Another one for Atheists.

Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Another one for Atheists.

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:since

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather [sic] god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

True. Good point.

Fortunately, rational beliefs are based on facts, and so have a fairly good probability of being true.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Shitrock

nigelTheBold wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather [sic] god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

True. Good point.

Fortunately, rational beliefs are based on facts, and so have a fairly good probability of being true.

i dont disagree at all.  that being said, there are no more scientific facts suggesting that there is no god than there are scientific facts suggesting the is a god.  so both arguments rely on faith in things that cannot be or have not been concretely observed.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
shitrock wrote:i dont

shitrock wrote:

i dont disagree at all.  that being said, there are no more scientific facts suggesting that there is no god than there are scientific facts suggesting the is a god.  so both arguments rely on faith in things that cannot be or have not been concretely observed.

In that case, why believe either of these things?  As Carl Sagan said, "Really, it's ok to wait for the evidence to come in."  He was talking about alien life, but it is still applicable.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
am i wrong?  if so, how?

am i wrong?  if so, how?


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:please

MattShizzle wrote:

please dispense with the attacks.  if you think im wrong explain why.  otherwise dont waste my time.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock, I agree with most

Shitrock, I agree with most of your post except when you seem to define atheism as an acceptance of the claim "gods do not exist," which isn't necessarily true. Some, perhaps most, atheists—such as myself—are simply without theistic belief.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:am i wrong? 

Shitrock wrote:

am i wrong?  if so, how?

 

*shrug*

Not my place to say, strong atheism isn't my position, but I think there might be one or two here that may give you their point of view on what evidence there may be for no god whatsoever.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote:shitrock

phooney wrote:

shitrock wrote:

i dont disagree at all.  that being said, there are no more scientific facts suggesting that there is no god than there are scientific facts suggesting the is a god.  so both arguments rely on faith in things that cannot be or have not been concretely observed.

In that case, why believe either of these things?  As Carl Sagan said, "Really, it's ok to wait for the evidence to come in."  He was talking about alien life, but it is still applicable.

i believe what i believe based on my observation of life, the universe, and everything.  however, i dont know everything so i dont rule out the possibility that i am wrong. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Shitrock, I agree with most of your post except when you seem to define atheism as an acceptance of the claim "gods do not exist," which isn't necessarily true. Some, perhaps most, atheists—such as myself—are simply without theistic belief.

i understand.  but you DO believe in a certain set of viewpoints on the subject.  do you not?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:since

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

A belief is an assertion of knowledge, as you seem to understand with your example statements of "I believe that the sun is a star" and "I believe god exists".  Those assertions are making an claim on how the universe works or is; saying "I believe X" is like saying "X is true".  People who make these knowledge claims are burdened with supporting them, since they are trying to describe what they claim is real.  With me so far?

Saying "I do not believe the sun is up" is stating a lack of belief in the sun being up; this is not the same as saying "I believe the sun is not up", however, and that's where people get confused.  A lack of something is not the same as the opposite of something, so a lack of belief in a claim is not the same as a belief against that claim.

You can believe something is true ("god exists" ), or false ("god does not exist" ), or not have a position on it ("don't know if god exists" ).  The focus is on the statement of knowledge.

So, you can believe something with or without evidence, or you can disbelieve with or without evidence.  Most of the atheists here are (I think) agnostic atheists, meaning they don't have evidence of any god, and therefore do not believe; this is the "I don't believe that god exists" side.  I can think of one person who claims to have knowledge that a god does not exist, making him a gnostic atheist ("I believe that god does not exist" ).

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I post that cat picture in

I post that cat picture in response to things that have been dealt with here numerous times.

 

Basically there is also an equal ammount of evidence for and against a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn. When there is no evidence either way it is logical to not believe something exists.

 

As to the Christian god - there is evidence against - as omnipotence and omniscience are broken concpets.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:since atheists seem to

Quote:
since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?

Because of that word you used... "System."

System: an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.

 

Question: Do you believe there is a god?

Answer: No.

 

Done.

No system.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:i understand.

Shitrock wrote:
i understand. but you DO believe in a certain set of viewpoints on the subject. do you not?


