Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I understand well shiningone.
As I mentioned initially. We do not presently live in absolutes. Because of this, we can not discount possibility. (or argue it). Despite the strength of any present P value.
We can't defend reality without all the data sets.
@ doG
As I said, I am not arguing future possibilities. My argument is that, as reality stands now, and our understanding of it, the position held of atheism, is irrational.
We are essential saying, I am going to evaluate everything, based on science, but show me something else, that I can only evaluate on science.
That is an irrational position, that says, my method of evaluation is irrational.
Until such time, we have an alternative method of determining reality, the only rational position would be, a supernatural god is irrational, and can not be proven.
"As I said, I am not arguing future possibilities. My argument is that, as reality stands now, and our understanding of it, the position held of atheism, is irrational."
You can not negate possibility from the equations within the search for truth. I think this is where you fail to understand my point. All possibilities have to be included irrelevant of temporal position in time. Past, present and future are integral in definition of absolute truth or any truth for that matter...whether it is defining reality, religious tenets or optimal baby feeding times...possibility has to be included, otherwise truth can not be achieved.
This invalidates your position.
Besides, your assertion that we only use science to form beliefs is wrong, and absurd. we also use reason to come to form optimal choice. I never once conducted a formal scientific study to find optimal feeding times for our child. I used all possibilities from past, present and future in the equation...Using reason, we found one. Albeit individually specific and not absolute, but one that satisfied our question. When you are confronted with a question that scientific method can not answer, logic and reason step in to complete the search.
Excuse me folks for supporting the open door for theists to put their foot in...but fair is fair.
Don't look now, but you are being a THEIST. You are not only keeping the door open you are defending their irrational position.
God exists because at some point in the future we will be able to prove it! What a crock of fucking shit.
"Besides, your assertion that we only use science to form beliefs is wrong, and absurd."
I have no idea where you think you got this assertion from? We use science to OPPOSE beliefs and non beliefs.
"When you are confronted with a question that scientific method can not answer, logic and reason step in to complete the search."
What the fuck do you think logic is? It is a SCIENCE !
I thought you were smart to begin with. Seems you have no idea what you are talking about.
Ok...thanks for the insult.
I am not going to insult you.
I never mentioned god. I am talking about process.
Cosmology is a good example. At one point our galaxy was all we knew. The Andromeda galaxy did not exist to us at that time. However, It did exist in reality, we just did not know. So, there is unobserved reality, the possibility of which I have just explained. What can we say about unobserved reality? It is unobserved and so anything we presently say of it, would be unsubstantiated assertions, and based on pure assumption or faith, and would not measure up to scrutiny. Sounds familiar. It does not mean, it is not a reality. By discounting possibility, no matter how unlikely, no matter how strong the P value against is, it does not negate reality. For this reason, we have to acknowledge the possibility of other parts of our reality, that are unobserved due to our incomplete knowledge base.
So, is truth really what we can prove by, observation, measurement, and testing by experimentation?
My insult was not at 'you', it was at the comment you made. It is just an expression of exclamation. If it 'hurt' you, I apologise.
"I never mentioned god. I am talking about process."
We seem to be going around in circles here.
For the 'third' time, I am not disagreeing with future possibilities ( your 'process' ). I, WAS, talking about god or the supernatural, and the FACT that we can NOT observe it, measure it, or test it.
Maybe the simplicity of it is escaping you.
Take the word apple. Apple means apple. We all agree that the object is an apple. We know all the different parts of the apple. If someone shows us pips, we know they are part of the apple.
What an atheist position is saying is, show me a part of the apple that is not part of the apple. It does not matter if at some point in the future an apple changes into something else. An apple is an apple in our reality.
An anti-theist position is saying, it does not matter what you show me, it can never be part of this apple.
VERSUS
For someone guilty of it themself, do not even try to go there...
rmfr
Your right, I hold my hands up. That was wrong. I'm only human, I get frustrated to sometimes.
You’re certainly not alone in that.
