|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's because you'd rather nit-pick semantics than address agruments. On the subject of addressing arguments, why haven't you responded to any one of the 70 or so posts already in this thread, many of which deal with the false construction of so-called "strong atheism"? I've already explained in several instances how the "weak/strong" dichotomy fails to accurately describe atheism as its practiced?
A Secular Humanist must believe that the reasons people believe in god aren't unnatural, by definition. I heard what you said, the first time. Why didn't you hear me when I told you that atheists don't believe what you say they believe? Since there's no "evidence from God", I don't know what you're talking about. There's absolutely no evidence for God whatsoever, from God or from any other source. If you're asking why atheists believe believers are mistaken about the existence of God - it's not that we believe that they must be mistaken, we just believe that they are mistaken. Like I said keep beating on your straw-atheist. When you're prepared to discuss atheists that actually exist you'll find many posts in this thread worth responding to. Or did you think the discussion doesn't start until you show up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wow, you really are an asshole, aren't you?
why haven't you responded to any one of the 70 or so posts already in this thread, many of which deal with the false construction of so-called "strong atheism"? Because I didn't read them. I only responded to the OP, no?
Why didn't you hear me when I told you that atheists don't believe what you say they believe?
So I'm mistaken that Secular Humanists attribute the belief in gods to natural causes?
there's no "evidence from God", I don't know what you're talking about. There's absolutely no evidence for God whatsoever, from God or from any other source. LOL, my point exactly. "I don't see the evidence so it doesn't exist." Looks like the Argument from Incredulity in a way even though I realize that is not considered it.
When you're prepared to discuss atheists that actually exist you'll find many posts in this thread worth responding to. Or did you think the discussion doesn't start until you show up? Myabe I'll go back and read your posts and respond to those, but if you feel like nit-picking the semantics in my posts anyways...feel free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
CS writes: Omni writes: Further, it is not illogical to base a belief on something less than irrefutable proof: Yes, it is "ilogical". But that is beside the point. You are mistaken on both counts. Logic is a GIGO machine, a sausage grinder that can produce great links or pure baloney. Expecting it to deliver certainty is a profound error.
Do you not agree that "Strong Atheism" is illogical? I think your strong v. weak distinction muddies the water around what 'belief' means. But, no, even taking your term at face value, 'strong' atheism is not illogical. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There's no such thing as "active disbelief." You don't take an action to disbelieve; you just don't believe. I guess that's where our difference of oppinion occurs.
We all disbelieve in what we're ignorant of. The result is the same.
I don't think the result is the same. Being ignorant of something is not the same as disbelieving something you are knowlegeble of, IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Wow, you really are an asshole, aren't you? I just get tired of having to repeat myself. You know, like I've had to do since you started participating in this thread. Is there something wrong with your web browser that prevented you from reading the previous 70 posts? Or are you simply under the impression that the debate begins and ends with you?
So I'm mistaken that Secular Humanists attribute the belief in gods to natural causes? No, but that's not what you said, is it? Additionally, it's improper to conflate secular humanism with atheism. While it's true that secular humanists are typically atheists, not all atheists are secular humanists. Do I have do draw the Venn diagram for you?
"I don't see the evidence so it doesn't exist." What evidence am I not seeing? If you've presented any, it hasn't been in this thread or in any other you've participated in. Tell me, CS, is it typical of true things that they're supported by unspecified, invisible "evidence"? Or rather, isn't that more typically true of things that are false? One of the reasons that I'm an atheist is that even theists don't act like theism is true. Why does every theist act like they have something to hide when it comes to theism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are mistaken on both counts. Logic is a GIGO machine, a sausage grinder that can produce great links or pure baloney. Expecting it to deliver certainty is a profound error. That's fine. We can agree on that point.
I think your strong v. weak distinction muddies the water around what 'belief' means. How so? I find a distinction between a positive disblief and a lack of belief in the same as there is a distinction between -1 and 0.
But, no, even taking your term at face value, 'strong' atheism is not illogical. How so? How can you logically conclude that it is a fact that something does not exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Being ignorant of something is not the same as disbelieving something you are knowlegeble of, IMHO. Why? What's the difference? If a claim isn't supported by evidence, why does it matter whether or not you heard the claim in the first place? Whether or not you know about the claim has nothing to do with its veracity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I just get tired of having to repeat myself. Then don't reply to post that address argument that you have already responded to.
