Why I'm an atheist.

[Coloradomtnman]

Person's attempting to claim logic as a foundation to their argument that a deity does or does not exist might want to have a bit of a grip on logic before doing so.

Propositional logic:

Given: There is no objective information/data/study indicating the existence of God or refuting the existence of God.

Definition: Beliefs (faith) are the set of ideas for which there is no proof/supporting information.

Any idea about a deity’s existence or lack of existence is a belief.

Atheism harbors no beliefs about a deity.

Ergo, atheism neither denies nor affirms the existence of a deity.

Where did you get that definition of the word belief. Something tells me that is not the official, agreed upon definition.

Atheism is, essentially, a rejection of the belief in a higher power for which there is no evidence. We refuse to believe in something for no good reason. And just wanting to is not good enough, especially if religious belief is reflected in people's actions which effect others. In other words, you believe in something for which there is no evidence yet base your life, aka real world shit, on this belief for which there is no support. How does one live a life based on rules and teachings based on the belief of something no one really knows is there or true and whose rules and teachings bear little or no semblance to reality (talking snakes, global floods, miracles, supernatural powers, homosexuality is wrong, etc.)? So that people will have some sort of moral foundation? Tell me, then why do so many Christians not follow "Thou shalt not kill" and go out and join the military or support those boys overseas killin' terrorists. How come for them its "Thou shalt not kill except when you think its okay"? Or why are so many supportive of capital punishment? I'm an atheist and I don't think we should kill people.

By the way, from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1 ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1647
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence &#8212;used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries&#8230;are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world &#8212; Marvin Reznikoff> &#8212; compare subjective 3a 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual &#8212; compare subjective 4c 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Main Entry: 1 sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: \(&#716s&#601;b-&#712;jek-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal &#8212; compare objective 1b 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> &#8212; compare objective 1c 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

Unverifiable:
define:unverifiable - Google Search

Unverifiable synonyms:
unverifiable - definition of unverifiable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Unverifiable and subjective mean different things, but are synonyms.

 

[Si modo]

An acuaintance who calls himself a logical atheist proposed the proof I posted above. A few of us were in a discussion of what atheism is. Many went by the definition - there is no God. He disputed that definition by presenting his logical proof using propositional logic. His reasoning is sound. So, we continued with one school of atheists claiming they gave God no consideration whatsoever and another group who denied His existence but vehemently claimed that atheism is not a belief. However, as there is no supporting evidence of a deity's existence or any refuting a deity's existence, any claims that God does not exist, is a belief. Thus, atheists believe that there is no deity.

It's an interesting puzzle. I have no interest in it but for that reason.

 

[John Lemmon]

Atheist might "believe" that there's no god, but only because logically, there's lack of proof of a god. It's not the word believe, but what you believe in, as in, atheists don't believe in a god because of lack of proof, whereas religionites believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension even in the absence of proof. One side is logical, one side is not. Guess which is which?

 

[Si modo]

Atheist might "believe" that there's no god, but only because logically, there's lack of proof of a god. It's not the word believe, but what you believe in, as in, atheists don't believe in a god because of lack of proof, whereas religionites believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension even in the absence of proof. One side is logical, one side is not. Guess which is which?

One can deny the existence of God as a fact if they have some sort of data refuting it. I haven't seen any. One can affirm the existence of a God in the same way. I haven't seen any. Any claim about the existence of a god or lack of it must be a belief. That's the logic of which I speak - the hypothesis that atheism is a belief. You are on another hypothesis - the existence of a god. That's illogical arguing a separate hypothesis.

 

[xsited1]

... So, an atheist I remain.

So have you talked to any believers about some of the Gifts of the Spirit? In particular, have you ever witnessed anyone speaking in tongues and talked to the person afterward?

Has gcomeau respond to my post (above)? I don't see it in thread mode, but I do know that when multi-quoting it sometimes doesn't show up directly underneath my original post.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Atheist might "believe" that there's no god, but only because logically, there's lack of proof of a god. It's not the word believe, but what you believe in, as in, atheists don't believe in a god because of lack of proof, whereas religionites believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension even in the absence of proof. One side is logical, one side is not. Guess which is which?

One can deny the existence of God as a fact if they have some sort of data refuting it. I haven't seen any. One can affirm the existence of a God in the same way. I haven't seen any. Any claim about the existence of a god or lack of it must be a belief. That's the logic of which I speak - the hypothesis that atheism is a belief. You are on another hypothesis - the existence of a god. That's illogical arguing a separate hypothesis.

In science one doesn't prove that something doesn't exist. Otherwise there'd be many scientists who'd made a name for themselves proving that fairies, trolls, goblins, the boogeyman, etc. don't exist. Science only puts value on those things which have either been proven as scientific fact, such as evolution, or theories for which there is compelling evidence are accurate.

A rational person doesn't prove God doesn't exist; a rational person just doesn't believe in God until its proven He exists or doesn't believe in God until there is compelling evidence He exists. And then, a rational person only believes in God as much as s/he believes a theory i.e. until there is a breakthrough discovery that determines that the theory of God is inaccurate.