Apple does not mean apple. "Apple" can not be eaten, smelled, tasted, or sate your appetite." "apple" on the other hand, can" Words are symbolic representations of the world around us and their meaning is based on "usage" and "agreement." If you want the word "supernatural to have usage and agreement you must define it so we can all use it and agree on its meaning....... well?
The Atheist is asking you to define your apple so that we can all understand it and use it. Failing to do that, there is no reason at all to believe what you are talking about is actually an apple.
The Antitheist - is looking at your definition and saying they can prove your definition wrong. Your idea of "apple" does not exist. Everything is contingent on what it is you are calling apple. How are you using the word and what does it mean to you.
Hi Cognostic, welcome to the debate.
"Apple does not mean apple. "Apple" can not be eaten, smelled, tasted, or sate your appetite." "apple" on the other hand, can" Words are symbolic representations of the world around us and their meaning is based on "usage" and "agreement." If you want the word "supernatural to have usage and agreement you must define it so we can all use it and agree on its meaning....... well?"
Your argument is academic. We agree that the word apple is used symbolically to mean, a physical apple we can eat. The word supernatural means, (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"The Atheist is asking you to define your apple so that we can all understand it and use it. Failing to do that, there is no reason at all to believe what you are talking about is actually an apple."
The atheist is not asking you to define the apple, rationalism defines the apple. Theist's are saying there is a part of the apple that is beyond the rational understanding of what apple means. Atheists are saying, I don't agree with your conclusion about the irrational part of the apple, the irrational part of the apple means something else.
"The anti-theist is looking at your definition and saying they can prove your definition wrong. Your idea of "apple" does not exist."
The anti-theist is saying, this apple exists and I can prove what makes it an apple. Your opinion of what this apple is, does not exist.
LOL...your insult did not hurt me. I have thick skin. I was just pointing out change in the discussion. Usually when people resort to insults, the discussion tends to degrade...I did not want that to happen.
Thank you for the clarification, however, I understood your point well.
"An apple is an apple in our reality."
A theist, or quantum physicist, would say..."We can not truly state this, because we have yet to define our reality." This position is valid. We can not presently state that supernatural events/things are not part of our reality. Therefore It is irrational to believe that what is now considered natural is a constant. It follows that it is presently rational to believe in the supernatural and thus a god as possibility within our reality. The fact that we have no absolute definition of reality, makes anti-theist presuppositions false. Stating that reality is our present default, that it is unchangeable and that it is devoid of possibility of the supernatural, is incorrect.
"An anti-theist position is saying, it does not matter what you show me, it can never be part of this apple."
Seeing we can't definitely define reality presently, we can't assume absolutes...we can't say that it can never be part of this apple. Reality changes with knowledge and perception, with an incomplete data set we can only measure probability, which does not negate possibility. Same thing...This is why atheism is a rational position...because it includes the present fallibility of human knowledge to absolutely define reality.
Defining something by what is considered natural, when what is considered natural is not immutable, does not make that something's existence change. Our definition of something may or may not be correct. The parameters we use in assessment of something, may or may not be correct. We are not dealing in absolutes. Because of this, god is a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely.
...crickets....
Sorry doG, sifting threw these 'new replies' is awkward. It's easy to miss some.
I agree with what your saying essentially. Since writing the OP, seeing other's view points here, and else where, I realise I was being too pedantic.
Someone from youtube of all places! pointed out that what I was describing about atheists was, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, which is, a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct i.e. "god") is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.
Also, you finished with.."Because of this, god is a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely."
Now, I don't know about you, but if a theist said to me, "God is real, because one day in the future we may be able to prove it." I would say fuck you. So would many other 'atheists", so would Matt Dillahunty on 'The Atheist Experience'. I've seen him do it!
Please explain that !
A fallacy of ambiguity, yes. Sheldon touched on that a week ago...but besides...
"I would say fuck you"
I agree with you...and Matt, and Lawrence who pointed this out originally. We use reason to decide if there is ENOUGH doubt to chuck the premise in the bin. In the case of religion, I would say, fuck the whole lot...definitely enough. But, because we have to presently calculate probability, that means no absolute answer exists, in which, possibility remains. Very unlikely, but there it is. Theists use every possible contortion of reason around this fact, as proof...but it always comes down to proof. They fail. This is why Matt is brilliant, he steer's theists around this truth, (I like Matt).
I am going to construct you a fairytale...I hope you like it.
Once upon a time...(next week), an italian art/antiquities expert and the pope, present a italian masters painting/piece of art to the world, that was forgotten and uncovered in an area of the vatican that was being renovated. It was so significant, that they revealed it, and thousands of previously unknown to the world, testaments of multiple first hand experiences, of people stating that god spoke to them and handed them a green apple, with a star that was glowing from its center.(you started the apple thing...also I eat a green one every morning with my orange pekoe tea.) The art expert described a green apple descending from the hand of god, from heaven, to the waiting hands of a child, which depicted humanity. All described by the artist in a document attached to the back of the painting, in the hand of the well known artist. The pope and the art expert claimed this as proof of god's existence. The media reported this, the religious rejoiced, the world soon forgot this ambiguous evidence. Five years goes by, NASA and General Dynamics have a news release about some technology they have pioneered and have been using to study subatomic particles in vacuum, and as well dark matter reaction to gravity. It's a camera that is able to record subatomic particles in real time. They filmed a persons hand, a microphone and a pen, and on the monitor the particles positions were observed. The presenter asked the reporters if they wanted anything filmed, and a bunch of stuff was handed up to them. The presenter picked up and started filming the first thing, a green apple. Low and behold, the particles formed a glowing star emanating from the apple. At that moment, everyone in the world heard in there head, in their language, a voice saying, "know now, that I god am real. Take this apple as a symbol of my love for you" At which point, shiningone and doG pool their money and go buy multiple green apple orchards in washington state, and lived happily ever after, profiting off religion. LOL.
Point being. The apple (reality), never changed. our knowledge did. You can never say never without absolutes.
Apples from god...apples from god for sale...
I like your story very much and I doubt you will believe me when I tell you why.
Yesterday I wanted to post a new topic on here and I thought of posting one about synchronicity ( I ended up with religion and humour ), as defined by Carl Jung, just to get the opinions of you guys on it. I decided not to, because I thought it would be a waste of time because I felt I knew what you all would say. Basically a nonsense theory and just basic coincidence.
There is another website I view regularly called ZeroHedge, everyday actually, a bit like reading the morning paper. Two or three days ago, there was an article on a new technology that allows audible voices to be beamed by lazer right next to someone's ear. Regardless of external noises. So basically, only the person who this was aimed at would here this voice in his head ( or any audio ).
In the comment section, people were discussing things like crazy people hearing voices, and CIA using this tech years ago, that sort of thing. The point I'm getting to is this. I made a comment. My comment was, I'm paraphrasing here, imagine if they used this technology to beam a voice into the heads of everyone in the world, simultaneously, using their own language, pretending to be god.
How do you like them apples ?
Ya, those MIT nerds have nothing better to do.
Let's do it. But, tell them that the transmission is from a long lost solar system, from a now extinct humanoid species that sent life to multiple planets on directed asteroids several billion years ago.
WoooooYa baby I would totally go to a church that following sunday to gloat.
shiniingone: "What the fuck do you think logic is? It is a SCIENCE !"
Prove it.
Logic is used in science, but it is not a science.
rmfr
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Scientific reasoning (SR), broadly defined, includes the thinking skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, inference and argumentation that are done in the service of conceptual change or scientific understanding.
I think your being a bit pedantic here.
@ shiningone
what is that adage about the pot and kettle?
Neither one is still a science. They are used in science.
rmfr
I apologise if my vulgarity was expressed towards you.
I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thinking? Logic and reasoning has no value ? Like I said, pedantic.
I'm not here to "win one over" on you. I have a zit on my arse, if you want to point that out as a failing on my part?
@ shiningone
What vulgarity? Why apologize? For what reason?
