Shifting more towards atheism

[shunyadragon]

817K views · 23K reactions | Scientist Explains God | By Michael | Facebook

www.facebook.com

interesting viewpoint - but beyond my pay-grade

Something that is not science and not a scientific explanation does not answer any questions.

 

[dfnj]

Atheism is the antithetical of the theist proposition. The antithetical being that the theist proposition that God/gods exist is invalid. I repeat, it is the position that holds that the theist proposition is invalid. It has nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn’t believe.

You can't force people to believe what you believe in language. There are facts like the sky is blue. And there are subjective judgments like the sky is beautiful and evidence for the existence of a divine God. What you are saying is a subjective judgment. What I am saying is a fact: the absence of something, is NOT something. Having no belief in god or gods is not itself a belief. It's just nothingness in terms of having a subjective judgment. You may conclude what I am saying is bad. But the fact remains. Nothing is NOT something.

 

[PureX]

You can't force people to believe what you believe in language.

The purpose of language is to clarify communication. When people deliberately insist of using words vaguely and nonsensically, they are abusing language and thereby abusing us. And when this occurs we should point it out.

There are facts like the sky is blue. And there are subjective judgments like the sky is beautiful and evidence for the existence of a divine God.

There are many shades and hues of blue. The purpose of language is to convey this information as clearly as language will allow. It's why we have so many different words to refer to the many shades and hues of blue.

Babies are not atheists because the "lack belief in God". They're not atheists because they have no cognitive acquaintance with the proposition that God/god's exist, and so they cannot have chosen the antithetical position that God's do not exist. Everyone reading this can understand it, clearly and precisely. As the term was intended. And yet some want to continue to insist that the term be kept as vague and imprecise as possible, to the point where literally anything can be "atheist". A rock, a cow, a cloud, ... literally anything that lack belief in God/gods. So we really need to ask ourselves why are we seeing this dogged fight to maintain such nonsensical vagueness?

Somebody's up to no good.

What you are saying is a subjective judgment.

No, it's not. What I am saying is completely logical. I don't own logic. I don't dictate it's conclusions. There is no phony equivalence here. The term means what it means logically. And that's not an opinion.

What I am saying is a fact: the absence of something, is NOT something.

That's why claiming the absence of something (unbelief), is something (atheism), is illogical and irrational and leads to nonsensical and dishonest conclusions.

Having no belief in god or gods is not itself a belief.

Your just taking gibberish. Why?

It's just nothingness in terms of having a subjective judgment. You may conclude what I am saying is bad. But the fact remains. Nothing is NOT something.

Exactly! "Unbelief" is not atheism because nothing is not something. And to assert that it is, is irrational and dishonest. SO STOP DOING IT !

 

[PearlSeeker]

In terms of having a higher purpose and what our life means, I think our purpose is up to us to define. The most satisfaction I've ever had in my own life comes from my family, my hobbies and my crafts. The only thing that gets me out of being sad and depressed is doing some kind of hobby or craft. Developing my physical and mental skills has provided me the most satisfaction and happiness in life. Or guiding and helping my children grow up has been very satisfying.

Not really. Our purpose is determined by our nature, predispositions, abilities, functions... Was our nature meant this way or not? Who knows...

 

[1213]

Doesn't the Bible explain why God created evil? Since your God created evil it's on him to eliminate it. Why don't you share with us why your God allows evil.

Evil is like emptiness or darkness, nothing really. It is formed when God allows people to be without Him. I think it is a great thing that God allowed freedom.

...Do you support universal healthcare?

It depends on what it means.

Do you support equality and democracy?

I support freedom. I think people should be free to live their own life as they want. Democracy is against freedom, it is majority tyranny, which often leads to oligarchy and fascism. That is why I don't think it is good.

You think? You're not sure? Tell us what your experience was.

To have this life and all the things God has given in this life.

You don't understand that atheists feel love and express it?

How can you then say God doesn't exist?

 

[Augustus]

False, I already understand language and that trucks are visible. The claim goas against reality. The nature of the language is automatically invalid and can be dismissed without any thought

Intuitive judgement is still judgement.