Otherwise, that person is not rational and is, instead, a victim of dogma.

 

[Si modo]

Atheist might "believe" that there's no god, but only because logically, there's lack of proof of a god. It's not the word believe, but what you believe in, as in, atheists don't believe in a god because of lack of proof, whereas religionites believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension even in the absence of proof. One side is logical, one side is not. Guess which is which?

One can deny the existence of God as a fact if they have some sort of data refuting it. I haven't seen any. One can affirm the existence of a God in the same way. I haven't seen any. Any claim about the existence of a god or lack of it must be a belief. That's the logic of which I speak - the hypothesis that atheism is a belief. You are on another hypothesis - the existence of a god. That's illogical arguing a separate hypothesis.

In science one doesn't prove that something doesn't exist. .Otherwise there'd be many scientists who'd made a name for themselves proving that fairies, trolls, goblins, the boogeyman, etc. don't exist. Science only puts value on those things which have either been proven as scientific fact, such as evolution, or theories for which there is compelling evidence are accurate.

A rational person doesn't prove God doesn't exist; a rational person just doesn't believe in God until its proven He exists or doesn't believe in God until there is compelling evidence He exists. And then, a rational person only believes in God as much as s/he believes a theory i.e. until there is a breakthrough discovery that determines that the theory of God is inaccurate.

Otherwise, that person is not rational and is, instead, a victim of dogma.

Actually, science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

CR Quote

Karl Popper on logic of falsification


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The falsifying mode of inference here referred to -- the way in which the falsification of a conclusion entails the falsification of the system from which it is derived -- is the modus tollens of classical logic. It may be described as follows:
Let p be a conclusion of a system t of statements which may consist of theories and initial conditions (for the sake of simplicity I will not distinguish between them). We may then symbolize the relation of derivability (analytical implication) of p from t by 't -> p' which may be read 'p follows from t'. Assume p to be false, which we may write '~p', to be read 'not-p'. Given the relation of deducibility, t -> p, and the assumption ~p, we can then infer ~t (read not-t); that is, we regard t as falsified. If we denote the conjunction (simultaneous assertion) of two statements by putting a point between the symbols standing for them, we may also write the falsifying inference thus: ((t->p)•~p)->~t, or in words: 'If p is derivable from t, and if p is false, then t also is false'

By means of this mode of inference we falsify the whole system (the theory as well as the initial conditions) which was required for the deduction of the statement p, i.e. of the falsified statement. Thus it cannot be asserted of any one statement of the system that it is, or is not, specifically upset by the falsification. Only if p is independent of some part of the system can we say that this part is not involved in the falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Actually, science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

...edited for space...

By means of this mode of inference we falsify the whole system (the theory as well as the initial conditions) which was required for the deduction of the statement p, i.e. of the falsified statement. Thus it cannot be asserted of any one statement of the system that it is, or is not, specifically upset by the falsification. Only if p is independent of some part of the system can we say that this part is not involved in the falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Nonetheless, my statement remains rational.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

...edited for space...

.... By means of this mode of inference we falsify the whole system (the theory as well as the initial conditions) which was required for the deduction of the statement p, i.e. of the falsified statement. Thus it cannot be asserted of any one statement of the system that it is, or is not, specifically upset by the falsification. Only if p is independent of some part of the system can we say that this part is not involved in the falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Nonetheless, my statement remains rational.

Perhaps.

However, it does nothing to address my hypothesis - atheism (considering the definition that atheists deny God's existence) is a belief. Either that definition is wrong and atheism has no opinion one way or the other about the existence of a deity, that would be a belief; or atheism is based on a belief, a belief in the nonexistence of a deity.

 

[eagleseven]

A rational person doesn't prove God doesn't exist; a rational person just doesn't believe in God until its proven He exists or doesn't believe in God until there is compelling evidence He exists. And then, a rational person only believes in God as much as s/he believes a theory i.e. until there is a breakthrough discovery that determines that the theory of God is inaccurate.

Otherwise, that person is not rational and is, instead, a victim of dogma.

I'd like to meet this rational person of yours. Then I'd like to see how he cut up his brain to become so rational.

 

[Si modo]

A rational person doesn't prove God doesn't exist; a rational person just doesn't believe in God until its proven He exists or doesn't believe in God until there is compelling evidence He exists. And then, a rational person only believes in God as much as s/he believes a theory i.e. until there is a breakthrough discovery that determines that the theory of God is inaccurate.

Otherwise, that person is not rational and is, instead, a victim of dogma.

I'd like to meet this rational person of yours. Then I'd like to see how he cut up his brain to become so rational.

Indeed.

It always fascinates me when some atheists try to use a logical argument to convince a believer that God does not exist. Beliefs are not always subject to logic. An idea with no objective data supporting it or refuting it is not based in logic. Another aspect of this is their idea to convince. I know of a lot of believers who do the same, although they don't hesitate to admit to it.

It's all quite fascinating - the puzzle I presented, their lack of tolerance with believers, and the contradictory rhetoric.

 

[KittenKoder]

I wonder, did gravity not exist before we had proof of it?

