Athiesm is the juvenile activity of proving a negative, or trying to. The remedy is being put to bed with a spoonful of molasses.
Don't take your SELF too seriously. It self destructs.
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Athiesm is the juvenile activity of proving a negative, or trying to. The remedy is being put to bed with a spoonful of molasses.
Don't take your SELF too seriously. It self destructs.
Last edited by Musicology; 05-24-2011 at 05:10 AM.
I'm sure this already stands somewhere in the first five pages of this thread, but here again:
Atheists don't need to prove anything, just as much as I need to proof that there's no Narnia in my wardrobe in order to not believe in it. Exactly because one can't prove a negative, it becomes the default rational position if there's no positive evidence available. The burden of proof rests on the believer, and an atheist is simply someone who does not have 'faith' in God (faith = belief without evidence).
Burden of proof for whom? I see no problem with them believing as long as they do not force you to believe, from the first point you made. There is only a burden of proof if you desire one, for the religious person, proving to the non-believer is often irrelevant.
The idea of atheism as "someone who..." is kind of contradictory, since one cannot define oneself as one who does not believe, when one is defining, which means you believe in a definition.
Everyone trusts some things, everyone believes in things, an atheist, by definition, is someone who is without "theos" or a deity. In truth, that includes many forms of other religions and cultural traditions that hold belief-based opinions, such as the ancestor worship of Confucian (often neo-Confucian) thought patterns, and their mix with other traditions, like Buddhism.
God is not relevant to belief - one can believe in Fengshui but not Jesus, or astrology and not Zeus.
Faith does not equal belief, they are different things. A faith, and faith, are also different things.
Ah, you're just wrong, plus you haven't been following the thread. Even worse, not just not following, but failing to read the very first post:
There is no negative involved, so you're making a simple error. There are people who claim that no god/s exist, but they are a very small subset of the whole. Just as I don't class all theists as people who would blow themselves up in the name of their god/s, I expect to find the same not classing all atheists by a small subset's behaviour and beliefs.
Tip: adding old wives' remedies for obstreperous children to a thread merely makes you look silly.
Luckily, I don't take anything seriously. That's one of the joys of life from where I see it; there's nothing to be serious about.
Good grief; if that isn't the final proof in the final thread, I don't know what is! JBI and I agreed it.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
He who is the greatest is the servant of all.
That came from a source greater than you, Mr Atheist.
I was recently told don't have an opinion if you don't need one, which means stay open. Since we only need an opinion when something needs to be decided, then why have one where no decision needs to be made? I was rather impressed by this because I realized once I have an opinion (even it is based on limited info) I become self-interested and defensive. This means I am less likely to 'hear' or 'listen' since I am so busy looking for ways to reinforce my position in the matter.
I don't need to have an opinion on belief or non belief in God - at least not until my final moments! So I figure if I remain open till I need to decide, I might make a better decision when the time comes.
Wow! that felt really good!
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
It seems to me this is one of the few cases were the term 'agnostic' would be appropriate. Refusing to even think about it probably makes you agnostic, or even better, as Cunninglinguist pointed out, apathetic.
If, one the other hand, one isn't sure either way, it tends to mean 'atheist', unless one is clearly leaning towards theism.
So much for terminology. I don't really see the reasoning behind it though. Let's compare it with the question whether Narnia exists in my wardrobe. Should I 'stay open' by just not thinking about it? I don't really see the point. If it were in there, I'd think it would be kinda cool and I would want to get in. Analogically, if there were a god, at least one that in some way interacts with humans, then it would be a rational thing to consider this when deciding 'what to do'. And for physicists, whether there is a god matters too, because then they could just sit back and stop bothering with the 'explaining'.
Where I live it doesn't have anywhere near a precise definition; things are quite equivocal, as per usual. But where do you live, and can I move there? Contrary to what many here would like to think, it doesn't (and perhaps even can't) have a precise definition at all; in one instance it refers to a theoretical opinion, in another a practical one. Trying to claim the otherwise demonstrates either intentional fallacy or blatant ignorance.
To go on a tangent, ironically, somehow, agnosticism has the same problem ... although it was originally coined to refer to a distinctly theoretical opinion: Huxley wrote, "I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no [a posteriori] reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objection to the doctrine." People have now perverted that understanding through either misusage or false pretense or both (e.g. there are a few instances where religious officials have tried to apologize by branding themselves as agnostics) and now think that agnosticism (can) refers to a practical opinion. But, In the end, the concept of a practical agnosticism is absurd, since every action and inaction imply a moral judgment. Therefore, agnosticism (sensibly used) can only refer to a theoretical point of view - on the whole, I'd recommend that people stop using (and thinking) the otherwise, because the otherwise just makes no sense.
To tangent, again, on theoretical grounds, given that one won't let anything theoretical influence how one conducts oneself morally, making a claim either way is useless and stupid (hence why I'd call myself an agnostic). On the other hand, if such-and-such a theoretical claim (such as the existence of a God) does influence one's moral behavior then, given that their behavior is bad (let's assume by a general standard), that's apparently enough reason to contest that claim. This seems to be the latent objective behind most of atheism, but, I assure you, it is a quite futile effort to refute religion on theoretical grounds. Refute it on practical grounds, only.
I would guess because that'd be too simple.
Contrary to a popular belief, this notion makes very little sense. On the one hand, if you're making a positive claim that God doesn't exist (which The Atheist has rightly pointed out that most "atheists" don't do this), and if you expect to be taken seriously, a proof would be quite requisite. On the other, if you're claiming that atheism is better on practical grounds, that still requires evidence. The theoretical position that doesn't require proof is agnosticism (for it has nothing which might be proved); the practical position that doesn't require justification is none.
In any case, it almost doesn't matter. The idea that a proof is necessary would, as JBI suggests, void the priority of religious faith. That rationalism should be everyone's foremost priority is the flimsy assumption that the "burden of proof" argument rests on, and the assumption that dooms it from the start in many cases.
As a hypothetical it's bothered with a lot ... you're bothering with it currently. I guess you fell into a bit of a hypocrisy there. To take the (invisible) pink flying unicorn as a practical tenant is, yes, plainly retarded if not impossible.
I'm pretty sure, for anyone who's given it a fair deal of consideration, that their answer would be the same for both.
No.
Not all things which "exist" in whatever form are "provable" (if we use a rather liberal definition of the word). Did the past exist? Prove it. Theoretically speaking, you can't. The universe may be 2 minutes old, and all your memories past two minutes ago implanted.
In another thread recently started, I saw Pip argue that science moves forward by falsification, that no theory can be "false" or "true". I thought to myself, "this is all fair and well but stands in stark contradiction to the popular usage of these words." You exemplify my objection quite well, sir.
That's a pretty unequivocal categorical error. Can you prove the non-existence of a robber in your house? According to your definition of a proof, yes. Can you prove the non-existence of cancer in your prostate? Well, if that weren't so then, by God, why the hell do doctors preform prostate exams? For whatever reason people like to delude themselves into thinking that your statement is truth, when it's plainly not.
Maybe in the "wrong" sense - that is, if you don't understand how a priori is defined. Science operates almost completely in the a posteriori, empirical realm - in the end, it could all be one enormous post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
That's the assumption, unprovable as it is. Nevertheless, it's been quite practical over the years, which is why (and only why) we keep it.
I'm chary to admit those propositions since they seem to rest on a particular and peculiar definition of "supernatural."
This is misrepresenting the example. The existence was refuted because they were thought to have, as it were, a self contradictory nature, not because we lacked the evidence. The concept of God, on the other hand, need not be self-contradictory (albeit it sometimes is). And as for "knowing" something exists ... what does knowledge consist of anyways? People seem to assume that its criteria is self-evident, but their criteria in full is currently quite uncertain to the best of philosophers and scientists. As for evidence, it is always fallible on a priori grounds (which you later implicitly admit, anyways) - some forms are more trustable than others on a posteriori grounds - that is, it is never sufficient for a priori truth.
Yes there is. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Making a quantitative assertion about this-or-that is formally no different than making a qualitative one. That is, to say either is to claim some property about some thing (God), which, in our case, is stepping beyond the bounds of certitude.
Yes I do and no you didn't.
The question was essentially this: How can someone claim that X object (energy) having this-or-that property (perpetual, immortal existence) is true--and, moreover, possible--while simultaneously claiming that Y object (God) having the exact same property (existing forever) is categorically absurd and impossible. The answer: because they haven't fully considered what they're saying ... But of those who so ardently claim to live by it, who listens to sound reasoning anyways?
So does the mere consideration of our existence...
When we consider the universe in its totality, instead of certain parts of it in relation to others (which is what your analogy does), we recognize that there's a fundamental absurdity to it all.
Huh? The majority of metaphysics is in its own way bosh, true. But there's a rather enormous latent contradiction in what you're saying. Modern theoretical and quantum physics, in a critical way, owes itself to Kant who attempted to defined the proper scope of metaphysics, not completely eliminate it. I smell you don't know what you're talking about...