Yes. I believe there is insufficient evidence to justify accepting theism, that many concepts of a deity (the causer of causality) are incoherent and contradictory and therefore explicitly reject those particular conceptions, the current diversity of life emerged through evolutionary processes occurring over a large timespan and therefore young earth creationism is false, etc. Your question seems to have been intended to make a point but I cannot fathom what it's supposed to be.
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Shitrock

shikko wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 


 "I do not believe the sun is up" is stating a lack of belief in the sun being up; this is not the same as saying "I believe the sun is not up"ent of knowledge.

 

 

the only difference between these statements is the syntax. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Shitrock wrote:
i understand. but you DO believe in a certain set of viewpoints on the subject. do you not?


Yes. I believe there is insufficient evidence to justify accepting theism, that many concepts of a deity (the causer of causality) are incoherent and contradictory and therefore explicitly reject those particular conceptions, the current diversity of life emerged through evolutionary processes occurring over a large timespan and therefore young earth creationism is false, etc. Your question seems to have been intended to make a point but I cannot fathom what it's supposed to be.
 

 

 

first, you assume that god cannot have been the driving force for evolutionary processes over a large timespan.  i dont believe in the young earth creationism idea either.

second, my point is that those beliefs that you have cannot be scientifically investigated or observed.  so it is a faith.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?

Because of that word you used... "System."

System: an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.

 

Question: Do you believe there is a god?

Answer: No.

 

Done.

No system.

 

so sorry.  your simple belief that god does not exist is just that.  a belief.  a faith.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:so sorry.  your

Quote:
so sorry.  your simple belief that god does not exist is just that.  a belief.  a faith.

No need to apologize.  Perhaps I've jumped the gun.

Before we continue, I will be happy to concede that you might be correct within your own definition.  Since you and I have not agreed upon a definition of faith, I'd like you to give me a precise definition.  If we are using the word differently, there's no point in discussing this.  So you tell me.  What is faith?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:so

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
so sorry.  your simple belief that god does not exist is just that.  a belief.  a faith.

No need to apologize.  Perhaps I've jumped the gun.

Before we continue, I will be happy to concede that you might be correct within your own definition.  Since you and I have not agreed upon a definition of faith, I'd like you to give me a precise definition.  If we are using the word differently, there's no point in discussing this.  So you tell me.  What is faith?

 

faith is having a certain set of beliefs even though those beliefs may not have been proven right. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Velocity Eleven
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Matt Dillahunty says: I

Matt Dillahunty says:

I lack a belief in God based on evidence so what do you do? instead of providing the explaination, you simply claim "well you believe in no God based on no evidence so hahaha we're equally as stupid" No we're not! One is a faith based position, the other is a rejection of a faith based position

Velocity Eleven


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:since

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

They are. Ultimately, all you can trust is that in some form, you exist. This surpasses belief, however, as a fundamental truth, without which, all knowledge is impossible. However, beyond that fundamental truth, nothing can be believed, only accepted as apparent, and interacted with as if true (and only that because there is no option: you cannot interact with anything other than the universe you perceive as real).

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:first, you

Shitrock wrote:
first, you assume that god cannot have been the driving force for evolutionary processes over a large timespan.


You assume I assume, and you're wrong in that assumption.

Shitrock wrote:
second, my point is that those beliefs that you have cannot be scientifically investigated or observed. so it is a faith.


A causer of causality is contradictory, therefore false. YEC and the ERV phenomenon are contradictory; thus, one is false and one is not; the ERV phenomenon is true; therefore, YEC is false. I have not come across sufficient evidence to justify accepting theism; therefore, there's insufficient evidence for me to justify accepting theism. These beliefs—the ones I listed earlier and to which you responded by saying they're based in faith—are deductively true, no faith required.
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
My opinion is that not all

My opinion is that not all theists hold the same beliefs even within certain denominations. For example, not all catholics are pro-life not all muslims wanna kill infidels. Belief systems tend to be a hodge podge of what we know and what we assume to be true. If someone says to me that god created everything in 6 days, lead the israelites out of Egypt, gave the law to Moses and came to Earth as a man to bridge the gap for man to be saved that is a set of beliefs. As an atheist I just deny these beliefs as I do any other god myths. Being a skeptic is not based on a set of dogmatic beliefs.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:faith is

Shitrock wrote:

faith is having a certain set of beliefs even though those beliefs may not have been proven right. 