 

[Si modo]

I wonder, did gravity not exist before we had proof of it?

More pot stirring with a reasonable question. Cool.

 

[KittenKoder]

I wonder, did gravity not exist before we had proof of it?

More pot stirring with a reasonable question. Cool.

The point was, what is proof? There are lots of different definitions of it, most of history has proof that isn't scientific, anthropology is often referred to as more art than science, and for good reason. When there is an absence of proof, as people call it, that doesn't mean there isn't something to prove it that we have yet found. As I say, we barely know anything about the universe, even if you take everything we know and have forgotten as a species and put it in a ball, it compares to a speck when measured against the universe and all of existence. Hell, our universe is most likely not even the only one and the laws we do know only apply to what we can detect within our universe. Not believing in one particular "flavor" of supreme being is fine, but simply saying "it's not possible because we have no proof" is like saying gravity doesn't exist before we had the math to express it.

 

[Si modo]

I wonder, did gravity not exist before we had proof of it?

More pot stirring with a reasonable question. Cool.

The point was, what is proof? There are lots of different definitions of it, most of history has proof that isn't scientific, anthropology is often referred to as more art than science, and for good reason. When there is an absence of proof, as people call it, that doesn't mean there isn't something to prove it that we have yet found. As I say, we barely know anything about the universe, even if you take everything we know and have forgotten as a species and put it in a ball, it compares to a speck when measured against the universe and all of existence. Hell, our universe is most likely not even the only one and the laws we do know only apply to what we can detect within our universe. Not believing in one particular "flavor" of supreme being is fine, but simply saying "it's not possible because we have no proof" is like saying gravity doesn't exist before we had the math to express it.

And it's a good point. One that Popper also addresses in his work on the logic of scientific discovery. What is proof, indeed? So, we falsify. It has worked well both in conserving quality of scientific knowledge and in expanding it for some time, now.

 

[jeffrockit]

Why do you care what others believe?

I have a better question. Why do people keep asking me why I want to discuss issues of religious belief IN A RELIGION FORUM? I would think every person here cares what others believe. Otherwise, why exactly are you here in the first place?

And I care what others believe because beliefs shape actions, and other's actions effect me.

Hypothetical question:

If you see the Sun, you feel the rays of the Sun on you, you see the effects of the sun on your skin and on others, and do so consistancy day in and day out, do you:

1) Think the sun exists
2) Believe the sun exists
3) Suspect the sun exists, and/or
4) Know the sun exists?

You know it with as close to 100% certainty as you can be rationally expected to achieve. Yes, it could be some kind of hallucination, but if it is it appears to be shared by everyone. And the hallucination encompasses hallucinating mechanical sensory measurements of the phenomena. And it's a hallucination of a mundane and perfectly natural process there's no particular reason to doubt is occuring... all of which argue against it being one.

So basically, barring my being plugged into the Matrix or something yes, I know the sun exists.

And if it's unverifiable, there is no supporting data to verify it or to refute it. With that condition, there is only belief, not belief, or lack of any considertion.

Uh-huh... and THE BELIEFS ABOUT God's existence would be subjective. Matters of purely personal perspective.

The CLAIM "God Exists" itself is NOT subjective. Unless the claim was "God Exists only in the mind" making God a subjective phenomena in the claim. But that isn't what I said, now is it? Is it what you're saying? I really don't think it is, but if you are arguing God is a purely mental construct with no real existence outside your own mind then by all means speak up and say so and THEN I'll gladly grant you that that makes "God exists" a subjective statement.

Unless that's what you're about to do however, let me repeat... "unverifiable" and "subjective" are not synonyms. A claim being unverifiable does not automatically render it subjective. Subjective claims tend to be unverifiable, but that doesn't mean all unverifiable claims are subjective claims. So stop telling me that the claim "God Exists" is subjective just because it's unverifiable.

And I would be fascinated if you could find a single atheist anywhere on the planet who WOULDN'T say "no, I don't think God exists." considering that not thinking god exists is practically the definition of atheism.

you are not discussing, only giving your opinion and making snide comments about other's beliefs. As soon as the old standby argument comparing God to Santa and the Easter Bunny comes out, it wrecks your wanting to debate premise.

 

[JW Frogen]

I wonder, did gravity not exist before we had proof of it

That would be a yes from Icarus.

 

[JW Frogen]

By the way I can't prove it but I have actually experienced Fly Spaghetti Monsters.

They serve great booze on Air Italia.

 

[REVxERIK]

Well, apparently my little story has failed to attract any interest in discussion...

Maybe if I changed it to a couple line entry that said something intentionally derogatory and provocative I could generate more traffic... hmmm...

it is your belief and you've provided legitimate reasoning. not much to discuss.

 

[Dis]

Well, apparently my little story has failed to attract any interest in discussion...

Maybe if I changed it to a couple line entry that said something intentionally derogatory and provocative I could generate more traffic... hmmm...

it is your belief and you've provided legitimate reasoning. not much to discuss.

So, then...your reasoning for the three previous pages of discussion would be what, exact.y?

There's always more to discuss.