible characteristics between many gods, such as the Christian or Muslim ones.
No-one here is doubting the inconsistencies of the quran or bible.
To be gnostic atheist you must have belief that no gods exist. Even those gods that haven't been written about.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  For me to be an agnostic, there could be no proof in favour and against god, but there is evidence that constitutes enough reason to deny the existence of almost every religion's god.
To be agnostic you need to lack knowledge. To lack knowledge it doesn't mean that you admit that the knowledge exists but you are merely lacking it.

Have you heard of the term ignostic. It means you don't consider the term "god" to be sufficiently defined in order to assess the viability of gods.


(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  This reminds me of the deist god - A non interventive god that is not falsifiable... It's not really like that, if your claim is not verifiable, then it is bullshit. Anyone can claim something that is not verifiable but that doesn't mean others need to be agnostics regarding it.
Being agnostic merely means you lack knowledge. I lack knowledge of all imaginary things.


(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  And moreover if your god doesn't have the ability to intervene then he isn't really a god and not worthy to be classified as such
Depends on the definition of god.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  In my opinion, for one to claim knowledge, there's no necessity to be 100% sure about anything, I'm not 100% sure that gods don't exist, just like I'm not 100% sure gravity exists, it could all be a complete unnoticeable illusion. However, in the present (and the future is irrelevant since we're not there already) there is no evidence for me to think that gravity doesn't exist and that god exists, therefore I know gravity exists and god doesn't. To claim knowledge, one needs to be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that's it.
Fair enough point.

(27-01-2015 06:59 PM)Blackout Wrote:  A small final note - Something that bugs me off is when agnostic atheists make use of their "lack of knowledge" to start a discussion on purpose with a theist and then sit back and demand evidence - Like "Oh you are mad? Then prove you are right, I only lack belief in gods, I don't need to prove anything" - This is not wrong, but it is a bad use of the agnostic position to mock theists and it serves no purpose.
An honest theist will come back with. You are right, I have no evidence, I choose to believe without evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
29-01-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(28-01-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Evidence and proof are defined as being the same.

If you are requesting conclusive proof- which would require completing the impossible task of of demonstrating non existence- when conclusive proof cannot exist because it is impossible, then you requesting that which does not exist.

This is really the point. Conclusive proof cannot be achieved, but that is required to be a gnostic atheist (=7.0 on the scale). One must have conclusive proof to have the knowledge; otherwise it is belief (<7.0).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rik's post
29-01-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
I think the existence of Bigfoot is more likely than god. Haha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2015, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2015 09:32 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(29-01-2015 08:47 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  Evidence and proof are defined as being the same.

If you are requesting conclusive proof- which would require completing the impossible task of of demonstrating non existence- when conclusive proof cannot exist because it is impossible, then you requesting that which does not exist.

This is really the point. Conclusive proof cannot be achieved, but that is required to be a gnostic atheist (=7.0 on the scale). One must have conclusive proof to have the knowledge; otherwise it is belief (<7.0).

The conclusive proof has been achieved, because the only possible conclusive proof is the Evidence of Absence.

The Evidence of Absence provided the only knowledge possible. When there is absolutely nothing else possible, then the Evidence of Absence is the only conclusive proof.

If you are expecting more, then you must demonstrate that more is possible. But you will not be able to do that because there is no more.

Hence, the Evidence of Absence is the conclusive proof.

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
29-01-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
Quote:Think of it this way.
The very moment a baby is born, this baby has never heard of the idea of god, has never been indoctorined, doesn't even know what a god is supposed to be.
This new born baby holds no belief in gods.
This new born baby is an agnostic atheist.
I don't like the idea that babies are atheists because babies are amoral and apolitical as well; babies are born without capacities to take a definitive stance on the god hypothesis, that's it, but to say they are born atheists, while technically correct, is not more truthful than saying my dog is an atheist. The majority of agnostic atheists are not atheists because they feel like there is no god, they are atheists because they have studied arguments for and against god and concluded there's low probability of god existing. Babies don't really do this, they are atheists out of naturalistic necessity only.

Quote:I have no knowledge of fairies, vampires, ghosts, gobblins, warewolves, dragons, the lochness monster, big foot...
God is no different.
If you don't wish to claim knowledge on any made up claim, that's perfectly ok. But I don't see reasons for me to not claim, because it'd bring me to complete absurdities and I wouldn't be able to deny anything.

Quote:It's not inconceivable to me that somewhere in the universe are horse like creatures with a single horn on their heads.
No, and the same goes for any supernatural or mythological claim, but until proof is presented, I'll just assume the creature or being doesn't exist.

Quote:Does this mean that germs didn't exist until the time in human history as when they were proven to exist?
Did the wombat and the platypus only come into existence after they were discovered by humans?
Not at all, but until they were proven to exist, people just assumed they didn't. I am not saying I am right or that god can never be proven, I am just saying that given the current state of affairs, god doesn't exist. If there's some scientific fact that ought to be proven true in the future but it sill hasn't been, I assume it doesn't exist.
Quote:No-one here is doubting the inconsistencies of the quran or bible.
To be gnostic atheist you must have belief that no gods exist. Even those gods that haven't been written about.
And that's my stance. The same stance of any supernatural or mythological claim. If someone made a kid's story and wrote a book to be released tomorrow about a new creature, I wouldn't say I'm agnostic to it, I'd say it's a made up myth to entertain children.

Quote:To be agnostic you need to lack knowledge. To lack knowledge it doesn't mean that you admit that the knowledge exists but you are merely lacking it.
But agnostics do possess some knowledge. Most agnostic atheists know the arguments, know the evidence, know the positions, many times know the bible, the quran, the inconsistencies. There is knowledge. It's not like you simply think "I don't believe in god", because there are reasons for it, it's not random.
Quote:Have you heard of the term ignostic. It means you don't consider the term "god" to be sufficiently defined in order to assess the viability of gods.
I know

Quote:Being agnostic merely means you lack knowledge. I lack knowledge of all imaginary things.
I don't

Quote:Depends on the definition of god.
And the problem is everyone can have a different definition

Quote:An honest theist will come back with. You are right, I have no evidence, I choose to believe without evidence.
Alright

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: