Atheism doesn't mean much.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I do not accept FSM.
I do not accept unicorns.
I do not accept allah.
I do not accept odin.
I do not accept any god concept.

If I accept a god concept, then I am forced to accept all these things.

How does that follow?

To accept one and not all the others IS CONFIRMATION BIAS.

How so? Looking at a physics/mathematics monograph in which the authors both admit bias and present a theistic cosmology we find:

"Human nature interjects popular or ones personal myopia. In early times the theological bias that everything in ‘God’s universe must be perfect – perfect spheres for example kept discovery of the heliocentric universe at bay for thousands of years. Such bias is human nature. We must confess a similar bias; but we do not profess a theistic cosmology solely for alignment with out belief system. As we hope to demonstrate in these chapters; it is the explanatory power of the anthropic cosmology that prospers the underlying predilections." (emphases added)

Amoroso, R. L., & Rauscher, E. A. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything Vol. 43). World Scientific.

Imagine I found their argument persuasive and thus concluded that their following claim is true:
"We propose that teleological or eutaxiological bases are tantamount to the essence of anthropic cosmology itself suggesting that the anthropic principle entails an additional action principle driving or guiding cosmological evolution in opposition to the postulate of random Darwinian or naturalistic evolution of Big Band cosmologies." (emphasis added).

Perhaps I am also swayed by arguments such as those in e.g.,

Beauregard, M. & O'Leary, D. (2008). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul. HarperCollins. [NOTE: I hesitate even to call the above garbage an argument]

Copan, P., & Moser, P. (Eds.). (2004). The Rationality of Theism. Routledge.

Manson, N. A. (Ed.). (2003). God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.

Moreland, J. P. (2010). Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion). Routledge.

Polkinghorne, J. C. (2007). Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship. Yale University Press.

& innumerable others similar to the above.

I am then persuaded about an entity requiring particular properties. For example, the classical "logical" arguments presented in the The Rationality of Theism (e.g., the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, evidential value, etc.), if they persuaded me, wouldn't give me any reason to believe anything about Odin or unicorns. Same for a theistic cosmology in which the creating agent must necessarily have particular properties that most deities in various religious practices (past or present) lack, let alone mythical creatures.

There are general and specific arguments for theistic/deistic/religious entities or beliefs that, whether they are believed to be sound or not, do not entail acceptance of any and all "supernatural" beliefs. Likewise, if I accept that unicorns exist, I am not therefore logically required to think that UFO abductions occur or that Leprechauns exist in order to avoid confirmation bias. In fact, certain religious worldviews are situated in deliberate contradiction to others, such as the "watch-maker" deistic god of many a post-"Enlightenment" intellectual is to the person, theistic god of mainstream Christianities. Therefore, if I accept a deistic god I automatically must preclude the existence not only of personal god from the Abrahamic religions but also all pagan gods (by "pagan" I exclude here all "neo-pagan" beliefs/spiritualities and include only those religious/cultic practices of pre-Classical, classical, late antiquity, and the medieval period).

I'm not following your logic.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is exercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

Absolutely right. Same thing can be said of any ideology. For example, if you say "I am Hindu", my reaction would pretty much be the same as yours.

 

[Thief]

And did I not say this? Do you not bother reading or do just not comprehend? We build models, all of which are imagination. That is why we must compare them to our observation.

LMAO.

And when the model fails....you just shrug your shoulders?
Or do you default to a belief system you can't prove?

How about a proper assumption?
Cause and effect.....the universe is the effect and God is the Cause.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

How does that follow?

If I accept premises that have no verification, then either I accept ALL premises with no verification, or I accept the ones towards which I'm biased. I'm not sure what is difficult to follow here?

Someone proposes allah. Someone proposes FSM. I see no confirmation of either, yet I accept allah and reject FSM? How is that not confirmation bias?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

And when the model fails....you just shrug your shoulders?
Or do you default to a belief system you can't prove?

