Atheism

Whether data is real is of concern for the person wondering.
A lot of us have been there and understand the looking.

That is for a another thread but this is the popular one, the one apparently for real life atheists to be tromped about on, while we attempting to talk.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Start your own thread, Frank. Go ahead, it's not that hard.

So far you read convenient waves.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

FBM wrote:

Because there are no data that support the theistic conclusion. You estimate or calculate based on data. A volcano erupting is evidence for a volcano erupting, not for an invisible spirit in the sky punishing you for not wiping your ass in the prescribed manner.

Well, the data is subjective in regard to the theistic--and atheistic, for that matter--conclusion. It's based on personal experience.

Since theists lack credible data for the truth of their assertion, the onus on them is to provide some, if they want to convince rational people. To the extent that atheists claim to know that there is no deity, the burden of proof similarly lies with them. In a nutshell, if you've got no evidence, you've got no reason to expect rational people to believe you either way.

2 Replies

@FBM,

It doesn't work that way. Human experience have shown that the majority of humans believe in their god(s). That's proof that their god exists in their belief system and reality. That's all that matters. Atheists believe there are no gods based on their perception about evidence and reality. That's fine too.

Human perception is a very subjective one that varies with ones experience, environment, and culture. No human has all the answers to the unknowns.

Politics is another area of human subjective perceptions and beliefs. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability to analyze all the issues, since different people believe in different issues to be what is important to their life.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

This is why I specified "rational." Even people who are rational about most mundane affairs are behaving irrationally when they make knowledge claims in the absence of evidence.

1 Reply

@FBM,

But 'rational' is also subjective.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I can't think of any human experience that isn't.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That's also my observation.

0 Replies

@FBM,

However, many atheists, and the evidence is good that the majority of atheists, are not asserting that there is no god, they are just stating that they don't believe it. If i say that i do believe, or don't believe something, i am the only authority on that subject. I assume no burden of proof. Similarly, the theist who does not assert that there is a god, but only that he or she believes that, also does not assume a burden of proof.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That's also a good distinction. These sentences have different meanings:
a) There is/isn't a god. (requires evidence for support)
b) I believe that there is/isn't a god. (no evidence required because of the verb)

In b), you're just reporting on your inner state, about which you are the sole authority. a), however, is a report about an external state, which would require substantiation in order to be credible.

0 Replies

This is the problem i have with that horseshit about agnostics being intellectually and/or morally superior because of their belief that the case cannot be known. First because they don't acknowledge that they are stating a belief (that the case cannot be known), and second because it seems they invariably fail to make those distinctions. It's rather pathetic, too, to make claims about superiority in what is nothing more than a conflict of beliefs. Personally, i don't care what others believe, so long as they don't attempt to impose on me. So "superiority" of belief doesn't come into it.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm with you on that, too. The so-called Skeptics of Ancient Greece weren't. They claimed to know that knowledge was impossible, which is a dogmatic statement. The only real skeptics I know of in Ancient Greece were the Pyrrhonists, and that's only IF the surviving accounts of them are accurate (Sextus Empiricus, mainly).

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is the problem i have with that horseshit about agnostics being intellectually and/or morally superior because of their belief that the case cannot be known. First because they don't acknowledge that they are stating a belief (that the case cannot be known), and second because it seems they invariably fail to make those distinctions. It's rather pathetic, too, to make claims about superiority in what is nothing more than a conflict of beliefs. Personally, i don't care what others believe, so long as they don't attempt to impose on me. So "superiority" of belief doesn't come into it.

Well I do not state that the case cannot be known, Setanta, except for the strong atheistic position...which obviously cannot be known.

The theistic position at least possibly can be known. If the god were to decide to make its existence known in an unambiguous way...it should be at least possible for it to do so.

There is no way the strong atheistic position can be known.

There is no "belief" in my case. Any guesses I make about REALITY are called guesses...and I do not talk about superiority of belief, like you do. I suggest that I consider the agnostic position to be superior to any other position...so I embrace it as my own.

Rather than use the label "agnostic" I have chosen to describe my particular agnosticism:

Quote:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

If you or anyone else sees anything "wrong" or irrational about that position, why not say what it is and we can discuss it.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Start your own thread, Frank. Go ahead, it's not that hard.

I've started many threads, Ossobuco.

In this particular thread things are being discussed that I find interesting...and I want to participate.

There is no reason why I should not.

Quote:

So far you read convenient waves.

I have no idea of what you meant by that.

0 Replies

Good grief! Are we all still fighting about this? The main problem with the theist, atheist and agnostic thing is that each person is so convinced that what he/she is espousing is the correct view, that we tend to obscure our common humanity.

Maybe I will start an "Idontgiveashitanyway" thread!

2 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

A world of labels is a world that's unstable.

This is my own principle and it hasn't done me wrong yet.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'm not sure how truth can be determined by guesses and human inability to determine reality.

For the record, I was just trying to show to Frank that he uses very bizarre, unworkable logic. He wants you to believe that nothing can be known by nobody... And yet that in itself is a form of knowledge. How do you know for a fact that other people cannot know anything for a fact?

Frank was of course right that Atheists are not gods. But he cannot prove it under his own logic. That's how weak his thinking is. And the reason is: he can't 'believe', and thus he can't even make the simplest and safest assumptions.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Frank also never created anything like Tesla or Einstein, so it's safe to say that Frank says what he says out of fear of realizing his own ignorance. People will do anything to look big, even if that means shrinking everything down around you to a smaller size perceptually.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Errr... I'm no Tesla or Einstein myself. Should I get worried? Smile

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Are you also belittling their creations?

No? Then you missed the point.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know