Okay, and your position is that there is a god (or gods), and you have not been proven right. My position would be that you're basing such beliefs on a tradition that you grew up with or were introduced to.

Saying there are no real leprechans before you're introduced to a two-foot-tall Irish gremlin is just being reasonable. There's no reason to believe that leprechans exist at all.

Truthfully, it's not even about a god. It's you I don't believe. When you say, "God exists!" I'd say, "produce what you're talking about or it doesn't exist." I think that's fair.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:faith is having a

Quote:

faith is having a certain set of beliefs even though those beliefs may not have been proven right.

Sweet. Then, by your definition, my worldview isn't founded on faith at all. The scientific method has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable way of studying the world around us, evolution, natural selection and astronomy being some of the products of such scientific study.

This stands is stark contrast to your worldview, which has no evidence to support itself whatsoever.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Sweet.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Sweet. Then, by your definition, my worldview isn't founded on faith at all. The scientific method has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable way of studying the world around us, evolution, natural selection and astronomy being some of the products of such scientific study.

This stands is stark contrast to your worldview, which has no evidence to support itself whatsoever.

Whereas the evidence that Kevin is awesome is abundant.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Ctrl Y
Theist
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: since atheists seem

Quote:
since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is the state of lacking belief in a god. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with a metaphysics. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with an epistemology. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with an ethical system. A lack of belief in God certainly does not provide you with political beliefs. Atheism fits not one of the requisites for being called a worldview or belief system.

INDIVIDUAL ATHEISTS do have worldviews. There are Buddhist atheists, Objectivist atheists, Marxist atheists, and so on and so forth. But do not assume that the beliefs of any individual atheist constitute tenets that one must hold to be an atheist. Atheists do not have to believe in evolution (for example) to be atheists. Heck, atheists don't even have to believe in gravity to be atheists! Again, atheism only refers to the state of lacking belief in a god.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:faith is having a

Quote:
faith is having a certain set of beliefs even though those beliefs may not have been proven right.

Ok.  As I suspected, we have different definitions of faith.  Allow me to explain why your definition is insufficient.

As you are supposed to have read, logic is divided into two types:  deduction and induction.  Deduction moves from given statements to necessary conclusions.  Induction is the process of making inferences (which are never 100% certain) about broad statements given specific individual statements.

Deduction:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

***

This formula is 100% certain if the premises are true.  We say that this 'formula' is a valid deductive argument.

 

Induction:

All the cats that have ever been observed have brains.

Therefore: All cats have brains.

 

As you can see, the inductive argument is not necessarily true.  However, it is very likely to be true, since we have observed millions of cats.  Furthermore, inductive arguments, unlike deductive arguments, gain strength through accumulation.  If I want to prove that all cats have brains within a reasonable doubt, the above argument may not be sufficient.  However, I could add the following inductive arguments:

All observed creatures displaying intelligence have brains.

All observed cats have displayed intelligence.

Therefore: All cats have brains.

***

Now, I have strengthened my inductive case by adding another corroborating piece of evidence.  In truth, if we compiled every single piece of scientific data giving strength to the argument that all cats have brains, we would have enough of an argument to fill a small library.

Here's a very important thing about induction.  Sometimes an inductive argument is weak because there is conflicting evidence.  For instance, there is a lot of inductive evidence that global warming is man made.  On the other hand, there is some inductive evidence that global warming is part of a natural cycle, and has little or nothing to do with human activity.  Because of this conflicting evidence, it is more difficult to say with near certainty that global warming is caused by humans.  In cases like this, we have to weigh the evidence from each side and make a decision based on which side has more conclusive evidence.

Induction involves probability.  We have a mathematical formula for dealing with probability.  Since you haven't read the essays I suggested, I'll copy and paste from one of them:

Todangst wrote:
BAYES' THEOREM


The simplest form of Bayes' Theorem:

where:

H is is the hypothesis. This is a falsifiable claim you have about some phenomena in the real world
E is the evidence This it the reason or justification you have for holding to the
hypothesis. It is your grounds.