How about a proper assumption?
Cause and effect.....the universe is the effect and God is the Cause.

Why do you presume conclusion on my part? If the model is found to be inconsistent with observation, it must be adjusted. Perhaps you shrug your shoulders and accept 'whatever' as a conclusion to your failure to understand, but I do not.

I do not default to any belief system. Nor do I require proof. I examine available models. Those that are inconsistent are rejected in whole, or in the parts which are inconsistent. Those which are neither inconsistent nor verifiable are considered inferior to those which are verifiable.

Instead of hammering on my honest attempt to convey my logical outlook, please to tell me how you distinguish truth from non-truth?

How about instead of a so called proper assumption, compare the same models with the difference being one assumes cause and effect and the other makes no such assumption, and perhaps even a third which assumes no cause and effect?

The difference is that both models with assumption add an additional integral component the model with out assumption does not add. Having additional components requires additional verification of the component. If the model with now assumption is found to have inconsistencies which can only be explained by adding the assumption, and that model can then be verified, including verification of the assumption, then our model is improved by adding the assumption.

Otherwise you are adding assumptions which do nothing to improve the model (as far as explanatory power) while making the model more complex (by adding unnecessary assumptions).

 

[Ultimatum]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [Source: Dictionary.com]

It's not negative. It's a statement.
And yes, it's the default position for an individual who doesn't think about the concept of a "god" because this person doesn't believe in "god" due to not even thinking about a "god".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If I accept premises that have no verification, then either I accept ALL premises with no verification, or I accept the ones towards which I'm biased.

1) Accepting premises is, in general, nothing. Given a false premise, anything can follow (i.e., given "the moon is made of green cheese" it follows that Allah created the universe 2 minutes ago"). That's logic. Whether an argument is sound depends upon the truth of its premises, and you bypass this by asserting that if you accept premises for X argument you must for Y regardless of the complete lack of any logical connection.

I'm not sure what is difficult to follow here?

Your logic. Perhaps if you could formulate you logical argument using formal logic, it would help.

Someone proposes allah. Someone proposes FSM. I see no confirmation of either, yet I accept allah and reject FSM? How is that not confirmation bias?

Imagine I accept that aliens abduct people and probe them as is evidenced by crop circles. How does that imply or entail that I believe in fairies?

Your underlying assumptions are that your subjective evaluations of various assertions are equally ridiculous and are therefore logically equivalent. However, you've offered no logical argument to support that this is so, nor any logical argument at all.

 

[Willamena]

And yes, it's the default position for an individual who doesn't think about the concept of a "god" because this person doesn't believe in "god" due to not even thinking about a "god".

Ignorance and unbelief are different things.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ignorance and unbelief are different things.

I agree with you.
An ignorant person doesn't have to think about G-d.

Regards

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

1) Accepting premises is, in general, nothing.

Hem. I'm of the opinion that the premises one accepts pretty much defines their entire view of reality. I guess we differ in this regard.

Given a false premise, anything can follow

Therefore we need a standard whereby we can judge the falsehood of a model. Obviously, logic has less to do with the truth of a fact than any conclusion that may be drawn from that fact

(i.e., given "the moon is made of green cheese" it follows that Allah created the universe 2 minutes ago"). That's logic.

How on earth is that logic?

Whether an argument is sound depends upon the truth of its premises,

Yes

and you bypass this by asserting that if you accept premises for X argument you must for Y regardless of the complete lack of any logical connection.

How am I bypassing this when I have given a clear standard to determine if a model is accurate? A model that is consistent with observation and experience is given more weight than a model that is inconsistent with observation and experience.

Your logic. Perhaps if you could formulate you logical argument using formal logic, it would help.

Legion is prone to accept models without verification. Therefore Legion is prone to accept models without verification. Is that good enough? Perhaps, Therefore models accepted by Legion are prone to lack verification.

Imagine I accept that aliens abduct people and probe them as is evidenced by crop circles. How does that imply or entail that I believe in fairies?

