Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Guy Threepwood]

We're covering old ground now.
I just don't see good reason to believe in gods.

Likewise, I see no good reason to believe in spontaneous universe creating mechanisms

I appreciate the discussion though!

 

[1137]

And that is exactly where the problem lies. The false dichotomy between being dead sure and believing.

Not being sure, does not entail belief. Knowing something, for instance, does not entail believing in what we know and neither being sure of what we know.

For instance, I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. I also know that apples fall down when they leave their tree and don't ever fly away to the moon. I do not believe it. I know it. Yet, I am not 100% sure that this is the case. I never checked all apples, after all.

Same with god. My level of knowledge that He does not exist does not require belief. I know HE does not exist, in the same way I know there are no violations of the apple falling to the ground scenario.

Am I absolutely certain about my knowledge? Nope.

But being agnostic about God existence would be as odd as being agnostic about the existence of apples flying to the moon when they are ripe. At least from my vantage point.

Ciao

- viole

Lol so you know without absolute certainty? Not only is this nonsense, but I still don't have the faith for. See gnostic portions are still beliefs, just believers who pretending they know something rather than believe it.

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

So you think there's a 50/50% chance either way? Not even so much as 51/49 towards atheism?

Kilgore has no opinion on whether gods exist, which means that he/she doesn't hold the belief that any god/gods exists. That makes Kilgore an atheist.

 

[alekananda]

it is very simple, everyone runs on a set of beliefs or world views, paradigm, outlook, you either accept one or the other.
so atheism is not playing safe without belief, but just dressed-up belief of what you see is what you get. It is mind's trick of believing(!) that one doesn't have a belief. It is quite funny if you think about it.

with regards to the jars, I wouldn't say theist knows exactly what is in the jar, he knows that someone has filled it and put it there, and atheist would say that it came about by random events, starting with big explosion and slowly evolving by process of natural selection into what is in front of you

 

[Iti oj]

Occam's razor wouldn't suggest any such thing. The only thing we know of that writes is human. The very existence of writing would be evidence that a human was there. We've never had any evidence that waves could randomly write messages. Thus the simplest explanation is that a human wrote that message.

The simplest explanation in one scenario is not always the simplest explanation in another.

If you see 'HELP' spelled out on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there..

Occams razor suggests the random action of the waves washed them up that way, the most obvious, simple, apparent explanation at hand, no extra presumption required.

But do you think this is the best explanation? why not?

The best explanation would be that some human familiar with the English language wrote it. Nobody rational would suggest that a god wrote it would they?

This sums it up. Were not talking cars, watches or words here so all these examples are mute. Heck before the discovery of background radiation even the idea that the universe was created was presumptuous before that and other discoveries. Even then it's not a creation ex nhilo.

 

[1137]

Kilgore has no opinion on whether gods exist, which means that he/she doesn't hold the belief that any god/gods exists. That makes Kilgore an atheist.

I he finds gods as likely as no gods, how the hell could you delude yourself into thinking he's an atheist?

 

[gnostic]

I can't call a dishonest position dishonest? If I post about evolution on a creationism forum, and all the creationist go nuts telling me how I'm wrong, does that really show that evolution is wrong? This is exactly what you're saying here.

No, that's not what I am saying, 1137.

I am saying that you can't have "honest discussion" with atheists, when you shoot them down, without considering what they have to say, then I truly don't think you are looking for "honest discussion" at all.

You bizarre analogy on atheist's position is unfair (very biased), unrealistic, and oversimplification of what is or what isn't atheism.

Why must anyone (not just atheists, but also theists and agnostics) must accept your narrowly ill-defined analogy to be true?

Did you even bother to read my earlier posts in regarding to your analogy? I found it to be faulty, and how you define atheists to be flawed and uncompromising biased.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, as you apparently don't lean towards a godless universe, in philosophical terms you are simply not an atheist. Now I get why atheists pretend they're agnostic, but why is an agnostic pretending he's atheist?

Ok, good luck with that.

 

[1137]

Ok, good luck with that.

Well I was honestly curious but ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That the universe is likely without gods.

I don't make an assessment of odds. I do note that godless models of the universe that include no gods agree very closely with observations.

My attitude toward gods is the one that's attributed to LaPlace ("I have no need for that hypothesis").

 

[gnostic]

I'd agree there, we live in a world with the phenomena of both natural mechanisms and creative intelligence. Which one we apply as the simplest explanation depends on the frame of reference right?,
and we simply don't have one for how universes are 'usually' created.

So invoking the possibility of ID is not an extra assumption, but forbidding it is adding an extra unfounded restriction

The phenomena to "natural mechanism" is...and has to be...testable.

Science is about having well-tested explanation (theory), and scientists seek to test any statement or prediction.

The creative intelligence or the Intelligent Design is not testable, because it would require to be able "to test" the existence of the Creator or the Designer. No creationists and no Intelligent Design advocates have been able to test for the existence of either creator or designer.

Instead both creationists and ID adherents relied on belief, blind faith and a great deal of flawed and fallacious reasoning.

Yes, ID is indeed an "extra assumption", as you put it, but it is also baseless assumption, because it is un-testable.

You are entitled to believe in whatever you want to believe, but you cannot say what you believe in to be "true", as in true like that of true in science, because what you believe in, cannot be tested.

There is no restriction in "what you believe in", Guy. You just can't say that what you "believe in" to be scientific, because your assumptions are untested and un-testable.

 

[Falvlun]

I he finds gods as likely as no gods, how the hell could you delude yourself into thinking he's an atheist?

1137, here's the deal.

