Hello all, I'm new today. I recently joined the 'official blog' of the show, "The Atheist Experience". I was very disappointed. The entire blog seemed to be dominated by 4-5 individuals who were very immature. So I decided to look for better pastures. This is the first one recommend by that infamous search engine we all use. This site seems to have a huge subscription so I'm sure I will not have the same trouble here.
I am pleased to meet you all :) I have recently had a change of view. I have been an atheist for many years until a few days ago, as a matter of fact. I now consider myself an anti-theist. I would like to share with you all something I wrote in the middle of the night to formulate my new view ( I could not get to sleep until I did ). I would appreciate your thoughts on it and any counter arguments.
I will say now, I will not be responding to any obvious ad hominems, or comments that most people would regard as absurd, or infantile. I will also apologize now, for any grammatical errors I make in future comments. Whilst I may make them form time to time ( lack of patience ) it will be obvious to an educated reader what is meant. Thank you for your time.
God is Nothing
Atheist: An irrational position.
If we say, we do not believe the evidence given for the existence of a supernatural god, we are assuming the presupposition that the evidence can exist, but we have not yet been given it.
The only rational evidence that we can accept for the existence of a supernatural god would have to be evaluated under the conditions of natural science. Observation, measurement and testable experimentation.
Under those conditions, any evidence that would be accepted, is, by definition, natural. Not supernatural. Therefore, to expect natural evidence for the supernatural is irrational.
The only rational position would be anti-theism.
Nothing or no thing, can not be proven to exist in nature. We can not have evidence for it. Any evidence given would make it something. Therefore, In the same way nothing, cannot be proved to exist in nature, a supernatural god cannot be proved to exist in nature.
The concept of god and nothing are the same. Both concepts are described by the same conditions.
Therefore, god is nothing.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Welcome to AR shiningone!
As far as a god goes, I apply xenoview's razor to the claim.
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence
@ shiningone
First of all, welcome to our little corner of the WWW Hell. It is a nice 15,723°C. Just ask any theist. C'mon in and dive into this cesspool we call home. Be warned, it is "at your own risk."
Second, I am four things: agnostic, atheist, anti-theist, and anti-religionist. I'll discuss why later. Let's get into your discussion. And I am going to ad hominem all over it. ;-P
For me, nothing irrational about my position. I am atheist because I was born atheist, and it was rationality that has kept me atheist all my life. ALL 1,816,225,865 seconds (0.000 000 250 400 627 716 01 galactic years) as of 14:49:00 UTC today's date of Friday 01 February 2019.
Actually, I am not assuming the presupposition that evidence for any deity may exist. I actually hold it to be true that there actually MAY be evidence of a deity. We just ain't found it yet.
True. Still making me an atheist.
True. However, evidence for the supernatural MAY exist. Again, we just ain't found it yet. As I have said, and I quote myself: “Even if your god exists outside of space and time, and interaction it has with this realm would leave evidence. Where is that evidence?” Just for fun, substitute "your god" with "supernatural forces."
Not necessarily. I could be atheist without being anti-theist. See below.
Not entirely true. A supernatural god just MAY exist. Just no evidence yet. To make the statement "god cannot be proved to exist" puts the burden of proof in your hands to "prove it." Also see below.
The concept of god and nothing are NOT the same. The concept of god, especially in Christianity and Islam, is of a supernatural entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent and is the creator of this universe. The concept of nothing would be the exact opposite of this. This also refutes the concepts being described by the same conditions, which they are NOT. Just by definition, having a concept of anything is something, NOT nothing. Think Critically about it.
OK. Here is what I am. Please realize the below are MY definitions. They may or may not be accepted by others.
There you have it. I am all four of these things. Yet, never in any one do I have the "burden of proof."
rmfr
You are contradicting yourself.
“The only rational evidence that we can accept for the existence of a supernatural god would have to be evaluated under the conditions of natural science. Observation, measurement and testable experimentation.”
