Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[florduh]

Except there is no research to be done on gods.  There is zero objective evidence for them.  You have to either blindly accept a god or set of gods, or wake up to the fact that you can't think of a good reason to believe in any of them.

 

Exactly.

[Storm]

 

It's not a premise and I, or other soft atheists don't say 'there is no god' but 'we don't believe in god.  Believe is a verb. 

 

You're describing hard atheism. 

 

 

My intention wasn't to represent hard atheism, but I agree that the statement "there is no god" does likely refer to hard atheism position. So, point taken.

 

I still believe that my assertion that atheism is a belief no matter whether its is a hard or soft atheism. If you have come to the conclusion that you don't believe in a god or gods because the evidence is not indicative that one exists or the evidence is lacking, then you have formed a belief based on that evidence.

[mymistake]

 

 

It's not a premise and I, or other soft atheists don't say 'there is no god' but 'we don't believe in god.  Believe is a verb. 

 

You're describing hard atheism. 

 

 

My intention wasn't to represent hard atheism, but I agree that the statement "there is no god" does likely refer to hard atheism position. So, point taken.

 

I still believe that my assertion that atheism is a belief no matter whether its is a hard or soft atheism. If you have come to the conclusion that you don't believe in a god or gods because the evidence is not indicative that one exists or the evidence is lacking, then you have formed a belief based on that evidence.

 

 

 

Do you also consider aunicornism a belief?  How about aleprechanism?  I've been an aFreedieKrugerist since 1984.

 

Does it only count as a belief for ideas that you have heard of?  Wouldn't it also count as a belief when you don't believe in things you have never considered or never heard of?  I bet you have been an aTrerxfetfsdfalskerjgwseklftj your whole life.  Because whatever that is you don't believe in it.

 

See the problem with turning lack of belief into a belief?

 

 

From there it is easy to note that the possibilities for potential concepts are unbounded.  That would make us unbelievers in an infinite number of things.  You are an unbeliever times infinity just like everyone else.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in then it is silly to single out the "god" set from this infinite group.

 

Thus there is no reason to even talk about atheism.  We should all be atheists by default.

 

Even believers are atheists if you compare the infinite number of gods they don't believe in that dwarfs the number of gods they do believe in once we include all potential god concepts imaginable and those beyond imagination.

[Storm]

 

 

Do you also consider aunicornism a belief?  How about aleprechanism?  I've been an aFreedieKrugerist since 1984.

 

Does it only count as a belief for ideas that you have heard of?  Wouldn't it also count as a belief when you don't believe in things you have never considered or never heard of?  I bet you have been an aTrerxfetfsdfalskerjgwseklftj your whole life.  Because whatever that is you don't believe in it.

 

See the problem with turning lack of belief into a belief?

 

 

From there it is easy to note that the possibilities for potential concepts are unbounded.  That would make us unbelievers in an infinite number of things.  You are an unbeliever times infinity just like everyone else.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in then it is silly to single out the "god" set from this infinite group.

 

Thus there is no reason to even talk about atheism.  We should all be atheists by default.

 

Even believers are atheists if you compare the infinite number of gods they don't believe in that dwarfs the number of gods they do believe in once we include all potential god concepts imaginable and those beyond imagination.

 

 

I get your point, but I don't think it really matters. I haven't formed an opinion on any of those things.

 

I will say this. There is a distinct difference between being an a-whatever-ist because you have come into knowledge about something through someone or some experience with that particular thing and that you choose to disbelieve it, and being an a-whatever-ist because you have no knowledge of a particular subject because you have never been confronted with information regarding it.

 

The bottom line is, if you have heard of anything and you decide it has no root in reality and it is simply a fictional subject based on the evidence, or lack thereof, you choose to believe what you believe about that subject. That is what makes it a belief.

 

Once again, the definition of belief: "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

When the evidence is not persuasive for you to establish a belief in that subject, then the truth for you regarding that subject becomes the conviction of the truth of that particular subject. It is a belief. If you have never heard of a particular subject, then I would argue that it is not possible to have a belief or to disbelieve in it, because you have no capability to make a belief or unbelief assessment regarding its validity. So you are incapable of believing or disbelieving in it.

[directionless]

Except there is no research to be done on gods.  There is zero objective evidence for them.  You have to either blindly accept a god or set of gods, or wake up to the fact that you can't think of a good reason to believe in any of them.