This did not do like a 747. Just that I saw no vulgarity, nor any need to apologize.
I never said logic and reasoning have no value. I simply stated that LOGIC is NOT a science. I said logic is used in science, but it is not a science.
Sorry, I don't know you well enough to go pointing at anything on your arse. ;-P
I know you are not here to "win one over." Neither am I. I was pointing out a fallacious thought. Not to spank, but to correct. Logic and reasoning are not sciences. They are used in science, but are not sciences.
This came from this post you made, with this statement:
Explained better?
rmfr
shiningone "I think your being a bit pedantic here."
Then we can add the word pedantic to the long list of words you are arbitrarily defining in an ad hoc fashion, as and when you want to espouse your personal but erroneous beliefs as to what constitutes atheism, atheists, logic, etc etc...
You made a claim for a word (yet again) that bears little or no resemblance to the dictionary definition.
FYI your is not an abbreviation of you are...
Hi Shelly,
Since writing the OP, seeing other's view points here, and else where, I realise I was being too pedantic.
Someone from youtube of all places! pointed out that what I was describing about atheists was, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, which is, a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct i.e. "god") is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.
I was also conflating belief with faith. It was my error.
One thing that has stood out though in the replies I received. Many of the atheists here, defended the position of possibility in the future to prove the existence of a god.
Now, as I pointed out to doG in my reply to him, if a theist said to me, "God exists, because one day in the future we may be able to prove it." I would just flat out deny that statement. So would most atheists. I've seen Matt Dillahunty do just that, on his show.
What do you think about that?
"We use science to OPPOSE beliefs and non beliefs."
You say we a lot? Is there a demographic you don't claim to represent with your opinions and beliefs?
Beliefs are essential for all humans in order to interact with reality. We couldn't function without them.
Your claims remind me more and more of that idiot who kept claiming he'd invented something called non-beliefism.
He was every bit as strident and closed minded as you appear to be.
hey Sheldon, we've moved on from there. I bow to your Superior knowledge lol. Seriously just read the latest posts.
@shiningone,
I don't know why you're trying so hard to redefine atheism. Atheists are not required to have a scientific mind. They're not required to reject the 'supernatural'. They may be superstitious and have asinine beliefs, or they may not even care at all.
But as long as they don't believe in god(s), they are atheists.
It's that simple.
Hi CHK-C, thanks for the welcome, lol
"I don't know why you're trying so hard to redefine atheism."
I am not trying to redefine atheism. I am merely pointing out that it is an irrational position.
"Atheists are not required to have a scientific mind."
Regardless of what is 'required', you can not disbelieve a belief without a scientific mind.
"They're not required to reject the 'supernatural'."
Wow. Without rejecting the 'supernatural' you can not be an atheist.
"They may be superstitious and have asinine beliefs..."
In which case, their are NOT rational.
"..or they may not even care at all."
Then why be an atheist?
"But as long as they don't believe in god(s), they are atheists."
If they don't 'believe', they still have faith in belief as a real thing. So they are irrational.
If they oppose belief ( or disbelief ), they are rational.
@shiningone,
Sure you can.
Why not? I live in Hong Kong, where most people here believe their spirits will live on after they die. They just don't believe in god(s).
Of course being superstitious is not rational, but being rational does not mean you have to believe in god(s).
Not caring does not mean you have to believe in god(s) neither.
Again, believing in god(s) or not may have nothing to do with being rational.
@ CHK-C
"but being rational does not mean you have to believe in god(s)."
I have no idea what happened to you here. Lose concentration? I have never stated you have to be rational to believe in god. You have to be rational to understand that belief and dis-belief in a god, is irrational.
"Not caring does not mean you have to believe in god(s) neither."
I presumed you meant not caring about the belief or dis-belief in a god. Not, not caring about anything.
"Again, believing in god(s) or not may have nothing to do with being rational."
Again, believing or dis-believing in a god, is irrational. Dis-believing is waiting to be convinced enough to believe. Belief, is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Pages