"True"
“Under those conditions, any evidence that would be accepted, is, by definition, natural. Not supernatural. Therefore, to expect natural evidence for the supernatural is irrational.”
"True"....."However, evidence for the supernatural MAY exist." ...contradiction. You can not have two opposing views held at the same time.
Evidence for the supernatural CANNOT exist. If we could test it, it becomes NATURAL.
@ shiningone
No contradiction. Reread. Notice the key word.
rmfr
If you mean, "MAY" then that is why it's irrational. A god, MAY, exist but no one can prove it, because we have to test it by the scientific process. Which immediately makes it natural, not supernatural.
You are making the same mistakes theist do. We live in a world that the ONLY way we know of to determine what is real or not, is the scientific method. This is why we use it to refute claims of god. Theists say, but there MAY be another way to prove it that we just don't know about yet. That is an argument from ignorance.
@ shiningone
Got it. You just do not or cannot understand what I wrote. I guarantee everyone else here can.
rmfr
@ shiningone
Perhaps this will help explain why I said that evidence of the supernatural MAY exist.
Arakish: “You cannot prove God does not exist; therefore, God exists.”
Arakish: “You cannot prove God does exist; therefore, God does not exist.”
I shall be the first to admit that I do NOT believe that any deity exists. However, I shall be first to admit that the probability, although exceptionally low, that a deity may exist.
You have to remember one thing. The claim of a god existing is unfalsifiable. Since it is unfalsifiable, all we can do is to treat it as The God Hypothesis and calculate the probability that a god may exist. My calculations of such existing are prohibitively low.
As I said in many other posts, “Even if your deity exists outside of time and space (supernatural), any interaction with this realm shall leave evidence. Where is that evidence?”
The main point I was trying to make is as soon as you say something like "god does not exist" or "god is nothing," the Burden of Proof becomes yours to prove that claim. For me to say that I do NOT believe the preposterous claims of theists that a god exists, the Burden of Proof is theirs to prove their preposterous claims. And being a scientist, I shall except nothing less than OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Otherwise, I summarily dismiss ALL of their preposterous claims. However, I also admit that the possibility of a god existing is contingent.
Understand now?
rmfr
@ arakish
God does not exist, because we have no way of proving one exists. That, is my Burden of Proof.
@ shiningone
And where is your OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that god does not exist?
rmfr
@ arakish
"And where is your OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that god does not exist?"
Because the method we use to investigate it, excludes it. It is impossible to prove one does exist.
@ shiningone
You also cannot prove it does not exist.
rmfr
@ arakish
"You also cannot prove it does not exist."
I just did. If something is IMPOSSIBLE to prove it exists, it DOES NOT EXIST.
" If something is IMPOSSIBLE to prove it exists, it DOES NOT EXIST."
You surely must see the circular fallacy you just created?
Ok, If something does not exist, it does not exist. Better?
How is that any less circular? It still tells us nothing. There are only two possibilities that something exists or does not, they are logical negations of each other. We cannot know one and not the other, we either know both or neither. So is it impossible for us to know either then we must remain agnostic, but this does not mean have to believe a claim just because it cannot be falsified.
I am an atheist, and when the claim is unfalsifiable and demands it, I am also an agnostic.
To claim something is disproved because it cannot be evidenced is a text book example of the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, and since nothing can be asserted as rationally true if it contains known logical fallacies, that position is irrational by definition. We can disbelieve something because it is unevidenced, indeed I would and have argued that we should disbelieve unevidenced claims, but we cannot rationally assert it is disproved, as you did.
The trouble with discussing things that have no properties is very troublesome. The whole concept is circular in nature. If you start debating individual points in a circular argument, you end up being circular. It is a puzzle for the mind, without an exit.
What we are talking about here, is belief. Belief is not based on objective reality. It is an opinion. As such, any discussion for it's validity is based on opinion. It has NO bases in reality.
Opinion states a concept of a god or the supernatural exists. Objective reality states, that is not true, it is just an opinion.
Your have two choices. Have an opinion on that concept, or agree with objective reality and say that opinion is not real.
I don't think I can make my point any clearer.
You made claims to knowledge, this is different from a belief position, and you seem to be confusing the two here again. A belief can of course be subjective, but this need not necessarily be the case. I believe the assertion the world is not flat, is correct, don't you? How is that not an objective fact, and a belief I hold?
"Belief is not based on objective reality. "
Again you're making incorrect generalisations, and mixing up faith based beliefs with beliefs that are objectively valid because they are based on sufficient objective evidence. Again I must say your thinking and reasoning here is what I encounter most often from theists.
belief
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Please note the caveat at the end is not a necessary condition of belief, even in the commonly understood or dictionary definition.
"Opinion states a concept of a god or the supernatural exists. Objective reality states, that is not true, it is just an opinion."
Not at all, and I couldn't have been clearer here, you can disbelieve the assertion that a deity exists because no objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, but if you claim it is not true you are incurring a burden of proof as well. This is fine if the deity or claim for a deity is defined in such a way as to be falsifiable and can demonstrated to be objectively or even rationally false, but not in a general sense where the deity is an unfalsifiable concept. Again I would remain agnostic on such a claim, but disbelieve it as it is not properly or objectively evidenced.
"I don't think I can make my point any clearer."
Your point is perfectly clear, it also epistemologically and rationally incorrect. Something is not proved false because it has not been proved correct, and conversely something is not proved correct because it has not been proved false, this once again i s a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. have you look up the term? Do you understand what fallacies in informal logic are, and what it means when they are used in an argument or assertion?
Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rationally true or valid.
So to claim the existence of a deity is disproved because it has not been proved, as you did earlier, is just as irrational as theists claiming a deity exists because it cannot be disproved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate"
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
I urge you to read that last link if you do nothing else.
@ Sheldon
Damn, I was hoping you were going to be the clever one.
"You made claims to knowledge, this is different from a belief position, and you seem to be confusing the two here again. A belief can of course be subjective, but this need not necessarily be the case. I believe the assertion the world is not flat, is correct, don't you? How is that not an objective fact, and a belief I hold?"
I am not the one confusing the two, you are. A belief IS subjective. The statement "I believe the assertion the world is not flat, is correct, don't you?"
NO, I don't. I don't BELIEVE the earth is flat, I UNDERSTAND the world is flat, based on scientific knowledge. The fact that the earth is flat, IS an objective fact. I can BELIEVE the world is flat, but that is based on opinion, not fact.
You are confused what 'belief' means.
"Please note the caveat at the end is not a necessary condition of belief, even in the commonly understood or dictionary definition."
Please note that NO WHERE in that definition is there ANYTHING in relation to, objective reality, reason or logic. It DOES however mention "without proof", conditioned or not.
"Not at all, and I couldn't have been clearer here, you can disbelieve the assertion that a deity exists because no objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, but if you claim it is not true you are incurring a burden of proof as well."
You STILL do not fully understand the concept of belief. You can believe without evidence, you can dis-believe without evidence. Rationality is about facts. A + B = AB is a fact. We don't need to 'believe' it, or dis-believe it. We UNDERSTAND it.
Belief is an opinion. Dis-belief is an opinion.
We can not, prove, or disprove, opinions. There is NOTHING logical about opinions.
"So to claim the existence of a deity is disproved because it has not been proved, as you did earlier, is just as irrational as theists claiming a deity exists because it cannot be disproved."
Deities do NOT exist. Saying anything about them is irrational. It does not matter if you claim to be able to prove them or not prove them. It is irrational to say ANYTHING about them.
Let me try it this way.
I claim, Blarb exists. Now, do you believe in Blarb or dis-believe in Blarb? I do not believe in Blarb. But if you can come up with something that makes me believe in Blarb I will ignore my understanding of reality and believe in Blarb.
"Damn, I was hoping you were going to be the clever one."