P(E|H) is called the likelihood : it is also the probability of E given H. In other
words, it is the probability that the evidence would occur if the hypothesis were true.

P(H) is called the prior, or prior probability of H. It is the probability of the
hypothesis being true without taking additional evidence into consideration. In other words, it is an unconditional probability. When I call something, "the prior" without qualification, I mean this probability.

P(E) is called the prior , or prior probability of the evidence E. It is the probability of E occurring regardless of H being true. This probability can be broken down further into the partition , as explained below.


The denominator of Eqn. 1 can be broken down as:




where H is the compliment of H, AKA not-H, and S is the sum over all independent hypotheses. This is sometimes called the partition. The top form is used when one is only considering whether a hypothesis H is true or false. The bottom form is more general, and holds for several independent hypotheses.


Plugging these into Eqn. 1 yields either:




which is useful when considering one hypothesis, being either true or false - this denominator of the right side of the equation multiplies the probability of the hypothesis being true against the probability of the hypothesis being false.


or it yeilds:




which is useful when considering how some evidence supports several independent hypotheses.

As you can see, it is possible to determine with mathematic accuracy exactly how certain a given proposition is based on empirical data.

 

Now, here's the kicker.  When there is no evidence for H (the hypothesis), guess what you get as a probability....

 

That's right.  You don't get anything.  That's because you can't divide by zero.  It is a nonsense answer.  The probability of a thing for which there is no evidence is nonsense.  Even math bears this out.

 

Ok, so now we get on to faith.  Some things are far less than certain, but we have sufficient reasons to believe in them.  For instance, every day, I sit in my office chair without so much as a single empirical test of its stability.  It's certainly well within the realm of possibility that one day, the thing will collapse when I sit in it.  Even so, I think we could agree that I have a reasonable belief that the chair will support me.  Consider:

1. I can observe that it is sturdy and well constructed.

2. It is made by a reputable company.

3. I have owned it since it came out of the box, so I am reasonably certain it has not been maliciously weakened.

4. It has held me up for hundreds, maybe thousands of hours without ever failing.

Etc...

So, I am far from certain that my chair will hold me up, but I have reasonable justification for the belief -- empirical evidence to support my belief.

In philosophical terms, this is called Contingent Belief.

 

Now, suppose I believe that there is an invisible gremlin who lives in my refrigerator.  This gremlin is made out of living cream cheese, except that it's invisible.  When I am not in the house, the gremlin leaves the refrigerator, and without leaving any traces of its passing, rearranges my entire sock drawer and then puts it back in the order it was before.  The gremlin has the ability to become incorporeal -- that is, it cannot be seen, felt, heard, or detected in any physical way.  It does this any time I am in the house, and will also do so any time I set up equipment to try to catch it in the act.

What evidence do I have for this gremlin's existence?  None!  Not a scratch.  There is not one scrap of empirical evidence that such a creature exists.  Furthermore, I have evidence that it does not exist.  First, every sort of living creature that has ever been observed consists of matter, which cannot become "incorporeal" at will.  Second, several of the qualities this creature supposedly possesses violate the laws of physics, which have been observed in every single case that has ever existed where scientists observed the laws of physics.

In short, there is no evidence for this creature, and there is counter-evidence suggesting that it does not exist.

This kind of belief -- that is, belief despite a total lack of evidence, and possibly in spite of evidence to the contrary, is known as Non-contingent Belief.

 

Faith, then, is non-contingent belief.  It must be so, for faith is only used when science cannot offer any proof.  Think about that carefully.  If science can provide evidence, then the belief is necessarily contingent.  The only possible way for something to be taken on faith is if there is no evidence.  Otherwise, there is no need for the word!

 

Now, how do contingent and non-contingent belief relate to god?  Well, you have said yourself that the question of god cannot be addressed by science.  That is a prima facie demonstration that it is necessarily non-contingent.  (Prima facie means that it is proven by this very fact.  No other proof is necessary.)  If, then, the belief in god is noncontingent, it is necessarily without proof.  Since it is without proof, there is exactly as much reason to believe in god as invisible cream cheese gremlins.