There would be a whole lot less confusion if people would simply agree to use three separate labels for the three separate positions outlined in Penguin's post:

"I believe that gods exist. " --> Theist

"I believe that gods don't exist." --> Atheist

"I do not believe that gods exist and I do not believe that gods don't exist." (Or, more colloquially, "I don't know.") --> Agnostic

However, language doesn't always evolve towards the most efficient solution. Whether we like it or not, atheism has come to include the third option, the one we'd like to label "Agnostic".

Now, we can definitely argue whether it should or not, whether this is ultimately a good definition. Though, from experience, I can tell you it is a rather disheartening and futile fight.

But what we can't do is deny that this definition of atheism does in fact exist and that many people use it, honestly, to apply to themselves.

I hope this helps, and best of luck!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I am an atheist. I don't have a single belief that derives from it. Not one. I have two beliefs that support it: That I need a reason to believe something before I believe it, and that no adequate reason to believe in a god exists. Therefore, I don't.

Not to appear flip, but the analogy is apt: My atheism is just like my avampirisim and aleprechaunism. No beliefs derive from any of them. They are all merely a "No" answer to the questions, "Do you believe in a god or gods, vampires, or leprechauns."

I'm a skeptic. I neither believe that the box is empty or not. I have no reason to believe either even thought I believe that one must be correct.

 

[Falvlun]

And that is exactly where the problem lies. The false dichotomy between being dead sure and believing.

Not being sure, does not entail belief. Knowing something, for instance, does not entail believing in what we know and neither being sure of what we know.

For instance, I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. I also know that apples fall down when they leave their tree and don't ever fly away to the moon. I do not believe it. I know it. Yet, I am not 100% sure that this is the case. I never checked all apples, after all.

Same with god. My level of knowledge that He does not exist does not require belief. I know HE does not exist, in the same way I know there are no violations of the apple falling to the ground scenario.

Am I absolutely certain about my knowledge? Nope.

But being agnostic about God existence would be as odd as being agnostic about the existence of apples flying to the moon when they are ripe. At least from my vantage point.

Ciao

- viole

I am a little surprised that no one has yet addressed the misconceptions in this post.

Knowledge is a form of belief. Specifically, it is "justified, true belief", that is, belief that has sound reasons to support it, and accurately explains reality.

Note that while all knowledge is belief, all belief is not knowledge.

Furthermore, for knowledge to be knowledge, it must be certain to be true. Certainty is the defining characteristic of knowledge.

So to recap, yes, if something is knowledge it is also a belief, and it is a belief that you are certain is true based upon substantial justification.

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

I he finds gods as likely as no gods, how the hell could you delude yourself into thinking he's an atheist?

I don't see where he said that either is equally likely. I think that you are putting words in his mouth.

It is true that there is dispute as to what "atheist" means, but it seems that most people who claim to be atheists say it means not holding a belief in any gods. They say that it doesn't necessarily mean holding the belief that there are no gods. That's a subtle yet important distinction.

 

[1137]

I am an atheist. I don't have a single belief that derives from it. Not one. I have two beliefs that support it: That I need a reason to believe something before I believe it, and that no adequate reason to believe in a god exists. Therefore, I don't.

Not to appear flip, but the analogy is apt: My atheism is just like my avampirisim and aleprechaunism. No beliefs derive from any of them. They are all merely a "No" answer to the questions, "Do you believe in a god or gods, vampires, or leprechauns."

I'm a skeptic. I neither believe that the box is empty or not. I have no reason to believe either even thought I believe that one must be correct.

Then you're agnostic, problem solved. Do you believe the universe is empty of gods, unicorns, and vampires?

 

[Falvlun]

I'd agree there, we live in a world with the phenomena of both natural mechanisms and creative intelligence. Which one we apply as the simplest explanation depends on the frame of reference right?,
and we simply don't have one for how universes are 'usually' created.

So invoking the possibility of ID is not an extra assumption, but forbidding it is adding an extra unfounded restriction

That's an interesting argument-- we don't have experience with how universes are created so who's to say what is usual and what's not?

Spontaneous generation and ID could be just as likely.

And that may well be true.

Occam's razor would have us choose spontaneous generation since that does involve one less piece of complexity-- namely, the ID.

But Occam's razor isn't the end all or be all of truth. It's more of a general rule of thumb: and we all know what rules are good for: Breaking!

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

That's an interesting argument-- we don't have experience with how universes are created so who's to say what is usual and what's not?

Spontaneous generation and ID could be just as likely.

And that may well be true.

Occam's razor would have us choose spontaneous generation since that does involve one less piece of complexity-- namely, the ID.

But Occam's razor isn't the end all or be all of truth. It's more of a general rule of thumb: and we all know what rules are good for: Breaking!

We don't even know that universes are created. It could be that our visible universe always existed and there was never a beginning.

 

[Curious George]

The existence of the thing itself is a binary matter.

Our position on the existence of the thing can be one of three states:

- I assert that the thing exists
- I assert that the thing does not exist, or
- I make no assertions about the existence or non-existence of the thing.

You are forcing a category where none exists. If we are binary, it is either true or false. No blanks, no question marks, no I don't know. Just a person entertaining two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't have enough information to apply a probability either way. Do you understand that not knowing something doesn't imply that you think there is a 50/50 probability?

Ok, I confess I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this.

I understand that saying "I don't know" does not imply a 50/50 probability estimation.

For instance, I don't know whether aliens exist, but I believe that their existence is slightly more likely than their non-existence. Not 50/50.

The probability, therefore, does not come from the "I don't know" statement, but from my subsequent belief.

But, and correct me if I'm mistaken, you deny any belief regarding the existence of gods.

Without any belief acting upon the "I don't know" statement, how does the probability shift from the 50/50 default?

If you say "I don't know" and have zero other beliefs regarding the question, then necessarily, that results in a perfect balance of possibilities: 1 is just as likely as 0.

What, besides belief, acts upon the default probability of 50/50?