Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[Russell_SA]

Yeah, I can’t let this foolishness stand.

The default is “uncertainty”. It is not “There is X” nor “There is not X”. The default is uncertainty. Any statement to the contrary the mind-blowingly incorrect. You can’t successfully navigate statistics nor Aristotelian logic in college without internalizing this concept.

I’ll repeat again:

The default assumption/hypothesis/stasis is “undefined” or “uncertainty”. It is not “no”, because that, in itself, is a positive claim which requires proofing.

I’m talking about believe, not knowledge of the topic presented. If you are “uncertain”, then that is a statement of knowledge, to know if it actually happened or not. If you are unconvinced that something happened, then that is a belief, not a knowledge claim, and by default you do not believe that was the case. It still could have actually happened, but you are unconvinced, ie you do not believe. To not believe is not the same as to not know.

Hope that clears this up. That’s what I was presenting. You seem to mistake believe claims for knowledge claims here.

 

[Russell_SA]

I have yet to find a Christian that has not experienced God in their life.
And with that experience, they are effectively told the exact number.

First hand knowledge that someone else can not experience is evidence only for that person, to everyone else it is hearsay. Because it seems that first hand experience is only by your god presenting itself to people and choosing not to reveal itself to others. Since we have to wait for your deity to reveal itself to us, then it’s not our problem that we don’t believe because your god is deciding not to.

 

[Russell_SA]

Word salad, to me.

For instance, if “direct knowledge” means sense experience of the phenomena and “supernatural” means beyond sense experience then the above classifications using those terms become meaningless.

I run into religious people every day that claim to have direct experience with their deity because according to the religious their deity is the only entity that can pass the supernatural barrier and personally choose to pick them to interact with. Or do you not find that to be the case with some people? See post #41 for example.

 

[Neithan]

Analogy I like to use is a jar of marbles. There is either an even or odd number of marbles as the only possible response. But no one can study the jar of marbles. The theist is claiming there is an even number of marbles. The atheist is responding with, I don’t believe you are justified in making that claim. Does this mean the atheist is asserting they believe the answer is an odd number of marbles? No, No it does not. Because atheism and theism is about what people claim to believe or are convinced of about reality, not what they actually know about reality. Knowledge about reality is Gnosticism and agnosticism; to know or not know about reality. Knowledge is not the same as a belief someone holds. So the theist’s claim of an even number of marbles was presented and the audience listed to their arguments for why the theist believes there is an even number of marbles. If the audience doesn’t believe the theist is justified in making that conclusion, then the theist can label those people as atheist. There may actually be an even number of marbles, but no one can know that yet. How is not being convinced by someone’s bad arguments about a subject a bad or immoral thing? The thing still could actually exist or not exist, but that’s currently untestable and unverifiable at this point. .

A better analogy would be to compare the theist’s claim that “someone or something causes this jar of marbles” to the atheist’s claim that “no, there’s no evidence for that.”

 

[Bradski]

A better analogy would be to compare the theist’s claim that “someone or something causes this jar of marbles” to the atheist’s claim that “no, there’s no evidence for that.”

No atheist would dispute it, so you need to find something where there is disagreement about knowledge and then look for a reason why there is a diference.

And I say that no atheist disputes it because a jar of marbles and the universe both had to have been caused by something. We are on the same page in that regard. Exactly WHAT caused either is the question at hand.

I assume you would declare God to be the cause. No evidence has been produced to convince some people (myself included), so we are back to the jars.

 

[vz71]

No atheist would dispute it, so you need to find something where there is disagreement about knowledge and then look for a reason why there is a diference.

And I say that no atheist disputes it because a jar of marbles and the universe both had to have been caused by something. We are on the same page in that regard. Exactly WHAT caused either is the question at hand.

I assume you would declare God to be the cause. No evidence has been produced to convince some people (myself included), so we are back to the jars.

Sorry, but that is just plain nutty.
Since when is the existence of something not evidence of the creator behind it.

 

[o_mlly]

I run into religious people every day that claim to have direct experience with their deity because according to the religious their deity is the only entity that can pass the supernatural barrier and personally choose to pick them to interact with. Or do you not find that to be the case with some people? See post #41 for example.

99 and 44/100’s percent of the marbles in most peoples jars are faith based knowledge. How does one “know” Santa Anna laid siege to the Alamo in 1836?

Having established that most of what we know is indirect then we may only question the plausibility of the beliefs we hold. How plausible is it that nothing created the universe? Or, to ask the same question: how plausible is that a God does not exist?

 

[Bradski]

Sorry, but that is just plain nutty.
Since when is the existence of something not evidence of the creator behind it.

Somethings existence is only evidence of it having been created.

As per Paley’s watch, there have to be things that occur naturally for one to differentiate between things that are created naturally and those that are not.

If you say that everything has been created (therefore designed), then there is nothing that is natural and his argument has no logical foundation. Which puts you in the same boat.

Unless you want to concede that some things do occur naturally. Which means you have no argument.

 

[vz71]

Somethings existence is only evidence of it having been created.

As per Paley’s watch, there have to be things that occur naturally for one to differentiate between things that are created naturally and those that are not.

If you say that everything has been created (therefore designed), then there is nothing that is natural and his argument has no logical foundation. Which puts you in the same boat.

Unless you want to concede that some things do occur naturally. Which means you have no argument.

That some things occur naturally does not discount a creator.

 

[o_mlly]

Somethings existence is only evidence of it having been created.

As per Paley’s watch, there have to be things that occur naturally for one to differentiate between things that are created naturally and those that are not.

If you say that everything has been created (therefore designed), then there is nothing that is natural and his argument has no logical foundation. Which puts you in the same boat.

Unless you want to concede that some things do occur naturally. Which means you have no argument.

If I design a program that incorporates a true random number generator that determines outcomes then those outcomes are “natural” to my program logic and I remain the designer.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m talking about believe, not knowledge of the topic presented…

I’ll try one more time;

Until an argument is successfully made with valid and sound premises, the starting point is “undefined” or “uncertainty”. Nothing, nothing gets the privilege of being assumed as true.

Very similarly, when performing hypothesis testing with mathematical models, this is illustrated with “null” hypotheses generally being “zero” or some marker that represents nothing more than the rejection of the hypotheses you are testing for.

-Let’s roll this over to “god(s)”-

The person who believes “there is a god” makes a claim that invites testing and critique - just like any claim does. Similarly, the person who believes “there is no god” makes, in that regard, an identical claim. “There is no god” doesn’t get to be “right by default”.

The only “religion” that gets to be “right by default” is classic Agnosticism. They make no claim either way. As their religious view is the religious equivalent of a null hypothesis, they enjoy a unique unassailability that is not shared by either theists or atheists (but boy do atheists try to deny it).

Your argument predicated on distinguishing between belief and knowledge is a moot semantic. You no more “know” that “God doesn’t exist” any more than you “know” that quarks are real. Ergo, knowledge and belief are far more subjectively separated than you realize.
A fine illustration of the point: quarks are real, as we are told. While we’re both reasonably sure that’s true, have you ever personally verified that? I certainly haven’t. Thus, while I may think I “know” quarks are real, I don’t know that fact with the same certainty that I know my mailbox is black.

In sum, your degree of surety is irrelevant. It’s immeasurable and infinitely subjective. Thus, if you think there’s a god or you think there isn’t - you make a claim subject to proofing. You can avoid this responsibility only by espousing theological uncertainty, which is classic Agnosticism. Not atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To answer the original question:

Yes. An opportunity to evangelize,

Yes, if we can jut motivate a few more evangelists.

 

[Russell_SA]

99 and 44/100’s percent of the marbles in most peoples jars are faith based knowledge. How does one “know” Santa Anna laid siege to the Alamo in 1836?

Having established that most of what we know is indirect then we may only question the plausibility of the beliefs we hold. How plausible is it that nothing created the universe? Or, to ask the same question: how plausible is that a God does not exist?

Historical knowledge about people is not the same claim of historical knowledge of a supernatural event. Same as the claim to have a dog vs to have a dragon. Both are not the same claim to make. We have experienced the existence of people now in our lives on a daily basis. We are creating historical evidence of our own existence through our writings here, and other items that can point to each of us actually existing, once the present time has passed. So it’s not a stretch of the imagination that people existed in the past as well. But to claim that the past event was evidence of the supernatural, just like the dragon claim, requires a lot more evidence.

So at this point people are only able to use logical arguments for a claim about the supernatural, but it is untestable/unfalsifiable and unverifiable at this point. You can be logically correct and yet still factually wrong. Without empirically testing of a claim about reality, where you can falsify it, then it’s not enough for people like me to feel justified in holding that belief. For example: Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist. So we went looking for them. Until we actually found them in 2015, up until that point, we did not teach that they were an actual part of reality yet. See Einstein was logically correct, but still could have been factually wrong once the tests were ran. The default position about reality was, Gravity waves, are an idea someone has about reality, but not part of reality as a fact until we found them in 2015. The theist is making the claim that the supernatural is real based solely on logical arguments. That’s not enough for people like me, based on the magnitude of the claim they are making. I need the test to be ran. I say, “magnitude of the claim” because if all theists were making was the claim that Jesus was a guy like Plato, just a man talking good and bad ideas, I’d believe them. But they are not. They are making the equivalent of suggesting magic actually exists. That requires a lot of overwhelming evidence to make that belief shift from non-belief to belief for me.

As to logical arguments of this reality working in a reality very different from ours, I don’t know if that follows. How does the logical conclusion of, Every event must have a cause, work in a reality where time does not exist? Where existence for negative time is part of that reality. I can’t wrap my head around how something can exist in negative time. So I’m fine with logical arguments for this reality, but I don’t know if they work in that reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

I’ll try one more time;

Until an argument is successfully made with valid and sound premises, the starting point is “undefined” or “uncertainty”. Nothing, nothing gets the privilege of being assumed as true.

Very similarly, when performing hypothesis testing with mathematical models, this is illustrated with “null” hypotheses generally being “zero” or some marker that represents nothing more than the rejection of the hypotheses you are testing for.

-Let’s roll this over to “god(s)”-

The person who believes “there is a god” makes a claim that invites testing and critique - just like any claim does. Similarly, the person who believes “there is no god” makes, in that regard, an identical claim. “There is no god” doesn’t get to be “right by default”.

I believe you misread my previous posts about what atheism is. It is a statement of not believing what someone else is presenting. For example: Theists are presenting a belief in C by logical argument of A + B = C. The atheist does not follow that logic argument and, by default, is not convinced (ie does not believe) that C is the result of that argument. Are they making a claim about C at all? No, no they are not. There is a difference between, “I don’t believe your claim about C is justified.” and “I claim that C does not exist.” It sounds like you are making this mistake here where you believe that atheists are making the positive claim that “C does not exist.” They are not making a statement about C at all, only about a the flaws in the arguments that theists are putting forth for their reasons to believe C exists.

However, if the atheist is preferencing a positive statement of “I believe C does not exists based on the flawed logical arguments of the theist and about all the identities that theists prescribe to that deity.” then that is a contingental positive statement. There still may actually be deities in reality, just that the atheists does not believe that theistic deity exists. But that may be due to deist’s label for person X being great and atheist’s label of person X is not great means that person X from the point of view of the atheist does not exists because they don’t believe person X is great. Now we’re getting into the idea does the right label of something negate the existence of something which is a waste of energy for me to want to talk about.

 

[STT]

I believe you misread my previous posts about what atheism is. It is a statement of not believing what someone else is presenting. For example: Theists are presenting a belief in C by logical argument of A + B = C. The atheist does not follow that logic argument and, by default, is not convinced (ie does not believe) that C is the result of that argument. Are they making a claim about C at all? No, no they are not. There is a difference between, “I don’t believe your claim about C is justified.” and “I claim that C does not exist.” It sounds like you are making this mistake here where you believe that atheists are making the positive claim that “C does not exist.” They are not making a statement about C at all, only about a the flaws in the arguments that theists are putting forth for their reasons to believe C exists…

I don’t understand you. Are you saying that you don’t believe in logic?

 

[Vonsalza]

I believe you misread my previous posts about what atheism is.

No, I didn’t.

If your religious claim is anything other than “undefined” or “uncertain”, you’ve made a claim - even if you want to deny that in attempted avoidance of the obvious responsibility of proofing that you and I know an atheist cannot meet. Any qualifiers about “how sure you are” are lamely irrelevant.

The word “atheist” is formed by the negation of the Greek “theos”. Ergo, it is “no-‘theos’”, or “no-god”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The atheist cannot encounter God because he refuses to allow that anything non-physical can be proven to exist. But since the definition of God is Spirit, naturally he is not going to find any evidence. He is not even going to look for evidence. He waits for the theist to prove it, knowing full well the theist can never prove it to his satisfaction. Yet he continues to visit Catholic Answers looking for an answer.

There’s a Catch 22 there somewhere.

 

[Bradski]

That some things occur naturally does not discount a creator.

How do you differentiate between things that occur naturally and those that do not?

 

[Russell_SA]

No, I didn’t.

If your religious claim is anything other than “undefined” or “uncertain”, you’ve made a claim - even if you want to deny that in attempted avoidance of the obvious responsibility of proofing that you and I know an atheist cannot meet. Any qualifiers about “how sure you are” are lamely irrelevant.

The word “atheist” is formed by the negation of the Greek “theos”. Ergo, it is “no-‘theos’”, or “no-god”.

We appear to be discussing two separate things and even after I’ve described how I understand the label to be applied, you reject my label and still use your own. This is not going to work because it’s two people talking about two different things. If you reject what I am describing then we are at an impasse.

I understand the situation as this:
Atheism and deism are about belief claims, about what people are convinced of, not what they claim to know. So if you met bob yesterday and then told me you met bob yesterday and I don’t believe you based on our conversation, then I would be an a-bobist according to you. You actually know that to be the case, but I don’t. But based on your bad arguments I don’t have a choice but to not believe you. There is no middle ground between “I am convinced.” and “I am not convinced.” because those are belief claims. I can be convinced about certain aspects of your claim, like that you probably did meet someone that was bob-like.

The statement of “I am not sure if that case is possible or not” is a knowledge claim. To claim to know if that actually is the case or not. Gnosticism vs Agnosticism.

 

[Russell_SA]

The atheist cannot encounter God because he refuses to allow that anything non-physical can be proven to exist. But since the definition of God is Spirit, naturally he is not going to find any evidence. He is not even going to look for evidence. He waits for the theist to prove it, knowing full well the theist can never prove it to his satisfaction. Yet he continues to visit Catholic Answers looking for an answer.

There’s a Catch 22 there somewhere.

According to christian mythology, the devil was presented with enough information to not just be convinced of the deity’s existence but to actually know the deity exists and then choose to have a relationship with it or not. Why can’t this standard of evidence be enough for everyone and then let them decide whether or not to have a bro-mance with it? Hard to have a relationship with someone that doesn’t want to be found.