QED

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
DG is sharing his bazooka

DG is sharing his bazooka today I see.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Hamby

Even though this is very very well written, and easy to comprehend (I had my 10 year old niece read it and she got it, except the bayes therom that's a bit over her head),  you know they ain't going to get it, it contradicts their belief in god. god must exist for their lives to have meaning or for their view of the universe to be ok.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(I had my 10 year old

Quote:
(I had my 10 year old niece read it and she got it, except the bayes therom that's a bit over her head),

Please tell me this isn't a joke.  I really want to believe you, and I would take this as a very high compliment.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I am not joking

taking Baye's theorm out of the equation (again she's 10 if she got that then I would personally be paying her tuition to any university she wanted). But she understood the premise of your topic of reasoning/faith and why one should not believe/have faith in something that has no evidence to back it up, the examples were done well enough for a 10 year old to comprehend it.


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
And more

  All this and because we say so  !!


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:since

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

So I assume from this that you would agree believing in magic leprechauns living on Pluto is equally as valid as whatever beliefe you hold in a deity, correct?

If that is correct, how then would a peson's belief that they can fly be any less valid at the top of the Empire State building?

Until logic, fact and reason is introduced, it cannot.

When you splatter on the pavement, we see that you cannot fly. When we analyze Pluto from satellites, we know no life as we understand it lives there, when we reach the age of 6 we realize leprechauns are not real, and when we reach the age of reason, we let go of the other fairy tales too.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote: since

Shitrock wrote:

since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one?  it makes no logical sense.  prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system.  pure and simple.   "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS? 

So I assume from this that you would agree believing in magic leprechauns living on Pluto is equally as valid as whatever beliefe you hold in a deity, correct?

If that is correct, how then would a peson's belief that they can fly be any less valid at the top of the Empire State building?

Until logic, fact and reason is introduced, it cannot.

When you splatter on the pavement, we see that you cannot fly. When we analyze Pluto from satellites, we know no life as we understand it lives there, when we reach the age of 6 we realize leprechauns are not real, and when we reach the age of reason, we let go of the other fairy tales too.

 

Oh, and when you post drivel like this here, we realize that you are not especially intelligent.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Another very frustrating

Another very frustrating thread, but still enlightening.

  Obviously saying, I do or do not believe in Gawed, says nothing without a definition of gawed.

   I am a hard core atheist, and I unquestionably believe in god, as I am god as you !

  "What isn't god ?",  is a much better question, a buddha asked laughing .....

   "God is the highest supreme intelligent designer" some will say,

... and I will reply, "that god sure didn't give much intelligent thought to designing us , unless that god is a teasing masochist."  

Hey stupid god, you gave us no wings, and we drown in water, etc ... what gives ?

  Forgiving god, that's a tough one !  ..... 

   

                        

   

  

  


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
so sorry.  your simple


 

Quote:

so sorry.  your simple belief that god does not exist is just that.  a belief.  a faith.

grammatically you couldn't be more wrong. the standard definition of atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or gods. and faith is nothing more than a purposeful suspension of disbelief in the absence of proof. misinterpreting common terminology does not constitute an argument.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
belief system

a belief system has to have more than one part. saying there is no god is not a system just a belief. The rest of your statement is circuitous logic.

bodhi


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It takes a shell game for

It takes a shell game for the used car salesmen to sell you a lemon. One famous quote in business circles is, "If you cant make it good, make it look good"

If it is obvious to you that a baby's sex is not determined by "congealed blood|" according to some Muslims, what makes you think that Gabriel wispered in Mary's ear that dad was in the mood, or that dead flesh can defy rigor mortis after 3 days?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It takes a

Brian37 wrote:

It takes a shell game for the used car salesmen to sell you a lemon. One famous quote in business circles is, "If you cant make it good, make it look good"

If it is obvious to you that a baby's sex is not determined by "congealed blood|" according to some Muslims, what makes you think that Gabriel wispered in Mary's ear that dad was in the mood, or that dead flesh can defy rigor mortis after 3 days?

Minor point, Brian, but rigor resolves in 72 hours... so 3 days would, in fact, be when the body becomes loose again.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid