Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[Thermos aquaticus]

Doesn't it appropriately fit on Atheism, please?

Regards

No, it doesn't appropriately fit on Atheism because it is Theism that carries the burden of proof. The person making the positive claim for the existence of something has the burden of proof. The skeptic does not carry that same burden.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This hilarious quote is a can that scientism doesn't want to open.

Really? It is usually theists who complain about "Scientism" always requiring evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Knowing requires knowledge and is a subset of belief. It is possible to believe something without knowing it is true. That's why we have things like religion and "alternative" medicine.

Know is personal. Ones beliefs, can either be , believed to be known, or, not.

Hence belief doesn't mean not known, unless specified as such.

 

[joe1776]

This is why our system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is the job of the government to prove guilt, not the job of the accused to prove innocence.

You missed the point. I was showing the poster that the Hitchens quote would be absurd applied to that situation.

If that were the case, yes. But QM originated because the evidence showed that classical theory failed. And it grew in stages over three/four decades, making sure the observations (evidence!) fit the predictions at each stage.

But if the wisdom of Hitchens quote had been applied, scientists would have dismissed the hypothesis before testing based on lack of evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, if you're charged with murder but you can't show evidence that you didn't do it, should the court dismiss your claim of innocence as impossible based on your snappy Hitchens' quote?

If the assertion of guilt lacks evidence then guilt can be dismissed without evidence. It is the person accusing someone of murder that is making the assertion.

And, based on the snappy Hitchens quote, should scientists have rejected Quantum Mechanics as impossible when there was no evidence to support it ?

QM was dismissed as a supported theory until there was evidence to support it. Unlike the claims of theists, scientists didn't proclaim QM to be true without any evidence and then require all skeptics to disprove it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You missed the point. I was showing the poster that the Hitchens quote would be absurd applied to that situation.

The quote is applied to the assertion of guilt. If the prosecution offers no evidence then the assertion of guilt is dismissed without evidence.

But if the wisdom of Hitchens quote had been applied, scientists would have dismissed the hypothesis before testing.

And skeptics did dismiss QM. The operative words would be "can be dismissed", not "must be dismissed".

 

[Milton Platt]

Know is personal, ones beliefs, can either be , believed to be known, or, not.

Hence belief doesn't mean not known, unless specified as such.

People use the words "believe" and "know" interchangeably. They are not actually the same thing, of course.
I didn't say belief means not known. You also believe the things you know to be true. But you can believe a thing to be true without having the knowledge that it actually is. That's what faith is.
Belief is generally (but not always) apportioned out relative to the nature of the particular claim and the quantity and quality of the evidence provided to support the claim.

 

[joe1776]

The quote is applied to the assertion of guilt. If the prosecution offers no evidence then the assertion of guilt is dismissed without evidence.

So, you agree then that the Hitchens quote wouldn't apply to the situation I described therefore it doesn't always apply?

And skeptics did dismiss QM. The operative words would be "can be dismissed", not "must be dismissed".

You're not suggesting that common sense has to be considered and one can't just lay out that Hitchen's quote as Gospel, are you?

 

[Polymath257]

You missed the point. I was showing the poster that the Hitchens quote would be absurd applied to that situation.

Not at all. If anything, the Hitchen's aspect is why we don't have to prove innocence.

But if the wisdom of Hitchens quote had been applied, scientists would have dismissed the hypothesis before testing based on lack of evidence.

That's what I'm saying: there *was* evidence right from the start. That was the whole motivation for creating QM.

In particular, the nature of the Planck black body radiation was an outstanding problem. The photoelectric effect was an outstanding problem. The natural of specific heats was an outstanding problem. Quantum theory was used to solve those problems and also used to predict new observations. The evidence was very strong concerning QM right from the start.

 

[Polymath257]

Experience in what?

I've had experiences that could be interpreted as mystical, but the stress I was under was enough to conclude they were just delusions.

 

[Polymath257]

So, you agree then that the Hitchens quote wouldn't apply to the situation I described therefore it doesn't always apply?

The Hitchen's quote applies to the side that needs to prove their case: in this case, if the government has no evidence, the case is dismissed.

You're not suggesting that common sense has to be considered and one can't just lay out that Hitchen's quote as Gospel, are you?

Common sense is very often wrong.

 

[Audie]

The Hitchen's quote applies to the side that needs to prove their case: in this case, if the government has no evidence, the case is dismissed.




Common sense is very often wrong.

Say "common sense gun control" to anyone of the
religios right.

 

[joe1776]

Not at all. If anything, the Hitchen's aspect is why we don't have to prove innocence.