  

 

Except there is no research to be done on gods.  There is zero objective evidence for them.  You have to either blindly accept a god or set of gods, or wake up to the fact that you can't think of a good reason to believe in any of them.

Exactly.

 

Just last night I stumbled onto a list of the top 10 Catholic miracles and then I started reading a wikipedia artticle about incorruptible corpses of saints. I finally decided that my original low confidence in these things did not need to be adjusted.

 

My mother forced me to watch an old documentary about the search for Noah's ark, and I didn't feel comfortable until I read what I could find about their claims to see that they were unfounded.

 

I've noticed that if I don't follow through and research these far-out claims then I worry that reality no longer makes sense. If somebody claims to levitate then that bothers me until I convince myself that it isn't true.

 

Of course most people can laugh these things off without researching them.

[bornagainathiest]

 

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in.  If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown.  It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it.  That is not science - that is faith.

Second.

 

Why can't I draw a religious conclusion based on a great unknown? My conclusion is not based on science but faith.

 

Please look at the context of the sentence in question, Ironhorse.

The context is... things that are unknown to science.  If you want to leave science behind and make an evidence-free leap of faith into the unknown, that's fine.   Just don't call that leap skeptical or rational...that's all.  As Neverlandrut has already said, "To believe something is absolutely true based on no evidence is the height of irrationality".  I agree with him.

 

I also know that you know what the antonym (opposite) of skepticism is.

So you must also know that it's impossible for you to remain a skeptic once you make that faith-based leap.  It's one or the other, not both.  If your conclusion is based on faith, then you are no longer skeptical about the issue.  

 

Shermer is of no help to you here, either.  You've arrived at your conclusion.  You said so earlier.  Therefore you cannot claim to still be skeptically evaluating the evidence to make a decision.  It's over.  You've made your leap of faith and come to your faith-based conclusion.  On this particular issue Ironhorse, you are NOT a skeptic.  It's too late for that claim.

 

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does.  He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do.  That is not faith - that is science.

 

Again, I never alleged Krauss proceeds by faith in his scientific studies. He has drawn logical conclusions in many areas based on data. I said that in the interview when discussing the big question on "where matter come from" he said the data ends and it's pure speculation. He was honest enough to say he doesn't really know. He has an idea it might involve a parallel universe but I remember he laughed and said even with that the question is where did it come from. My idea is that God created is just that my idea. I have placed my faith this is correct. 

 

Ok, I stand corrected on that one.

You've made a leap of faith, where he did not.

 

Last.
I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread. 
But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to.  So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Again, I have stated before I am trying to answer every question. What I cannot do is keep repeating my answers over and over because some here refuse to accept them for what they are, my answers. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Some are not unwilling to agree with anything I post. 

 

There is a special thread for you to post your answers to the backlog of outstanding questions, Ironhorse.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64259-ironhorse-not-answered-your-questions-put-them-here-for-all-to-see/#.VAdlG8JdVWq

 

I put it together specifically for your benefit, over two weeks ago.  There are outstanding questions there from months ago.  I even PMed this message to you a week ago...

 

Sent 27 August 2014 - 10:27 AM

Ironhorse,
 You promised to answer ALL the questions put to you... weeks ago.
 Ten days ago I did the hard work for you and compiled a list of these questions.  Since then I've politely requested (three times) that you answer them.  Other members are also patiently waiting on you to answer their questions.  Please honor your promises (as a true Christian would) and answer these questions.

 

Two other items of info for you.
 1.
Besides these outstanding questions, there's an on-going issue between us concerning the role of Christianity in the rise of science, to be settled in the, "No Shit Sherlock" thread.
 2.
A copy of this message will shortly be posted in the Lion's Den for all the other members and all the lurkers to see.
 Please do what you promised and answer the questions.
 Thanks,
 BAA.

 

...so you can't claim to be ignorant of that thread's existence and purpose.

 

 

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

 

I don't know what others will think.

 

Then let me show what at least 29 of us (and climbing!) think of your conduct.

We don't care zip about what you believe, but we do pay close attention to your promise-breaking, question-dodging behavior and we think it stinks!  

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64182-thank-you-ironhorse/#.VAdlxcJdVWo

 

Posted  (by LongWayRound) 13 August 2014 - 10:04 AM

POPULAR

You don't know me.  We haven't interacted in any threads but I wanted to thank you.  

