Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[Augustus]

So if one person says to me "gods exist" I must believe that and if a second person says "gods don't exist" a minute later I must believe that too? At the same time?

Only if your brain works remarkably slowly. The secondary process of correction often occurs a fraction of a second later.

You comprehend propositions as being true and, to change this, you must make a secondary corrective action by comparing what you comprehended with other knowledge and beliefs. The alternative is that we comprehend something neutrally and have a 'lack of belief' until we choose one way of the other.

Thinking of it in terms of believing probably makes people think of a much more conscious and drawn out process, things are comprehended as true unless corrective action is taken. It's not really an issue on topics we are familiar with due to correction being automatic.

 

[ArtieE]

Only if your brain works remarkably slowly. The secondary process of correction often occurs a fraction of a second later.

You comprehend propositions as being true and, to change this, you must make a secondary corrective action by comparing what you comprehended with other knowledge and beliefs. The alternative is that we comprehend something neutrally and have a 'lack of belief' until we choose one way of the other.

Thinking of it in terms of believing probably makes people think of a much more conscious and drawn out process, things are comprehended as true unless corrective action is taken. It's not really an issue on topics we are familiar with due to correction being automatic.

"So if one person says to me "gods exist" I must believe that and if a second person says "gods don't exist" a minute later I must believe that too? At the same time?"

So what you are saying is that after hearing "gods exist" for a fraction of a second I believe gods exist. And then what? And when a minute has passed and I hear "gods don't exist" I believe that for a fraction of a second and then what?

 

[Augustus]

"So if one person says to me "gods exist" I must believe that and if a second person says "gods don't exist" a minute later I must believe that too? At the same time?"

So what you are saying is that after hearing "gods exist" for a fraction of a second I believe gods exist. And then what? And when a minute has passed and I hear "gods don't exist" I believe that for a fraction of a second and then what?

With things you are familiar with it becomes a learned behaviour so the process is possibly different. It's both unknowable and unimportant with topics we are familiar with though as it has no effect whatsoever.

It is a very significant difference when it comes to being exposed to new information or that on topics were have limited familiarity with where there is no learned response. This is what the study was focused on and is supported by other aspect of cognitive science.

In the context of what I said, it also prevents us from 'lacking a belief' on a proposition we can comprehend.

 

[ArtieE]

In the context of what I said, it also prevents us from 'lacking a belief' on a proposition we can comprehend.

I said and I quote:

"So what you are saying is that after hearing "gods exist" for a fraction of a second I believe gods exist. And then what? And when a minute has passed and I hear "gods don't exist" I believe that for a fraction of a second and then what?"

Try actually answering the question. You said: "In the context of what I said, it also prevents us from 'lacking a belief' on a proposition we can comprehend." It prevents us from lacking a belief for a fraction of a second. Then what? Does it prevent us from lacking a belief after that?

 

[Augustus]

Try actually answering the question. You said: "In the context of what I said, it also prevents us from 'lacking a belief' on a proposition we can comprehend." It prevents us from lacking a belief for a fraction of a second. Then what? Does it prevent us from lacking a belief after that?

Yes. Unless I suppose we forget over time (both consciously and subconsciously)

You can hold a belief such as 'unproven' or 'unsure' though.

Do you believe we remain neutral on a proposition until we consciously choose to adopt a belief regarding it?

 

[confused453]

Theoretically an Athiest coud believe everything written in a Christian Bible, except the God would be replaced with someone else, like a human king?

 

[ArtieE]

Yes. Unless I suppose we forget over time (both consciously and subconsciously)

You can hold a belief such as 'unproven' or 'unsure' though.

Do you believe we remain neutral on a proposition until we consciously choose to adopt a belief regarding it?

I just don't see how it would be possible for me to believe gods exist and to believe gods don't exist at the same time.

 

[Augustus]

I just don't see how it would be possible for me to believe gods exist and to believe gods don't exist at the same time.

As I said, you don't really believe it in that sense and talking about it like that is both a misdirection and unimportant.

The study is comparing two hypotheses about exposure to information:

Cartesian: We are rational. After exposure to information we 'lack belief' and store it as neither true of false unless we choose to ascribe a truth value to it. Exposure to information has no effect on us unless we want to be influenced by it.

Spinozan: After exposure to information we store it as true unless we choose to reject it. All information that we are exposed to has an effect on us and we cannot 'lack belief' on any proposition we have comprehended..

The study shows that information seems to be stored as 'true' unless you undergo a secondary process of rejecting it.

 

[ArtieE]

As I said, you don't really believe it in that sense and talking about it like that is both a misdirection and unimportant.

The study is comparing two hypotheses about exposure to information:

Cartesian: We are rational. After exposure to information we 'lack belief' and store it as neither true of false unless we choose to ascribe a truth value to it. Exposure to information has no effect on us unless we want to be influenced by it.

Spinozan: After exposure to information we store it as true unless we choose to reject it. All information that we are exposed to has an effect on us and we cannot 'lack belief' on any proposition we have comprehended..

The study shows that information seems to be stored as 'true' unless you undergo a secondary process of rejecting it.

But what does that mean exactly? If you have been exposed to the proposition "gods exist" you must believe gods exist forever? And if you have been exposed to the proposition "gods don't exist" you must believe "gods don't exist" forever? Since you can't have an absence of belief in any of them?

 

[Augustus]

But what does that mean exactly? If you have been exposed to the proposition "gods exist" you must believe gods exist forever? And if you have been exposed to the proposition "gods don't exist" you must believe "gods don't exist" forever? Since you can't have an absence of belief in any of them?

No. You can correct that belief at any time. You can believe it is 'false', 'unknowable', 'unproven', 'possible', 'probable' or whatever you please.