Is there something wrong with your web browser that prevented you from reading the previous 70 posts? No. I just replied to the opening post without reading a single other post in the thread. Is there something wrong with that? Must I read the whole thread before replying to the OP?
No, but that's not what you said, is it? Nope, that's what I said.
it's improper to conflate secular humanism with atheism. I didn't. Sorry for breaking the rule, but I was responding to you personally, knowing your beliefs.
What evidence am I not seeing? If you've presented any, it hasn't been in this thread or in any other you've participated in. Again. La-la-la, I don't see the evidence. Its just like the Argument from Incredulity. Of course the onus is on me to provide evidence if I wanted to be persuasive, but we are simply defining "atheism", not proving god exists.
Tell me, CS, is it typical of true things that they're supported by unspecified, invisible "evidence"? Or rather, isn't that more typically true of things that are false? It is typical of true things that they're supported by specific, visible evidence. It is typical of false things to be supported by unspecific, invisible "evidence". Happy now? This has nothing to do with the logical support for "Strong Atheism", even if that is not what the majority of atheist, in general, believe. Lack of evidence is NOT evidense of absense as we all know, logically.
One of the reasons that I'm an atheist is that even theists don't act like theism is true. Why does every theist act like they have something to hide when it comes to theism?
We don't have anything to hide from each other. We only have a "percieved" thing to hide from people who reject the "evidence" a prioiri. But of course that is practically meaningless to atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why? What's the difference? If a claim isn't supported by evidence, why does it matter whether or not you heard the claim in the first place? Whether or not you know about the claim has nothing to do with its veracity.
Because "I" am the one forming the belief. It doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Must I read the whole thread before replying to the OP? LOL! Yeah, it'd be helpful. If you had, you'd know that I've already addressed this:
Again. La-la-la, I don't see the evidence. Its just like the Argument from Incredulity. And this
Lack of evidence is NOT evidense of absense as we all know, logically. (Suffice to say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence by any accepted evidentiary standard. It's understood that this reasoning is logically fallacious, but so is all scientific reasoning.)
We only have a "percieved" thing to hide from people who reject the "evidence" a prioiri. I can't reject what hasn't been presented. You don't even claim to have presented any evidence! How can it possibly be meaningful to claim that atheists are rejecting "a priori" what you admit you haven't even put forth? I mean, what exactly are atheists rejecting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you meant to say that your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the truth, as you just said, then yes, I agree with you completely. It's in fact quite obvious that what you decide to believe has nothing to do with the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(Suffice to say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence by any accepted evidentiary standard. For practical purposes, yes.
It's understood that this reasoning is logically fallacious, but so is all scientific reasoning You just conceded my point about "Strong Atheism". Now, onto the point about actual atheism....
I can't reject what hasn't been presented. You don't even claim to have presented any evidence! How can it possibly be meaningful to claim that atheists are rejecting "a priori" what you admit you haven't even put forth? I mean, what exactly are atheists rejecting Any edvidence that I would present (for the existance of something supernatural) would be automatically attributed to something natural, a priori, by the definitions of your belief so you can't even be "presented" with evidence in the first place. P.S. I'm going to bed now. Further replies will be tomorrow if I have time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
LOL, is that your way of admitting that you were wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For practical purposes, yes. Which is why, for practical purposes, people are atheists. Do you see, now, how talking about "strong atheism" has been a strawman all along?
Now, onto the point about actual atheism.... Apparently you do.
Any edvidence that I would present (for the existance of something supernatural) would be automatically attributed to something natural, a priori, by the definitions of your belief so you can't even be "presented" with evidence in the first place. This doesn't make a lick of sense. Tell me, CS - is it typically a feature of things that are true that the best their proponents can muster is to say "I'd tell you but you wouldn't believe me"? Isn't that, in fact, something people say when they're trying to lie? Like I said before - why do theists always act like they have something to hide?
LOL, is that your way of admitting that you were wrong? You don't read so well, I guess. What I just said is that you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Crashfrog writes:
(Suffice to say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence by any accepted evidentiary standard. It's understood that this reasoning is logically fallacious, but so is all scientific reasoning.)If I knew you and ordinarily thought you to be rational and sane, and one day you reported that you had what you thought to be an unverifiable experience (UFO or something)why would I be wrong to trust you pending further validation? Why would I assume you were suddenly daft? To me, absence of evidence is simply inconclusive. I would never go so far as to claim that you had to be mistaken.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024