I'm not saying that you believe everything, I'm saying that if your logic does not reqier verification, then you are subject to accept unverified models. If you accept an alien model without analytical verification, then you may accept fairies without analytical verification.

Your underlying assumptions are that your subjective evaluations of various assertions are equally ridiculous and are therefore logically equivalent. However, you've offered no logical argument to support that this is so, nor any logical argument at all.

I'm not even sure what you are accusing me of. But I'm pretty sure you have failed to understand and are now misrepresenting my position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [Source: Dictionary.com]

It's not negative. It's a statement.
And yes, it's the default position for an individual who doesn't think about the concept of a "god" because this person doesn't believe in "god" due to not even thinking about a "god".

Exactly.

My favorite is an attempt that I've seen here, and was made popular by people like Ray Comfort, when he tried to claim that by pronouncing atheism we are admitting that there is a "God" to not believe in. It's this little lingual word play that they imagine has some deeper meaning... And it's silly.

Atheism is nothing more than a vocabulary word. It's used to describe people who hold no belief in a god or gods. That's it.

"I'm an Atheist."
"I'm a Monotheist."
"I'm a Polytheist."
"I'm a Pantheist."
"I'm a Ditheist."

Great. Whoop-dee-doo. Fantasmagorically gnarly. So what?

The greater points of this thread were made a long time ago.

 

[Desert Snake]

Exactly.

My favorite is an attempt that I've seen here, and was made popular by people like Ray Comfort, when he tried to claim that by pronouncing atheism we are admitting that there is a "God" to not believe in. It's this little lingual word play that they imagine has some deeper meaning... And it's silly.

Atheism is nothing more than a vocabulary word. It's used to describe people who hold no belief in a god or gods. That's it.

"I'm an Atheist."
"I'm a Monotheist."
"I'm a Polytheist."
"I'm a Pantheist."
"I'm a Ditheist."

Great. Whoop-dee-doo. Fantasmagorically gnarly. So what?

The greater points of this thread were made a long time ago.

Making a statement, of "I don't believe in (______)" in pretty much any manner is very clearly making a statement in the negative.:spit:

 

[jonathan180iq]

Making a statement, of "I don't believe in (______)" in pretty much any manner is very clearly making a statement in the negative.:spit:

Maybe in connotation, but not in denotation.

When Christians say they are Christian, is that a negative statement towards Hera?

When Muslims say they are Muslim, is that a negative statement towards Thor?

It's nothing. It's a title - a descriptive word and nothing more.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hem. I'm of the opinion that the premises one accepts pretty much defines their entire view of reality.

We frequently accept absurd premises deliberately in order to e.g., prove by contradiction or to exploit the flaws in another's argument.

How on earth is that logic?

The truth value of a conditional is only false if the antecedent/protosis is true and the consequent/apodosis is false. Therefore, every conditional for which the antecedent is false must have a truth value of "true". That's basic logic.

How am I bypassing this when I have given a clear standard to determine if a model is accurate?

Because even were you to actually accept what your "clear standard" really entails, it has no bearing on the logical relationship between the members of the set that you classify as equivalent and equivalently dismissible. Given that I accept that unicorns exist, it does not follow that I must accept that zombies do as well. Your replacing logic with your belief system and your particular classification of entities related by conceptual (and subjective) properties you deem most relevant. There's nothing wrong with this until you mistake your classification for logical inferences.

A model that is consistent with observation and experience is given more weight than a model that is inconsistent with observation and experience.