You can't have a 'lack of belief' though as you must have a belief of some kind, that belief doesn't have to be 'true' or 'false' though.

 

[ArtieE]

No. You can correct that belief at any time. You can believe it is 'false', 'unknowable', 'unproven', 'possible', 'probable' or whatever you please.

You can't have a 'lack of belief' though as you must have a belief of some kind, that belief doesn't have to be 'true' or 'false' though.

We are talking about the specific belief that "gods exist" or the specific belief that "gods don't exist" and the absence of those specific beliefs. Not any other beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

You might want to argue that the atheist is missing something important about reality.

Yes, you would just have to provide good evidence for your argument. You would have to scientifically demonstrate that the supernatural exists. unfortunately, there is no way to test for it.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, you would just have to provide good evidence for your argument.

As we all should require.

You would have to scientifically demonstrate that the supernatural exists. unfortunately, there is no way to test for it.

I think the experimental evidence and anecdotal evidence is 10 times over enough to accept that the supernatural exists. But that debate has been done many times and people must form their own opinion.

 

[Milton Platt]

No. You can correct that belief at any time. You can believe it is 'false', 'unknowable', 'unproven', 'possible', 'probable' or whatever you please.

You can't have a 'lack of belief' though as you must have a belief of some kind, that belief doesn't have to be 'true' or 'false' though.

You can indeed have a lack of belief in the truthfulness of a proposition. What options for a belief in a specific god are there other than true or false?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As we all should require.

I think the experimental evidence and anecdotal evidence is 10 times over enough to accept that the supernatural exists. But that debate has been done many times and people must form their own opinion.

You keep saying that, but every time you give the specifics of any of this "evidence", flaws emerge that are serious enough to call your conclusions into question.

But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether "the supernatural" exists. Establishing that something is real is not the same as establishing that it's supernatural.

Personally, I don't see how the label is useful at all. From my perspective, it only ever seems to be applied to either real things that we don't understand or things that don't exist. Once something "supernatural" becomes understood, it ceases to be "supernatural" and becomes "natural"... at least judging by how people use the terms.

Can you give a definition for "supernatural" that establishes it as a real category in its own right? Can you explain why it's better to consider all that exists as a dichotomy of two categories ("supernatural" and "natural") instead of one single mish-mash ("that which exists")?

 

[George-ananda]

You keep saying that, but every time you give the specifics of any of this "evidence", flaws emerge that are serious enough to call your conclusions into question.

I see no flaws in certain experimental evidence. Anecdotal evidence can never be perfect by its nature (it can not be repeated). There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence that I find in its totality to be 10 times over enough evidence to judge the existence of the so-called paranormal beyond reasonable doubt. In the experimental evidence we can start to even actually talk of proof. However my last sentence from my quote holds: But that debate has been done many times and people must form their own opinion.

But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether "the supernatural" exists. Establishing that something is real is not the same as establishing that it's supernatural.

Personally, I don't see how the label is useful at all. From my perspective, it only ever seems to be applied to either real things that we don't understand or things that don't exist. Once something "supernatural" becomes understood, it ceases to be "supernatural" and becomes "natural"... at least judging by how people use the terms.

Can you give a definition for "supernatural" that establishes it as a real category in its own right? Can you explain why it's better to consider all that exists as a dichotomy of two categories ("supernatural" and "natural") instead of one single mish-mash ("that which exists")?

Actually, I agree with you on the problems with terms like 'supernatural'. I only chose the term in my reply because that was the term used in the post I was replying to. I think the key issue is the materialist understanding of man and the universe versus the spiritual understanding of man and the universe. The spiritual view includes dramatically important elements not in the domain of current science such as souls, gods, God/Brahman and afterlife planes. Here is where I see the differences in views between the two sides can be more clearly understood.

 

[ArtieE]

The spiritual view includes dramatically important elements not in the domain of current science such as souls

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

 

[George-ananda]

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I didn't bother to read the whole thing but I think the title alone is more than a little ambitious and cause for an eye-roll. I got the impression it took the materialist against the spiritualist side of the debate I was referring to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see no flaws in certain experimental evidence.

I know you don't.

Actually, I agree with you on the problems with terms like 'supernatural'. I only chose the term in my reply because that was the term used in the post I was replying to. I think the key issue is the materialist understanding of man and the universe versus the spiritual understanding of man and the universe. The spiritual view includes dramatically important elements not in the domain of current science such as souls, gods, God/Brahman and afterlife planes. Here is where I see the differences in views between the two sides can be more clearly understood.

But that isn't a difference between the two sides at all. You're conflating two different ideas:

- standards of evidence
- whether we should use a "natural"/"supernatural" dichotomy

If a materialist saw what they considered a convincing amount of evidence for, say, souls, they wouldn't say "but souls can't exist because they're material!" They'd say "souls exist... and therefore, they're material."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you claiming anything as "supernatural" or "immaterial" when both sides acknowledge it exists. The term is only ever applied to things when their existence is in question.

"What sort of standard of evidence should we use to decide whether something exists?" and "should we categorize everything that exists into one broad category or two?" are separate questions that don't have anything to do with each other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not really, atheism is an inherently arrogant position in the first place. But. before someone gets upset, let me explain. The atheist no more knows there is no god any more than the average devotee knows there is. They're both simply guessing...

The same might be said about whether or not a perfect Ming tea pot is right now orbiting Saturn -- neither he who thinks so nor he who denies it actually knows for certain.

However, one can at least fall back on some reasonable rules of inference, beginning with a very simple question: "is there any reason for me to imagine that there is a Ming tea pot orbiting Saturn?" And I think that one might reasonably conclude the answer is far more likely to be "no," than the reverse question: "is there any reason for me to suppose that there is no Ming tea pot orbiting Saturn, or any other non-terran planet?"