Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Graknorke]

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I can't find both unreasonable? Neither is provable, both are beliefs and thus irrational.

Maybe because at first you say that proof or evidence is irrelevant, while with the second one it suddenly is?

No...if you care to note I disagreed with the first statement, implying I do consider the burden of proof important.

It's pretty straightforward, it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence, so it is reasonable to not believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence.

[Jelle]

It's pretty straightforward, it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence, so it is reasonable to not believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence.

Yes I agree it is reasonable to not believe in the existence of something without proof. I also find it unreasonable to believe in the non existence of something without proof. There is a minor but very significant difference between the two things, and atheism as a whole does not differentiate between the two (either of the two standpoints is sufficient to be considered atheist).

[Remuthra]

As to your last tension, atheism is based not upon the belief in no god but in the lack of belief in one.

Is it though? The definition of atheism seems to vary, going from the disbelief of the existance of any deity to the belief that there is no deity. What I gather atheism as a whole encompasses both ideas, and in my experience it is usually equated to positive atheism. I suppose the question is open to interpretation as to wether it refers to positive or negative atheism.

Evangelists like to mess with the term to make it easier to refute. Atheism derives from the following rationale:

The explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct (Occam's Razor). Since we cannot know something is true with absolute certainty (excepting certain constructs which are necessarily true, or at least assumed to be necessarily true to avoid absurdity, such as the principles of mathematics and logic), due to the fallibility of the senses, the most likely explanation is assumed to be correct until it is disproved. The explanation of a supernatural creator has no evidence (we live in and work with the natural world, and the supernatural - a suspension of the natural laws of the universe - is scientifically unprovable; the unfalsifiability of religion is central to its perpetuation) and there is no phenomenon which necessitates its existence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume a creator when there is any natural explanation. Further, for any phenomenon that does not yet have a natural explanation, it can be assumed that one will be found, because all phenomena yet found have had a natural explanation. In short, there is no need to assume a supernatural creator, so it can be said with reasonable certainty that there is none.

The idea of atheism as a positive claim simply comes from lingual acrobatics. The conclusion that there is no deity because no reason has been found to suggest there is follows the same logic as the conclusion that there are no fairies because no reason has been found to suggest fairies exist.

By the way, if this topic is going to continue it should probably be moved to its own thread, at the discretion of the OP.

[notquitethere]

By it, I permitted confusion between two definitions of the word "truth."  Due to being on a philosophical website, I matched "truth" in its initial context with its more common philosophical use, which is far more subjective than "truth" as used to define the veracity of facts and objective occurrences.

No, I think you'll find that (analytical) philosophers try to explicate truth in the ordinary language sense of the word: something is true if it is actually the case.

No really, I have nothing to say about that. It's obvious that you have a set view and won't be swayed from it. But what you just posted isn't any different in reasoning than, say, people who say that being gay is wrong or being of a certain religion is wrong or that couples of different race are wrong are whatever.
"It's just true." Not a real argument.

I didn't offer an argument only because a personality test thread isn't the place for a comprehensive defence of moral realism. But here's a completely non-robust rough and ready version:

1- There is are actions that make lives go worse
2- What people mean by 'wrong' when tbey are being consistent are those acts that make lives worse
3- Genocide makes lives go worse definitionally
4 - Genocide is wrong

Further, but this warrants thesis-length unpacking: people who think being gay is wrong are using an inconsistent or incoherent sense of the word 'wrong'.

[Helgoland]

2- What people mean by 'wrong' when tbey are being consistent are those acts that make lives worse

There's the rub - what does 'worse' mean? I'd bet that your local minister has different ideas of what constitutes a 'worse' life than you have.

Also, atheism is usually taken to mean the belief that there is no god. But you Americans are a litte bit crazy with your definitions, so I'll just let this topic be...

[Eagle_eye]

(analytical) philosophers

Otherwise known as real philosophers. The rest is just unusually pretentious literature.

[GavJ]

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I can't find both unreasonable? Neither is provable, both are beliefs and thus irrational.

Maybe because at first you say that proof or evidence is irrelevant, while with the second one it suddenly is?

No...if you care to note I disagreed with the first statement, implying I do consider the burden of proof important.

It's pretty straightforward, it is not reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence, so it is reasonable to not believe in the existence of a thing where there is no possibility of evidence for its existence.

Bolded part = fail.
If an omnipotent God does exist, there are all kinds of things it could do to make its existence painfully obvious if so desired. Even a clock-maker God. You're just totally making up this "no possibility" thing.

The scientifically valid position is to hold no strong opinion at all in the mere absence of evidence. (what I would naturally call agnosticism, although people always quibble about those terms. You know what I mean)
Atheism (also in the classic schoolyard sense of "definitely no God") is not that. It is a FAITH just as much as any religion is.

[Descan]

I hold the atheistic position of "I don't think there is a god, and even if there was, he's an asshole and I wouldn't worship him/do what I could in spite of him/actively work against him. Either that, or he's a dumb and blind idiot, in which case there's no point in worshiping him."

Just looking at the world he supposedly set up and the (non-human-derived, to side-step that whole "human free will" thing) bullshit we have to put up with is enough to make me think he's probably a git. Like killing children with horrific diseases, smallpox and eye-worms and the like. Or tsunamis and such.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And the whole "we're too small to understand him!" well then why didn't he create us with the ability to understand it, at least a little bit, eh? Doesn't make any sense create a people that doesn't share your morality.

I'm not sure what you'd call that. Anti-theism? Anti-deity? Something like that.

[Remuthra]

In the words of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

_{(Some doubt exists as to whether this was his work specifically, but that's another matter)}

[GavJ]

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Many people throughout actual history have chosen freedom despite it implying suffering for them to do so.

[hops]

Hugh Jackman ain't got nothing on me

[Graknorke]

Bolded part = fail.
If an omnipotent God does exist, there are all kinds of things it could do to make its existence painfully obvious if so desired. Even a clock-maker God. You're just totally making up this "no possibility" thing.

The scientifically valid position is to hold no strong opinion at all in the mere absence of evidence. (what I would naturally call agnosticism, although people always quibble about those terms. You know what I mean)
Atheism (also in the classic schoolyard sense of "definitely no God") is not that. It is a FAITH just as much as any religion is.

I was rewording the question. The question that was quoted in the post I made.

[GavJ]

Ok. confusing quote pyramid is confusing, then. Sorry.

[Helgoland]

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Many people throughout actual history have chosen freedom despite it implying suffering for them to do so.

Ayup, that's pretty much the only way to rescue Leibniz's argument: God doesn't want us to be happy, he wants us to be _human_ (implying freedom of choice and such); otherwise there'd be way more papaver somniferum around. And for that, you kinda need to have evil around.

If he wanted slaves, he'd just make more angels.

[Criptfeind]

Atheism as faith has always seemed strange to me. Wriggling yourself into the gap made by the inability to objectively prove anything and yelling "This is faith! Faiiiith!" seems absurd when you can do the exact same thing for literally everything.

"You only have faith you had a hamburger for lunch."
"You only have faith you are wearing pants right now."
"You only have faith that you own a car."
"You only have faith that you are talking to me."

"You only have faith that you can't objectively prove anything in this universe. Agnosticism is a religion."