Search for Truth: Atheism

[Kilgore Trout]

In a string of threads I want to analyse different religions, and non-religions to see which ones hold some grain of truth. There is often a variety of beliefs in each belief group so believers can even debate among each other.

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth. I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

Atheists who are commonly called "weak atheists," and who come to atheism as a conclusion of a rational worldview, are basing their view on nothing but truth. As far as views on god go, rational (or weak) atheism is the most truthful there is.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own.

This is actually a problem with some atheists, and some theists as well. Some people just have personal problems.

Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Actually, everyone should be doing this.

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

I think the religious have done an excellent job of marketing the idea of atheists as being nothing more than cynical, negative, nay-sayers who despise religion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well, look at it this way. The same Null Hypothesis gives us that the universe is not, as a whole, not conscious.

The statement that the universe as a whole is conscious means adding a feature to the subject of the hypothesis, which makes it a positive claim, which means that it cannot be the Null Hypothesis.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Are you conscious?

According to the dictionary definition, yes.

 

[Orias]

When empirical basis is lacking for a sound conclusion, return to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is not, as a whole, conscious.

That is where this whole concept is misleading, a default position of the Universe is obsolete, since we formally lack any knowledge thereof.

The Null Hypothesis can also reference the belief that since we as humans, consist of a conscious nature, so must the Universe in retrospect.

This all leads back to one question though, what is considered a "default" view of the Universe?

 

[jarofthoughts]

This all leads back to one question though, what is considered a "default" view of the Universe?

The default scientific view of the universe, i.e. the Null Hypothesis, is that it has no properties at all.
For every property proposed the Null Hypothesis is that the universe does not possess this property, and until it can be empirically shown that the Null Hypothesis is wrong, this will remain so.
As it stands we can now empirically show that it does in fact have several properties, consciousness not being one of them.

 

[Willamena]

The statement that the universe as a whole is conscious means adding a feature to the subject of the hypothesis, which makes it a positive claim, which means that it cannot be the Null Hypothesis.

The statement that the universe as a whole lacks consciousness is blatently false.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The statement that the universe as a whole lacks consciousness is blatently false.

Really?
Prove it wrong then, and remember, just because parts of the universe (humans) are conscious, that does not hold up as evidence that the whole is.

 

[Alceste]

Really?
Prove it wrong then, and remember, just because parts of the universe (humans) are conscious, that does not hold up as evidence that the whole is.

Actually, in this case the null hypothesis as you are using it would require you to deny there is any such thing as consciousness.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually, in this case the null hypothesis as you are using it would require you to deny there is any such thing as consciousness.

Not if there is enough evidence to prove the Null Hypothesis wrong, which, according to the definition I provided earlier, there is.

 

[waitasec]

As far as views on god go, rational (or weak) atheism is the most truthful there is.

i agree...


a realist:
a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.

realism
interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.


i can safely say we have all experienced natures indifference....
that is undeniably real.


atheism=realism

 

[Alceste]

Not if there is enough evidence to prove the Null Hypothesis wrong, which, according to the definition I provided earlier, there is.

And you believe there is evidence that this thing you call "consciousness" exists? Interesting. :sarcastic

 

[Willamena]

Really?
Prove it wrong then, and remember, just because parts of the universe (humans) are conscious, that does not hold up as evidence that the whole is.

Prove what wrong?

By your own admission, in post #163, the universe does not lack consciousness.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Prove what wrong?

By your own admission, in post #163, the universe does not lack consciousness.

And, as explained many times now, just because a part of something possesses a property, that does not constitute evidence that the same is true for the whole. In fact, so far, it appears as if consciousness is a fairly rare thing in the universe.

 

[jarofthoughts]

And you believe there is evidence that this thing you call "consciousness" exists? Interesting. :sarcastic

According to the definition I provided earlier, yes.
If you wish to approach this with a different definition (there are several), then we can deal with that, but then you need to provide that definition.

 

[Orias]

The default scientific view of the universe, i.e. the Null Hypothesis, is that it has no properties at all.
For every property proposed the Null Hypothesis is that the universe does not possess this property, and until it can be empirically shown that the Null Hypothesis is wrong, this will remain so.
As it stands we can now empirically show that it does in fact have several properties, consciousness not being one of them.

What are these properties you speak of?

Is this anything like "solipsism"?

From what we "know" (ourselves), it can be factual that consciousness (not the label) does exist.

From my understanding, the Null Hypothesis proposes that we know nothing, unless I am misunderstanding here of course.

But I doubt you would even consider that we hold a universe within our own minds, which subsequently leads to the thought that perhaps the Universe is conscious, in the most subtle of ways.

 

[linwood]

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth.

Atheism claims no "truth".

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own.

Atheism has no foundation from which to search for truth.

Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Atheism has nothing to do with science and or reason.

I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

Please define "positive" and or "negative" disbelief.

I think you have the wrong impression of atheism.
It is really almost nothing.

 

[Orias]

Atheism claims no "truth".

Your missing the point.

It's not about the claims of "atheism", it's whether or not the position literally holds any "truth".

Atheism has no foundation from which to search for truth.

Sure it does. Skepticism provides a great stance for this.

Atheism has nothing to do with science and or reason.

This statement is just unreasonable.

Please define "positive" and or "negative" disbelief.

It is positive belief, and negative disbelief. These two distinction should be obviously clear.

I think you have the wrong impression of atheism.
It is really almost nothing.

I don't think so.

"It is almost nothing", implies that you are an apatheist, which is a form of atheism.

 

[Willamena]

And, as explained many times now, just because a part of something possesses a property, that does not constitute evidence that the same is true for the whole. In fact, so far, it appears as if consciousness is a fairly rare thing in the universe.

If you have a bushel of apples, and 98 of them are green and 2 of them are red, can the bushel be said to lack red apples?

Not honestly.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What are these properties you speak of?

Gravity, matter, energy, the laws of physics and so on and so forth, including the consequences thereof.

Is this anything like "solipsism"?

Not really, because Science does accept one assumption as the basis for all other conclusions; namely that observed reality is, in fact, real.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you have a bushel of apples, and 98 of them are green and 2 of them are red, can the bushel be said to lack red apples?

Not honestly.

If you have a basket of eggs, and 98 of them are painted red and 2 of them are painted blue, can the basket be said to be blue?

Not logically.