 

My deconversion is fairly recent and I am still working through what it means to no longer be a christian or to believe in any god and you have helped me along that journey.  As I read your interactions in the Lion's Den and see how you conduct yourself, it is a vivid reminder of why I left christianity.   The attitude that comes across in your posts is one of arrogance fueled by blind adherence to the company line.  I keep waiting to see a genuine answer from you when questions are posed; an answer where you show us what you, Ironhorse, really think but one never comes.  Instead, there is more of the same tired, copy and paste, logic twisting, word definition changing, fingers in the ears apologetics that we have all heard a million times.  That is, if you answer at all.

 

Something that surprised and disappointed me about you and some of the other christians in the lions den is the total lack of love and empathy that is expressed in your posts.  I know it is difficult to be kicked in the head by 15 different ex-christian posters at the same time but I expected more from someone who is claiming to emulate christ.  I can't say that I have ever read anything in a post from you that demonstrates that you care about the people on the ex-christian forums as human beings.  I am honestly unsure why you are even here.  It is hard for me to fathom that you think that your example might lead someone back to christianity or strengthen the faith of some christian that is lurking.  It comes off more as some sort of ego thing where you enjoy the attention you get here.

 

In short, thank you.  When I am working through the hard times associated with deconversion, it helps to watch a cosmos episode, read on an atheist website, or watch how you conduct yourself in the Lion's Den.  They all reinforce that I am now on the right path.

.

.

.

Now you can't claim to be ignorant of what people think of you in this forum, Ironhorse.

 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Do you also consider aunicornism a belief?  How about aleprechanism?  I've been an aFreedieKrugerist since 1984.

 

Does it only count as a belief for ideas that you have heard of?  Wouldn't it also count as a belief when you don't believe in things you have never considered or never heard of?  I bet you have been an aTrerxfetfsdfalskerjgwseklftj your whole life.  Because whatever that is you don't believe in it.

 

See the problem with turning lack of belief into a belief?

 

 

From there it is easy to note that the possibilities for potential concepts are unbounded.  That would make us unbelievers in an infinite number of things.  You are an unbeliever times infinity just like everyone else.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in then it is silly to single out the "god" set from this infinite group.

 

Thus there is no reason to even talk about atheism.  We should all be atheists by default.

 

Even believers are atheists if you compare the infinite number of gods they don't believe in that dwarfs the number of gods they do believe in once we include all potential god concepts imaginable and those beyond imagination.

 

 

I get your point, but I don't think it really matters. I haven't formed an opinion on any of those things.

 

I will say this. There is a distinct difference between being an a-whatever-ist because you have come into knowledge about something through someone or some experience with that particular thing and that you choose to disbelieve it, and being an a-whatever-ist because you have no knowledge of a particular subject because you have never been confronted with information regarding it.

 

The bottom line is, if you have heard of anything and you decide it has no root in reality and it is simply a fictional subject based on the evidence, or lack thereof, you choose to believe what you believe about that subject. That is what makes it a belief.

 

Once again, the definition of belief: "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

When the evidence is not persuasive for you to establish a belief in that subject, then the truth for you regarding that subject becomes the conviction of the truth of that particular subject. It is a belief. If you have never heard of a particular subject, then I would argue that it is not possible to have a belief or to disbelieve in it, because you have no capability to make a belief or unbelief assessment regarding its validity. So you are incapable of believing or disbelieving in it.

 

 

 

That definition is flawed because god believers do not base their belief on evidence.  They believe despite the evidence.

[Storm]

 

 

 

 

Do you also consider aunicornism a belief?  How about aleprechanism?  I've been an aFreedieKrugerist since 1984.

 

Does it only count as a belief for ideas that you have heard of?  Wouldn't it also count as a belief when you don't believe in things you have never considered or never heard of?  I bet you have been an aTrerxfetfsdfalskerjgwseklftj your whole life.  Because whatever that is you don't believe in it.

 

See the problem with turning lack of belief into a belief?

 

 

From there it is easy to note that the possibilities for potential concepts are unbounded.  That would make us unbelievers in an infinite number of things.  You are an unbeliever times infinity just like everyone else.

 

Since there are an infinite number of things we don't believe in then it is silly to single out the "god" set from this infinite group.

 

Thus there is no reason to even talk about atheism.  We should all be atheists by default.

 

Even believers are atheists if you compare the infinite number of gods they don't believe in that dwarfs the number of gods they do believe in once we include all potential god concepts imaginable and those beyond imagination.