1) Numerous people have religious experiences. These are necessarily subjective and I believe other explanations or interpretations for them are superior, but they are experiences.
2) Some of the most widely accepted theories (such as climate change) have yet to be consistent with observations. What matters is whether the underlying logic of the theory accords both with the larger framework of e.g., physics and is at least correlated with observations (or has some predictive power). Even here, we frequently must relax our criteria.
3) Models are irrelevant here. You've never observed gravity (or spacetime curvature), electrons, or most particles. Better yet, we nobody else has either (we describe quantum systems as mathematical abstractions that we can't relate to the real world; our observations of what we describe by wavefunctions/state-vectors in Hilbert space are always detected in 3D Euclidean space and as discrete units).
4) Nothing above makes any real difference about religious views. The main problem I had is that there is no logic behind your equating of your conceptual classification with logical rules of inference and/or deduction.

Legion is prone to accept models without verification.

I'm prone to objecting to arguments which don't logically follow. If I accept something without whatever it is use consider verification to be, this does not mean I am required accept all such other elements this set of yours, nor is there any logical basis for asserting so.

If you accept an alien model without analytical verification, then you may accept fairies without analytical verification.

Disregarding the nonsensical "analytical verification", what I may accept isn't what I need accept to avoid being guilty of confirmation bias.

I'm not even sure what you are accusing me of.

Invalid inference.

 

[Thief]

Why do you presume conclusion on my part? If the model is found to be inconsistent with observation, it must be adjusted. Perhaps you shrug your shoulders and accept 'whatever' as a conclusion to your failure to understand, but I do not.

I do not default to any belief system. Nor do I require proof. I examine available models. Those that are inconsistent are rejected in whole, or in the parts which are inconsistent. Those which are neither inconsistent nor verifiable are considered inferior to those which are verifiable.

Instead of hammering on my honest attempt to convey my logical outlook, please to tell me how you distinguish truth from non-truth?

How about instead of a so called proper assumption, compare the same models with the difference being one assumes cause and effect and the other makes no such assumption, and perhaps even a third which assumes no cause and effect?

The difference is that both models with assumption add an additional integral component the model with out assumption does not add. Having additional components requires additional verification of the component. If the model with now assumption is found to have inconsistencies which can only be explained by adding the assumption, and that model can then be verified, including verification of the assumption, then our model is improved by adding the assumption.

Otherwise you are adding assumptions which do nothing to improve the model (as far as explanatory power) while making the model more complex (by adding unnecessary assumptions).

All of this and you think someone (anyone) has a useful model?
Been watching such things since my boyhood.

Einstein thought he had it.....but he kept working on it til he died.

The work goes on.

I see nothing practical coming up.

Got equation?......I doubt it.
Got good reasons to believe as I do?.......yeah.

 

[Thief]

I agree with you.
An ignorant person doesn't have to think about G-d.

Regards

referring to the typical atheist?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

All of this and you think someone (anyone) has a useful model?
Been watching such things since my boyhood.

Einstein thought he had it.....but he kept working on it til he died.

The work goes on.

I see nothing practical coming up.

Got equation?......I doubt it.
Got good reasons to believe as I do?.......yeah.

Em, so no one has a useful model? That includes you! You do not believe Einstein's relatively had any use?

Again, please share your reason to believe. Please share you method of determining what should be believed.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

We frequently accept absurd premises deliberately in order to e.g., prove by contradiction or to exploit the flaws in another's argument.



The truth value of a conditional is only false if the antecedent/protosis is true and the consequent/apodosis is false. Therefore, every conditional for which the antecedent is false must have a truth value of "true". That's basic logic.


Because even were you to actually accept what your "clear standard" really entails, it has no bearing on the logical relationship between the members of the set that you classify as equivalent and equivalently dismissible. Given that I accept that unicorns exist, it does not follow that I must accept that zombies do as well. Your replacing logic with your belief system and your particular classification of entities related by conceptual (and subjective) properties you deem most relevant. There's nothing wrong with this until you mistake your classification for logical inferences.