There is a teleporter thought experiment that produces a number of dilemmas about consciousness: Imagine you had a teleporter with two terminals. It functions by recording the position of all the atoms in your body (and all other pertinent properties); it disassembles you, sends this recorded information to the other terminal which assembles your body using different atoms. Now, suppose that it assembled you twice or three times; riddle me this, which body would you be conscious in? After a good deal of consideration, it almost makes a "soul" or "ghost" plausible ... are you paradoxically conscious in all three? Philosophy of mind can offer some interesting theories. But, in any case, in short, you didn't fully appreciate my question again.
Practical reasons, yes. The theist has practical reasons (for example, to not being beaten by a nun) to adopt a policy of religious faith. In any case, the notion that the laws of physics will hold true for the next minute is an article of scientific faith. It cannot be proven on a priori grounds, it cannot be disproven. Practically speaking, I'm going to assume (theoretically) that they will - but, I've still committed myself to an article of faith. I'm not "misusing" the word - your scope of it, only applying to religious faith, is too narrow.
Call it faith or belief (if you can elucidate a fundamental difference between the two, be my guest); one must realize one has some form of it, that everyone has some form and must have it in one way or another in order to make any moral choice.
Yep. But that does not give a priori validity, which was my point.
Math works because of the three classical laws of thought, which are self-sufficient ... science only works in part because of them. On the whole, they do not work by the same manner at all. Science ultimately gains its merits through consequences, math through logical necessity...
I'm not sure what you're saying here - but I'm going to keep using my computer because I have faith that it will start up every morning when I push the 'power' button. Do you think faith is inherently bad? Or are you just afraid of being branded in such-and-such a way?
If you're not doing this then why are you so passionately defending science - unless you're defending the position that we should assume (that is, have faith) for practical reasons that science is, in fact, infallible? I'm not an abecedarian - as said before, I quite like science. But that you recognize it's fallible, though treat it as if it weren't, implies that you've put a certain amount of trust in it that is (inherently) unwarranted by its own nature.
You adopted a certain definition of truth that the example you cited didn't. This can be construed as a contradiction. In any case, putting all types of "truth" or things that we treat as certain under one head is misleading and can lead to equivocation. However, the distinction tends to only be useful outside of every day discourse - I guess you want to keep the debate pedestrian.
As a general comment, razors have been put forth that assert the more complex the better ... anyone can make any sort of principle like those or Occam's ... for example, the theory that has 50 axioms is best ... in short, they're generally meaningless. The only reason Occam's sticks is because it appeals to natural intuition. People who think that his Razor can yield something a priori reliable don't understand the concept.
Edit:
Clear communication, I'd hazard to guess.
Last edited by Cunninglinguist; 06-01-2011 at 01:13 PM.
Dare to know
What a confused world these atheists make !! Whose definition of atheism is so complicated we can compare it to a computer which finally spits out an answer such as -
'Atheism is defined as being a God in whom we dare NOT to believe'.
Great ! That's your choice. But the relevance of your atheism to human existence and to human sanity is what, exactly ? No answer !
I recommend another spoonful of molasses and early bed. The alternative is to entertain more first person singular, I, me, myself, and more of me, self, and self righteousness. Which, yawn, has no record of doing anything good for mankind.
'You will learn, my boy, you will learn' (LOL).
Last edited by Musicology; 06-01-2011 at 05:08 PM.
Sorry, but you're getting it wrong again - there is no confusion among atheists at all.
Many theists try to tell everyone else what atheism is, but since no theists can be atheists, it makes as much sense as me trying to describe Beethoven's 9th to a profoundly deaf person.
That will never stop the theists trying, but it's amusing as hell at least.
Ooh, I'd be pretty confident I have more than a few years on you, not that it matters.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Allow me to be the first to point out that Beethoven's 9th was composed by a profoundly deaf person.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
People keep misusing it yeah, but as The Atheist (who else would you ask? haha) pointed out, it's the atheists themselves you should ask. It's really not that difficult, I'm atheist in the same way most people don't believe in the tooth fairy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree, the definitions here are, now at least, totally confusing. That's why I tried to list all the ones I've encountered and then tried to find one that actually makes sense. One way somehow made sense, the others didn't. As I stated before, if theoretical agnosticism implies that 'weak' atheism is unreasonable, it is making the mistake of assuming that if god exists, it could not be proven. (And yes, I'm using the word prove in the non-mathematical sense.) If, on the other hand, theoretical agnosticism is just pointing out the fact that atheists can't prove that there's no god, and that so far, the opposite hasn't been proved either, then that's trivial and as I said, most atheists would be 'agnostic atheists', the former theoretically, the latter practically. I'm not sure whether I understand your objection, is it tied to the notion of Judgement Day? Not every definition of god uses this, and I would also object to the idea that the existence of a god would make people more moral. But anyway, that isn't relevant for our semantical discussion here.