The process of comprehension still requires thought, even if minimal cognitive effort.

Thought and judgement are ultimately a kind of neural activity that can be roughly seen to happen on fMRI.

You comprehending a statement about invisible trucks would show up the same way as other thoughts and judgements deemed false would.

Something that is colloquially a “no brainer” doesn’t make it literally one.

 

[Augustus]

There's no "rhetorical purpose".
This has to do with the burden of proof.

That is the rhetorical purpose.

I’m more interested in the best way to describe reality than what is best to win arguments with theists.

Disbelief in a theist’s claims is a cognitive stance, not the absence of one.

This could be shown via fMRI.

The theist makes a god-claim.
The atheist is unconvinced of said claim because the theist fails to make a sufficient case FOR his claim.

It is as you said of the invisible truck: I believe that there is not because there is no reason to believe there is.

Yes, that there is absolutely no reason to believe something does exist is a common reason to believe it does not exist.

One requires reasons for accepting a (positive) proposition as true. One does not require such reason to do the opposite.

Cognitively, we require no reasons to believe other than we have comprehended it. Our brain is often biased towards remembering information as true and remembering it as false often requires more cognitive effort (there are lots of scientific studies on this question).

If one is concerned about being rational, you should have reasons for accepting or rejecting any belief though.

So the way I see it, theists who insist on taking it further then that are merely trying to distract from the fact that they are unable to meet their burden of proof.

Again the rhetorical purpose appears.

The reasoning behind why we have a belief is a separate issue as to whether we have such a belief or not.

The thing is it makes no difference anyway in this case. It does not change any burden of proof to consider it a belief.

The mere fact that there is "no reason to believe there is", is enough.

Yes, enough to disbelieve their claim i.e. believe it not to be true.

You believe it not to be true as there is insufficient reason to believe it is true.

If I told you I was the official King of the World kept hidden by the Illuminati, you would believe that not to be true also.

And that would be a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

 

[Kenny]

Can you find a single dictionary that states atheism is the knowledge that gods don't exist?

I've only seen definitions related to the belief, disbelief or lack of belief gods don't exist.

Unlike most of my fellow atheists on RF, I consider atheism to be a specific belief not simply a 'lack of belief', but it is ridiculous to consider that beleifs must be held with absolute certainty before they can be considered beliefs.

And if beliefs can be held without absolute certainty, then your argument falls down.

I already posted the etymology and definition of atheism with the web site.

 

[Kenny]

@Kenny do you consider marking the above post as "creative" to be any kind of an argument?

after having posted the etymology and definition of atheism, I see it as very creative to create new definitions.

 

[Augustus]

I already posted the etymology and definition of atheism with the web site.

The etymology is:

Atheos + ism - so the doctrine/beleif (ism) of being without gods (atheos).

Unless you are going to insist we must hold all beliefs with absolute certainty in their correctness, it is therefore possible to be an atheist while accepting a degree of philosophical doubt.

Even in the most restrictive common definition, an atheist is one who believes no gods exist, not someone who is absolutely certain no gods exist.

 

[Heyo]

Atheism defines itself by what it is not, instead of what it is. A-theism versus Theism is like a-symmetrical versus symmetrical. Its existence is dependent on theism, as a way to define itself, by means of what it is not. This makes Atheism dependent on Theism, to explain itself, as the negative of that other photograph. This is quite bizarre and somewhat unique. Why define yourself by a trick mirror?

Yes, without theists, there would be no atheists. But why is that so for atheism, and not for a-fairyism, a-dragonism or a-philatelistism?
Probably because theists don't shut up when we tell them that their idea is bull****? "A-fairyist" is not a word that is needed, because there is no ongoing discussion about garden fairies. Fairyists shut up, when we tell them that we won't believe them without evidence. That isn't the case with theists. They insist that we have to believe them, even without evidence (or with what they call evidence).
And the divers definitions of atheism are only necessary because there are atheists with differing polite ways to tell the theists that we don't believe their bull**** ideas.