Let me see if I understand: You are saying that the fact that the Hitchens quote would be absurd if made the burden of the defendant somehow supports the wisdom of the Hitchens quote?

That's what I'm saying: there *was* evidence right from the start. That was the whole motivation for creating QM.

You mentioned evidence that the previous theory wasn't holding up but that isn't evidence for QM. It's evidence that the previous theory was flawed.

Isn't it true that the hypothesis first has to be tested and its predictions verified to produce supporting evidence? That wouldn't support the Hitchens quote.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me see if I understand: You are saying that the fact that the Hitchens quote would be absurd if made the burden of the defendant somehow supports the wisdom of the Hitchens quote?

Yes.

You mentioned evidence that the previous theory wasn't holding up but that isn't evidence for QM. It's evidence that the previous theory was flawed.

Isn't it true that the hypothesis first has to be tested and its predictions verified to produce supporting evidence? That wouldn't support the Hitchens quote.

And the fact that QM actually explained the evidence that showed the classical ideas wrong *was* evidence in support of QM. It then went on to predict new results which were also verified.

And, as stated before, it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss those views that do not have evidence in their favor. When evidence is found, then it may be reasonable to re-evaluate.

 

[joe1776]

The Hitchen's quote applies to the side that needs to prove their case: in this case, if the government has no evidence, the case is dismissed.

Did you clear your application rule with Hitchens? Seems to me he didn't make exceptions.

 

[joe1776]

Yes.

Nah. The fact that Hitchens quote would be absurd if applied to the defense, is evidence that the Hitchens quote doesn't always reasonably apply. There are exceptions. Many of them, in fact.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Makes the claim that god or gods doesn't exist, usually by an argument of evidence, however any argument could really be made, or not, for that claim. It's god or gods don't exist', and they claim to know that.

Okay, and "explicit theists" make the claim that god or gods do exist, and absolutely always without an argument of evidence, because there is none -- and you may take that as a challenge, if you'd like. If you think there's evidence, then put it here where we can see it. If we cannot see it, touch it, feel it, perceive it, know it, then it is not evidence. If it is, then you can make it available to us all.

You see, as you said about atheists, "gods or gods don't exist, and they claim to know that." But theists claim "god or gods do exist," and they also claim to know that. Yet, not one of them will ever able to introduce me to one, or get me to see something that could be explained no other way then by the work of their gods.

So please, get off your high horse until you've got what you claim the other side ain't got, 'cause you don't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Interestingly enough, When I Googled "explicit atheist" I came across the following:

Strong Atheism
The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.
source

.​

Wouldn't you just...

 

[Tiapan]

Am I religious, agnostic or atheist?

If GOD = Nature - the universe, where the physical laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry, mass and energy equivalence, in a space-time continuum are determinant.
Then I am a believer. It is purely semantic whether I could use the word god or nature interchangeably.

What I definitely don't believe in, is the anthropomorphisation and earth centric ideation of fancifully glorious God/s and their implications, represented in religious texts.

To me these texts (the Bible, Quran, Torah, Egyptian Book of the Dead etc.), are simply the creations of man for man, to stabilize harmonious communities in early primitive human social development, as survival is proportional to the degree and size of a populations cooperative ability. To work and live within a set of agreed rules, eg religious texts, set the ground rules for social cohesion. I have inherent logical moral code not much different than those who profess this is impossible without their brand of religious dogma.

An alternate is simply a parliamentary style law making system that has been shown to work well in most societies where it exists immorium since the Greeks, without the need for the existence of hypothetical super beings.

I believe in a natural universe whose detail is amazing, and that has a logical " from small things, big things grow", "bottom up" nature (eg evolution: prokaryotic bacteria>Humans>?).
Religions require a "top down" approach where things cant happen without a creator, this is contradictory to my position..(GOD>Universe>Earth>Humans>?)

I consider myself an atheist but would love to be proved wrong.

Cheers

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, if you're charged with murder but you can't show evidence that you didn't do it, should the court dismiss your claim of innocence as impossible based on your snappy Hitchens' quote?

The burden of proof falls on the side making a claim. In this case, the claim is the charge of murder. A person doesn't have to show evidence that they didn't commit the murder if there is no evidence that they did do it in the first place. On the other hand, if a person has already been found guilty of murder, the burden falls upon them when they assert that they are innocent, and only further evidence can justify the claim (unless the previous case was discovered to be flawed, but that's a whole other can of worms).

And, based on the snappy Hitchens quote, should scientists have rejected Quantum Mechanics as impossible when there was no evidence to support it ?

Not "reject it as impossible", but they were justified in dismissing it until such a time as evidence came forward for it.