 

 

I get your point, but I don't think it really matters. I haven't formed an opinion on any of those things.

 

I will say this. There is a distinct difference between being an a-whatever-ist because you have come into knowledge about something through someone or some experience with that particular thing and that you choose to disbelieve it, and being an a-whatever-ist because you have no knowledge of a particular subject because you have never been confronted with information regarding it.

 

The bottom line is, if you have heard of anything and you decide it has no root in reality and it is simply a fictional subject based on the evidence, or lack thereof, you choose to believe what you believe about that subject. That is what makes it a belief.

 

Once again, the definition of belief: "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

When the evidence is not persuasive for you to establish a belief in that subject, then the truth for you regarding that subject becomes the conviction of the truth of that particular subject. It is a belief. If you have never heard of a particular subject, then I would argue that it is not possible to have a belief or to disbelieve in it, because you have no capability to make a belief or unbelief assessment regarding its validity. So you are incapable of believing or disbelieving in it.

 

 

 

That definition is flawed because god believers do not base their belief on evidence.  They believe despite the evidence.

 

I disagree because what they believe is truth to them. I don't want to derail this thread into discussing what constitutes evidence. God believers believe what the evidence they perceive presents them is the truth. It doesn't matter if its not grounded in reality. The definition need not make that distinction.

[♦ ficino ♦]

It's not the case that I believe in Bigfoot.  On the other hand, I do not make the negative assertive claim that Bigfoot does not exist.  I'm happy if someone considers me an abigfootist, because I live my life and organize all my thinking without the proposition "Bigfoot exists" as part of my mental toolbox or whatever we call the jumble of my ideas and other cognitive states.  I assume the burden of casting doubt on assertive claims that Bigfoot exists.  I do not assume the burden of proving the negative claim that Bigfoot does not exist.

 

When i was a Christian, someone said that agnostics should just as well admit they're atheists, because they live their lives consistently with unbelief.  Later on I decided I might as well call myself an atheist for that reason.  I never thought I had proof that God does not exist, though I think the contradictions in the bible etc make up strong evidence that the God of Christianity does not exist.

[Orbit]

How about we use the dictionary, which says then "a" prefix means "lack"?

[Storm]

How about we use the dictionary, which says then "a" prefix means "lack"?

It is my understanding that a actually means without. So atheist literally means without god.

[Orbit]

 

How about we use the dictionary, which says then "a" prefix means "lack"?

It is my understanding that a actually means without. So atheist literally means without god.

 

Theism is belief in God. So atheism is lack of belief in God.

the•ism (thēˈĭzˌəm)

►

• n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

[♦ ficino ♦]

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped.  He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above.  By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence.  Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence.  The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word.  This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.'  If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

[Orbit]

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped.  He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above.  By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence.  Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence.  The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word.  This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.'  If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

I say we accept the dictionary definition and stop splitting hairs.

[Roz]

Storm, how about this.  Think of all the theists in the world.  They each hold their own beliefs in their respective religions, and when ask 'why do you believe in x or y?' they'll present their case why they believe x / y.

 

A christian is an atheist concerning: zeus, thor, the hindu gods, klingon gods, etc.

 

Myself as an atheist just goes one god further.  I don't believe in yaweh anymore than I believe in the klingon god of the dead.

 

It's not that I believe there's no god.  I just refuse all the god claims in the world at this moment.  

[mymistake]

 

 

I disagree because what they believe is truth to them. I don't want to derail this thread into discussing what constitutes evidence. God believers believe what the evidence they perceive presents them is the truth. It doesn't matter if its not grounded in reality. The definition need not make that distinction.

 

 

Truth isn't personal.  If I think something is the truth when it isn't my belief doesn't change the truth.  Rather my thinking is false.  People who believe in God all got there through fallacies, indoctrination, tomfoolery or blind faith.  

 

 

If your definition of evidence includes things not grounded in reality then you need to go back and think it over.

[Orbit]

From Wikipedia: "

Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

 

Can we stop now?

[mymistake]

The reason English has these hangups regarding atheism, agnosticism (and a few others) is because of the history of Western civilization - specifically the rule of the Roman Catholic church.  Being a heretic, an infidel, an unbeliever these things were capital offenses.  You would be executed for questioning the authority of the Church of Rome.  Thousands of people were.