I disagree. This postulates that when there are two options, existence and non-existence, odds for each would be 50%, if no further information is given. However, since there's an infinite amount of outlandish beings / hypotheses one can come up with, it's clearly impossible that even close to 50% of them are true. The rational thing to do is thus lean towards agnostic a-whateverism, as long as no positive evidence exists in favor of 'whatever'. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not conclusive by all means, but enough to shift the burden of proof. Or else, scientists would be continually wasting their time trying to disprove all the nonsense human beings can come up with.
Here comes relativism again. Exactly, religious faith is irrational. And there shouldn't be any priority. Simply saying 'we needn't be rational' isn't going to help. Either you want to have a rational(!) discussion here, or else, why bother? You're disqualifying yourself from any argument if you think rationality is 'an assumption that dooms it from the start'. Besides, doesn't your very reasoning proof that faith is, by definition, ir-rational?
This doesn't mean god is improvable. And by 'provable', I neither mean mathematical proof, nor some other absolute. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is totally fine, despite being somewhat flimsy.
I think the category error is committed by the 'other side'. Whenever a scientist / atheist makes the statment 'x isn't real', there are people jumping in screaming 'you can't prove it!', and immediately you're accused of scientism and dogmatism. But basically, you're right, in the case of 'not being able to prove negatives', one talks about absolute proofs. If 'beyond reasonable doubt' absence of evidence reasoning counts, then one can indeed prove negatives. In case of precise claims involving things that actually do exists (i.e. cancer in one's lung), one even has to 'look for the thing in question'.
Let's once and for all clarify what faith means: It means belief without evidence. Sometimes even belief despite contradicting evidence. If you use another definition, that's fine, just point it out to me and coin a new word that means what I use 'faith' for. Because that's the only thing I'm arguing against. I'm not arguing against having reasonable beliefs.
Few atheists claim god is categorically impossible! All that's needed is that it's much less likely than whatever alternatives there are. Think of it this way: There's data that needs to be explained. In our case, it's the fact that reality exists in a certain way. Then there are hypotheses, both 'energy' and 'god' explain the data. Energy does it elegantly, with each property being 'used'. God does the same job, but many properties are left unneeded, and unsupported by evidence. There's no need for omnipotence, omniscience, love, consciousness, jealousy or any of the other attributes sometimes attributed to god. That's what I meant by 'simplicity' being better than 'complexity'. By itself, the statement is indeed wrong. It only becomes useful when applied to data, when some of the complexity is superfluous. Ockham's razzor is often misused. But THIS is exactly the kind of situation where it is useful. Appart from the success demonstrated by a posteriori evidence, this application of Ockham's razzor can even be justified a priori with logic.
Doesn't negate the fact that we should favor the most likely / least absurd explanation.
I indeed have no idea how metaphysics could have helped with quantum physics or theoretical physics. The kind of philosophy that defines the 'boundaries' of science (if there are any) is of course valid, but is that really called 'metaphysics'? (I'm asking genuinely.)
Of course, you'd be triple-conscious! As for not answering your question, if that didn't count as an answer then I don't understand your question. Care to elaborate?
If you insist, yes, 'practical' ones. But don't come with the ridiculous claim that 'not being beaten up by a nun' is in the same category. There's nothing about this that would make it even remotely 'truer'. And it is NOT an article of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. The last 36789 times I checked, the laws of nature held up. That's evidence. Not conclusive, but it would be stupid to expect the opposite. Call it something else, it's not belief without evidence. (I'm not just applying it to religious faith.)
Beliefs can be reasonable, even when they're not mathematically proven. And people always act 'to the best of their knowledge', or at least they should. Even many religious people would deny that they have 'belief without evidence', they just disagree about what counts as evidence!
I feel like I had been saying that all along. Either way, I agree. One could add that there's something to be said in favor of the scientific method a priori too, but ultimately, the success of science is inded judged by the consequences.
That's why I picked it.Allow me to be the first to point out that Beethoven's 9th was composed by a profoundly deaf person.
I'll just repeat that for simplicity.
It is that easy.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
What you do NOT believe is of the utmost irrelevance to what exists. Unbelief stops nothing except the unbeliever.
There isn't an abiguity.
Agnostics who do not believe in god are also atheists*.
Some even call themselves agnostic atheists.
Subsets are cool like that.
*not popular among agnostics, but times are hard all over.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
