Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Smootheticate
Joined: 12/11/2011
Msg: 376
The value of science to atheismPage 16 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
@smootheticate
If you had but asked, most nonbelievers here would have admitted to being agnostic atheists. This diagram may be of assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theological_positions.svg


I like that diagram and yes, most agnostics tend to lean more towards atheism rather than religious beliefs due to their empirical philosophy. This is why I have recommended several time that people here would enjoy reading A.J. Ayers book, "Language, Truth and Logic." He was an empiricist through and through and really think he provides great insights into that belief structure. I also highly recommend people read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. He provides great insights into both the limitations and strenghts of scientific academia. A really great book that is about as unbiased as one can read, imo. Ayer on the other hand is exteremely biased but fun to read nonetheless. Both books are easy reads.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 377
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 5:01:20 PM
My, watch everyone squirm with trying to either grapple with the truth, or argue convincingly. Over four pages so quickly since I was last able to be here. I was going to come back and make my own contribution, but before I can the moment will be enough lost. So much to say, so much that needs to be said, so important to say it just right, too much that hasn't quite been said yet after four pages. That really sucks. 'Cause I also know how useless it would be anyway. Smootheticate...you're still lying. Period. Do you deserve for me to explain myself further or try to "prove" it? Nope. You don't. And I'm tired of it always being an act of giving fish to people who refuse to try and learn to fish for themselves.
 Smootheticate
Joined: 12/11/2011
Msg: 378
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 5:04:37 PM

My, watch everyone squirm with trying to either grapple with the truth, or argue convincingly. Over four pages so quickly since I was last able to be here. I was going to come back and make my own contribution, but before I can the moment will be enough lost. So much to say, so much that needs to be said, so important to say it just right, too much that hasn't quite been said yet after four pages. That really sucks. 'Cause I also know how useless it would be anyway. Smootheticate...you're still lying. Period. Do you deserve for me to explain myself further or try to "prove" it? Nope. You don't. And I'm tired of it always being an act of giving fish to people who refuse to try and learn to fish for themselves.


Nope, you're the liar.

that was easy
 aussieblues
Joined: 11/22/2011
Msg: 379
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 5:39:11 PM
Ask Charles Darwin? He and his Father had this conversation and poor old Charlie moved thousands of miles away to avoid it.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 380
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 6:01:09 PM

That really sucks. 'Cause I also know how useless it would be anyway.

Actually no. I have been waiting for you on this one specifically because of the twisting of definition of atheism. As far as I recall, that is something you should take great issue with.

so, clear it up. Especially post 405

This does not preclude the atheist from notions of a "prime mover" or deist position.


It got confused from there.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 381
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 6:09:24 PM

I was waiting for someone to bring up Oxford. Oxford defines it based on greek rootes, hardly evolutionary.


If we were to defer to Webster's incredibly narrow definition, then it would become redundant, because we would ALL be atheists by definition, as I'm sure there is no one who simultaneously believes in all gods/religions.

To try and narrowly define something as vague and ambiguous as "atheism" is doomed to failure. For the most part, those who define atheists as those who assert a positive position in the non existence of "their" god are actually describing anti-theism....not atheism Or as some put it these days....the "New Atheists".

And why would I put much value in the religious person's opinion on atheists anyway? Let alone anything as unbearable as an evangelical american????

I don't self-identify by your rules.



That doesn't exist. Thinking that someone simply has a disbelief and doesn't believe is a ridiculous conclusion.


Using terms like "having" a disbelief is applying a positive to a negative, and that is what is ridiculous. For someone who is lecturing people on not having it both ways, you are the only one doing it. In your strange world, non-belief = belief, and not having = having, And your paranoid description of atheists as following a "faith" probably means you also think no religion = religion as well.

Doesn't exist eh?
How about a new born baby?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 382
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 6:11:41 PM
*sigh* I just don't know if I feel like it. I might work myself up to it. Just gimme some patience.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 383
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 6:13:18 PM

Thinking that someone simply has a disbelief and doesn't believe is a ridiculous conclusion...

Is it?

So what dogma do you subscribe to if you do not believe in Santa Claus?

So what dogma do you subscribe to if you do not believe in Unicorns?

So what dogma do you subscribe to if you do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster?

etc......


A non belief is no more a belief than not watching TV is just watching another channel.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 384
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 6:43:24 PM
There has been a lot of unnecessary and misguided, and even incorrect fussing here over definitions of words, and who is in charge of them. I really wish that the Historian's discipline was better taught and understood, it might help to dispel some of this nonsense.