 

Well the Catholic church no longer has the power to kill us and it is time to move on with realistic definitions of words.  

[florduh]

Of course most people can laugh these things off without researching them. 

 

 

Eventually one will reach a point where certain things are settled to their satisfaction. Every few months there is a new story about somebody visiting Heaven while their brain activity was impaired in some way. Personally, I've had an interest in NDE for about 40 years, so I have researched it. None of the claims made in our entire written history can provide any evidence that consciousness leaves the body when so physically and neurologically stressed. Stories have come out that someone "died" on the operating table and subsequently read a message written on top of a tall cabinet or accurately described the roof of the hospital; ultimately even the handful of stories like that have been found out to be false. I therefore no longer have any interest in the latest tale of people "dying" and returning after a trip to the "other side." Same for ghosts, demons, psychics and a few other pieces of woo. At some point we can and should close the case and move on and try to discover the discoverable rather than look for scraps that support wishful thinking.

[Neverlandrut]

Storm, how about this. Think of all the theists in the world. They each hold their own beliefs in their respective religions, and when ask 'why do you believe in x or y?' they'll present their case why they believe x / y.

 

A christian is an atheist concerning: zeus, thor, the hindu gods, klingon gods, etc.

 

Myself as an atheist just goes one god further. I don't believe in yaweh anymore than I believe in the klingon god of the dead.

 

It's not that I believe there's no god. I just refuse all the god claims in the world at this moment.

You refuse all of the god claims that have been made to date (paraphrase of course). That's a good point Roz. I go one step further and then ask a few questions. Once we rule out all of the man-made, literary, mythological god concepts (all of which differ in there essential god characteristics), we are left with the possibility some general god concept could be true. But how would we define such a being? What makes a god a god? What are the essential traites a being must have before we can call it a god? Creator of the universe? Maybe. But it's completely possible a physically feeble and relaitvely unintelligent being made the universe. Maybe all it really knows how to do is make a machine which produces universes as a waist product. Do we still call it a god? If a deistic god exists, it does not interact with it's creation. Therefore, belief in it is purely an intellectual exercise and has no practical relevance to anything. These questions highlight the fact that "god" is not something man discovered, but a concept he invented. Once you set asside all of the literary god characters and begin looking for some god from scratch, as it were, you really have nothing to go on.

[mymistake]

These questions highlight the fact that "god" is not something man discovered, but a concept he invented. Once you set asside all of the literary god characters and begin looking for some god from scratch, as it were, you really have nothing to go on.

 

Exactly

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped.  He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above.  By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence.  Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence.  The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word.  This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.'  If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

I say we accept the dictionary definition and stop splitting hairs.

 

This wasn't splitting hairs, just contributing to the conversation. Ignore if you want.

[Orbit]

 

 

From what I recall of ancient Greek, someone who was called atheos was someone who did not regard or worship the gods that everyone else worshiped.  He was "without a god," literally, as Storm noted above.  By the time of Plato's Apology of Socrates, various people were seen as denying the existence of the gods, so atheos came to mean someone who denied their existence.  Authors tend to slide easily betw atheism as not giving the gods their due and atheism as denial of their existence.  The a- prefix, though, does convey the notion of privation of whatever is denoted by the root of the word.  This prefix is called 'alpha privative' because it implies 'without X.'  If you're amousos you are without musical ability or taste (lit: "without a Muse"), if you're athanatos you're 'without death' or immortal, etc.

I say we accept the dictionary definition and stop splitting hairs.

 

This wasn't splitting hairs, just contributing to the conversation. Ignore if you want.

 

no offense meant

[Vigile]

 

 

It's not a premise and I, or other soft atheists don't say 'there is no god' but 'we don't believe in god.  Believe is a verb. 

 

You're describing hard atheism. 

 

 

My intention wasn't to represent hard atheism, but I agree that the statement "there is no god" does likely refer to hard atheism position. So, point taken.

 

I still believe that my assertion that atheism is a belief no matter whether its is a hard or soft atheism. If you have come to the conclusion that you don't believe in a god or gods because the evidence is not indicative that one exists or the evidence is lacking, then you have formed a belief based on that evidence.

 

 

I disagree for the reasons I've already given, but since this isn't going anywhere, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

[Vigile]

 

I haven't formed an opinion on any of those things.

 

 

By your definition of my atheism you most certainly have. 

 

That is, unless of course you think or might be persuaded that unicorns and leprechauns are real.