 

[Kenny]

The etymology is:

Atheos + ism - so the doctrine/beleif (ism) of being without gods (atheos).

Unless you are going to insist we must hold all beliefs with absolute certainty in their correctness, it is therefore possible to be an atheist while accepting a degree of philosophical doubt.

Even in the most restrictive common definition, an atheist is one who believes no gods exist, not someone who is absolutely certain no gods exist.

atheism | Etymology of atheism by etymonline

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to… See origin and meaning of atheism.

www.etymonline.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

after having posted the etymology and definition of atheism, I see it as very creative to create new definitions.

I did not "create" any definition. I gave you the definitions that you will find in today's dictionaries.

Furthermore, the "etymology" of words is irrelevant to today's language.
What words "used to mean" isn't relevant to how they are used today.


For example: "awful" and "awesome".
Did you know that back in the day, these words were synonyms?
Both used to mean fearful, dreadful, terror, bad.

So when somebody today says that "Messi is awesome", do you also say that this means they think Messi is terrible at soccer because "etymology"?

 

[Kenny]

I did not "create" any definition. I gave you the definitions that you will find in today's dictionaries.

Which I understand completely. But we have to go way back to the beginning of what I was sharing.

I find the “modern” definitions to simply be an effort to not have to support ones position. It is much easier to simply say “prove to me there is a God/gods” that to say “I will prove to you there is/are not God/gods” but to say that, you have to soften the word atheism. I see agnostic a better word for people who don’t know if there is a God/gods.

 

[Augustus]

atheism | Etymology of atheism by etymonline

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to… See origin and meaning of atheism.

www.etymonline.com

this is the OED entry:

atheism, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθiːɪz(ə)m/

Forms: Also 15 athisme.

Frequency (in current use):

Etymology: < French athéisme (16th cent. in Littré), < Greek ἄθεος : see atheal adj. and -ism suffix.Compare Italian atheismo and the earlier atheonism n.(Show Less)

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which I understand completely. But we have to go way back to the beginning of what I was sharing.

I find the “modern” definitions to simply be an effort to not have to support ones position.

Well, you are wrong about that. And this has been explained ad nauseum.

I will try one more time with an example and see if you get it.

Situation: some guy comes up and claims he was abducted by aliens. He shares his fantastical story. It's a bunch of unverifiable, extra-ordinary claims about aliens, flying saucers and weird sexual experiments. He asks if you believe him. You tell him that his story is not convincing. It lacks evidence and you see no reason to believe him.
He then asks you to support your position that he was NOT abducted by aliens.

What is your response?

It is much easier to simply say “prove to me there is a God/gods” that to say “I will prove to you there is/are not God/gods”

Not just easier, also rational.
First, because you're the one claiming that there is a god. So you have the burden of proof. Failing to meet that burden, ends the discussion right there.
Second, what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Third, it is logically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of an unfalsifiable entity.


Someone needs to claim X exists before I can disagree.

but to say that, you have to soften the word atheism. I see agnostic a better word for people who don’t know if there is a God/gods.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

These words are not mutually exclusive, as explained.
One pertains to knowledge, the other to belief.

 

[Kenny]

Well, you are wrong about that. And this has been explained ad nauseum.

I will try one more time with an example and see if you get it.

Situation: some guy comes up and claims he was abducted by aliens. He shares his fantastical story. It's a bunch of unverifiable, extra-ordinary claims about aliens, flying saucers and weird sexual experiments. He asks if you believe him. You tell him that his story is not convincing. It lacks evidence and you see no reason to believe him.
He then asks you to support your position that he was NOT abducted by aliens.

What is your response?

Creating a absurd scenario to then proceed to destroy what you constructed is an often used method to detract from the point.

“Wrong” happens to be your perspective, which you are free to have even as I am free to have mine.

A-theism is the belief that there is no God, plain and simple.

Not just easier, also rational.
First, because you're the one claiming that there is a god. So you have the burden of proof. Failing to meet that burden, ends the discussion right there.

Which I addressed. If an atheist says “There is no God”, then they have the burden of proof. Failing to meet that burden, ends the discussion right there.