1) Numerous people have religious experiences. These are necessarily subjective and I believe other explanations or interpretations for them are superior, but they are experiences.
2) Some of the most widely accepted theories (such as climate change) have yet to be consistent with observations. What matters is whether the underlying logic of the theory accords both with the larger framework of e.g., physics and is at least correlated with observations (or has some predictive power). Even here, we frequently must relax our criteria.
3) Models are irrelevant here. You've never observed gravity (or spacetime curvature), electrons, or most particles. Better yet, we nobody else has either (we describe quantum systems as mathematical abstractions that we can't relate to the real world; our observations of what we describe by wavefunctions/state-vectors in Hilbert space are always detected in 3D Euclidean space and as discrete units).
4) Nothing above makes any real difference about religious views. The main problem I had is that there is no logic behind your equating of your conceptual classification with logical rules of inference and/or deduction.


I'm prone to objecting to arguments which don't logically follow. If I accept something without whatever it is use consider verification to be, this does not mean I am required accept all such other elements this set of yours, nor is there any logical basis for asserting so.



Disregarding the nonsensical "analytical verification", what I may accept isn't what I need accept to avoid being guilty of confirmation bias.


Invalid inference.

You seem to be all wrapped up in you own mind. You focus on what can be logically inferred from a premise and don't seem to care whether the premise is true or not. Logic is nothing but a tool, and it is an inferior tool to observational verification.

I focus on the truth value of the observations. You arbitrarily decide which premise you will hold true for now, so that logic can follow. LOL, good luck with that!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You seem to be all wrapped up in you own mind.

I've had little success in possessing the minds of others. I'd imagine you haven't had much better.

You focus on what can be logically inferred from a premise and don't seem to care whether the premise is true or not.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. You stated:

If I accept a god concept, then I am forced to accept all these things.

This isn't logic, isn't valid, isn't sound, and isn't rational. It has no basis, there are clear counter-examples, and there is no analytical foundation for it but empirical and obvious evidence that it is wrong. You offer no support for why your position is entailed but do indicate that you have no logic foundation for your position. I object to nonsensical refutations of theism just as much as I do idiotic nonsensical arguments for this or that religious worldview. You, apparently, have different standards.

Logic is nothing but a tool

So are thumbs, cortices, and reasoning.

and it is an inferior tool to observational verification.

There can be no verification without logic. Logic not only structures experiments and empirical studies but their interpretation. This is "science" 101.

I focus on the truth value of the observations.

So you discount the entirety of quantum physics, most of evolution, astrophysics, and in general a vast majority of modern scientific theories and developments? And I'm not just referring to the fact that you haven't observed these, but the ways in which actual scientists work and how we regard and understand "observations" compared to you.

You arbitrarily decide

To follow standard scientific practices, logic, and the ways in which "observation" is incorporated in academic & scientific research.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I've had little success in possessing the minds of others. I'd imagine you haven't had much better.



Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. You stated:



This isn't logic, isn't valid, isn't sound, and isn't rational. It has no basis, there are clear counter-examples, and there is no analytical foundation for it but empirical and obvious evidence that it is wrong. You offer no support for why your position is entailed but do indicate that you have no logic foundation for your position. I object to nonsensical refutations of theism just as much as I do idiotic nonsensical arguments for this or that religious worldview. You, apparently, have different standards.

I concede the point. I never said 'logically' My point is that if you accept models without verification, then accepting a model means nothing. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ACCEPT THEM ALL.

So are thumbs, cortices, and reasoning.



There can be no verification without logic. Logic not only structures experiments and empirical studies but their interpretation. This is "science" 101.

Bull Crud! Logic cannot verify ANYTHING until you have a premise. Logic does NOTHING to verify the premise. Logic is USELESS until you have a true statement. Who cares if you 'accept' the moon is made of cheese, and then proceed logically. Poppycock.

So you discount the entirety of quantum physics, most of evolution, astrophysics, and in general a vast majority of modern scientific theories and developments? And I'm not just referring to the fact that you haven't observed these, but the ways in which actual scientists work and how we regard and understand "observations" compared to you.


To follow standard scientific practices, logic, and the ways in which "observation" is incorporated in academic & scientific research.

Rubbish and not what I said.