I see you're broadening your use of logical fallacies, this is one is called an ad hominem fallacy. I am a reasonably patient man, but I am introducing a new rule, you get one warning to desist or I will respond in kind.
------------------------------
Beliefs can be subjective, but need not necessarily be subjective, as the definition shows. I'm not sure why you think you can roll past that fact with your disjointed rant and endless assertions, but here is the definition again:
belief
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, ***especially**** one without proof.
NB note I have placed the word especially in asterisks for you, to illustrate it is not a ***necessary*** condition for belief. I'm not sure whether you ignored it deliberately, or whether your command of language is really this poor?
------------------------------------------------
"Rationality is about facts"
Rationality is reasoning that is in accordance with logic. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. I also find it ironic you still try to give sententious lecture in logic, yet are using known logical fallacies in just about every post.
Again I urge you to use this link, logic is reasoning based on strict principles of validation, and one of the key principles is that nothing that contains known logical fallacies can be asserted as rationally true. You keep using some fairly common ones, and part of your problem is the sheer intransigent hubris in your claims. Many common logical fallacies have been known and understood since ancient Greece, it's not like I'm offering a subjective opinion here.
"15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate"
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
--------------------------------------------------------
"We can not, prove, or disprove, opinions."
Of course we can, if the opinion is falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Deities do NOT exist. Saying anything about them is irrational."
I'm going to pause a moment to see if you see the hilarity of that claim without it being pointed out.
---------------------------------------------------------
"I claim, Blarb exists. Now, do you believe in Blarb or dis-believe in Blarb? I do not believe in Blarb. But if you can come up with something that makes me believe in Blarb I will ignore my understanding of reality and believe in Blarb."
You haven't defined what you mean by Blarb, or offered any evidence to support the assertion it exists, so I have to disbelieve it, but I can make no assertion about it at all, and that includes the assertion that it does not exist obviously, since I know nothing about it beyond the name you have assigned. For all I know Blarb is the name of your pet dog, and were I to deny it's existence i would appear pretty foolish.
As I said you seem very confused, and seem ignorant of some basic concepts like philosophical epistemology, logic - specifically common logical fallacies, where the burden of proof lies, and you really ought to learn accurate word definitions before making hubristic claims that are contradicted by those definitions.
You cannot make assertions based on ignorance, or claim something is disproved because it has not been evidenced, as this is the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies. Please do read the link this time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
shiningone: "A + B = AB is a fact."
Not shining very brightly now are we?
A + B ≠ AB
Assign A = 3; B = 4.
Thus we get A + B = 7.
And AB = 12.
rmfr
@shiningone Re: "Rationality is about facts. A + B = AB is a fact."
ROFLMAO..... And you called ME confused???..... ROFLMAO.... *trying to catch breath*.... *sudden surprised look on face*... uh-oh... *looking down at crotch*... I think I just peed myself a little bit.... ROFLMAO.....
@ Tin-Man
Now you know why I put on a Depends before I read these boards...
rmfr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbqYOGx8Cuw
LMAOWF
And that is another way to solve it.
rmfr
Thanks, David. But do you have any suggestions for rust stains/removal?
I regret to inform you that in your case, more stringent methods must be applied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mbAgLEEKtg
@ shiningone
Not proof. An assertion. You still have not proven it does exist.
rmfr
shiningone: "A + B = AB is a fact."
I was trying to check multiple possibilities for a typo, but turns out there can't be any.
This must be added as the "math question" we get when we try to post something.
@ Rickdiculous
I re-read the entire post several times. Even focused on that paragraph and kept wondering the same thing. But, like you, I finally knew there could have been NO typo error of any kind.
And I am still laughing my ass off.
rmfr
"It is impossible to prove one does exist"
And equally impossible to prove it does not. Like Arakish I'm not sure Why you're struggling to grasp what unfalsifiable means.
In science the term "not even wrong" if often used to describe unfalsifiable claims. This is because falsifying any premise expands our understanding of the universe. We can learn nothing from a claim that is unfalsifiable, hence it is "not even wrong".
Pages