Second, what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Likewise

Third, it is logically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of an unfalsifiable entity.

logically, yes. Thus, we can’t discard the possibility.

On a side note, we can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. I can look at what we see and conclude there must be a God and another person can look at the same evidence and say there isn’t.

Someone needs to claim X exists before I can disagree.

And atheists claim “There is no God”, to which I disagree

I'm an agnostic atheist.

OK

These words are not mutually exclusive, as explained.
One pertains to knowledge, the other to belief.

To each their own. If you want to postulate that there is no God, prove it. It gives the hue that you really don’t want to find out if there is one by a politically correct statement.

 

[Kenny]

this is the OED entry:

atheism, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθiːɪz(ə)m/

Forms: Also 15 athisme.

Frequency (in current use):

Etymology: < French athéisme (16th cent. in Littré), < Greek ἄθεος : see atheal adj. and -ism suffix.Compare Italian atheismo and the earlier atheonism n.(Show Less)

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

can you post the site please

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Creating a absurd scenario to then proceed to destroy what you constructed is an often used method to detract from the point.

So you didn't get the point at all.
What was "absurd" about the scenario?

It's a simple analogy. Someone makes a claim and you don't believe the claim. The question is: is it know fair for that person to ask you to support your supposed position that the claim is false?

It's not absurd at all btw. There are PLENTY of people who claims to have been abducted by aliens. I'm assuming you don't believe those claims.
So, do you feel like you should now support / prove that these people were NOT abducted by aliens?

Your refusal to answer the question is telling.

A-theism is the belief that there is no God, plain and simple.

That is one type of atheism. Also called "strong atheism".
There is another, as per the english dictionary.
Why do you insist on ignoring that?

Which I addressed. If an atheist says “There is no God”, then they have the burden of proof. Failing to meet that burden, ends the discussion right there.

Correct. Now if you could just quote me where I ever said such a thing, that would be great.

See, I tend not to make empty assertions of the non-existence of unfalsifiable entities. I consider it a waste of time and useless.

logically, yes.

Then why would you say that I have to anyway?

Thus, we can’t discard the possibility.

So?

On a side note, we can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. I can look at what we see and conclude there must be a God and another person can look at the same evidence and say there isn’t.

Data only becomes reliable evidence if you look at it within the context of a falsifiable model which makes testable predictions.
Data matching those predictions = evidence for
Data not matching those predictions = evidence against.

I have yet to be presented with a falsifiable model of god(s) that makes testable predictions.

This is why I always say that not only is there no evidence of god(s), there even CAN NOT BE any evidence for (or against) gods, due to the simple fact that there is no falsifiable model that makes testable predictions.

And atheists claim “There is no God”, to which I disagree

This atheist doesn't.

To each their own

No. The meaning of words is not a matter of personal opinion.

If you want to postulate that there is no God, prove it.

I don't postulate that.
My atheism is defined by not believing the claim there is one.
Not sure how many more ways I can explain this to you.

It gives the hue that you really don’t want to find out if there is one by a politically correct statement.

I have no reason to believe there is one, just like I have no reason to believe extra-dimensional aliens are abducting people.
And I can't prove there is no god, just like I can't prove there are no extra-dimensional aliens abducting people.

I'm sorry you seem unable to comprehend this simple concept.

 

[Kenny]

So you didn't get the point at all.
What was "absurd" about the scenario?

It's a simple analogy. Someone makes a claim and you don't believe the claim. The question is: is it know fair for that person to ask you to support your supposed position that the claim is false?

It's not absurd at all btw. There are PLENTY of people who claims to have been abducted by aliens. I'm assuming you don't believe those claims.
So, do you feel like you should now support / prove that these people were NOT abducted by aliens?

What is absurd is that we are talking about is God - unless you think He is an alien.

Your refusal to answer the question is telling.

If that is what you want to believe.

That is one type of atheism. Also called "strong atheism".
There is another, as per the english dictionary.
Why do you insist on ignoring that?

Isn’t it just easier to say there are atheists and agnostics?