Dictionaries are not Authoritative Arbiters of the "Real" meanings of words. They are instead, the chroniclers of the usage of words, more like very narrowly specific histories than anything else. When masses of people begin to use an existing word to mean something other than what any dictionary you like, shows that it has meant in the past, dictionary writers do not march down to the government centers and demand the arrest and punishment of the people using the words. What they do in response, is, they add another note to their entry on that word, saying what the CURRENT most common meaning is, and moving the previous primary meaning to a secondary position, or even label it as "archaic."

Deism versus Theism is a good way to illustrate and better understand this. They once were used interchangeably, because they differ primarily in their original source. One is based in Greek, the other in Latin, but both refer to the same basic idea. This is why many theists still refer to a Deity, even though they will also usually refute the notion that they are Deists. This is because Deism has COME to mean something different than Theism.

Everything I have read and heard, would indeed show that a Deist can not be considered an Atheist, if the primary meanings of those words are used. This, despite the fact that some Theists will be found who will proclaim that all Deists are Atheists.

I am interested to find that there is now a member of this rambling discussion who arrived at being a Believer, in apparently the same way that I arrived at being a non-believer. That is, he wasn't so much persuaded by anyone or anything, as that he simply looked inside of himself, and realized that despite having thought he was an atheist, that he actually DID believe in a god of some kind.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 385
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 9:00:00 PM
A proposition which is not proven to represent a fact is a belief, whether the proposition is positive or negative. A proposition which has been proven is the enunciation of a fact.

The propostion “I do not believe in god” is identical to the proposition “I do not believe god exists”. In the proposition, “I do not believe in god” what is being denied is the belief in god’s existence. Otherwise, there could be someone who does not believe in god and while simultaneously believing god exists.

In the absence of proof, affirmative or negative, of the existence of god, what is left are the mutually exclusive beliefs that god exists or god does not exist. In both cases, simple beliefs, since neither proposition is proven.



... you're using a definition for G-d that comes from a given religious idea of it.


Without a definition there is nothing left to believe or not believe in. If god, due to lack of definition, is left at nothing then it proves itself to to be non existent.

The believer’s attempt of undefining god or changing the definition of god along with changing the scope of god is one of the many reasons there are so many people who have chosen not to believe.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 386
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 9:04:11 PM

This is why many theists still refer to a Deity, even though they will also usually refute the notion that they are Deists. This is because Deism has COME to mean something different than Theism.


Yes...a deist cannot be a theist. They may have at their core, the notion of a deity. But where deism ends, theism begins....and the gap is HUGE.




Everything I have read and heard, would indeed show that a Deist can not be considered an Atheist
This, despite the fact that some Theists will be found who will proclaim that all Deists are Atheists.


That depends on your definition of "theism". Strictly speaking, theism isn't just believing in god...but believing that this god is speaking to you. In other words, theism = religious practice.

Deism recognizes the "deity" by the evidence obtained in the natural world. This deity does not intervene or communicate with humans, does not do anything "supernatural", and obviously does not require any form of worship. Therefore deism is non-religious.

If theism is practicing religion, then atheism is the non-practice of religion. In this sense, a deist is in fact, an atheist.



I am interested to find that there is now a member of this rambling discussion who arrived at being a Believer, in apparently the same way that I arrived at being a non-believer.


I would propose that you both arrived in exactly the opposite ways. Where you started thinking for yourself...he stopped.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 387
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/5/2013 9:48:27 PM

As I furthered my education in science, philosophy and theology I became to realize that the empirical results were there all along. More specifically, the more I studied science the more I realized that the chances of the universe and life coming into existence out of random chances outside an intelligent design were so far fetched that it made more sense to believe that only an artictect could come up with so much complexity.

When I attended theology school, they taught that the chance that life could form by chance was so small that it would exceed the lifetime of the universe. When I first encountered it, I believed it, but I no longer do. Aside from the tendency among apologists to exaggerate the numbers, when you calculate the odds of anything backwards you always get outrageous results, and this applies to even common everyday things, such as poker. When you calculate the odds of each person getting the particular hand that they got for even one or two games, you would have to conclude that poker is impossible, since the odds are so outrageously low. In fact, calculating the odds that I would be typing this very message at this exact time and place is so low that it too is impossible. When I realized this, I stopped counting backwards (basically, we should never use such calculations to determine if an event actually happened - such calculations are only important in determining the odds that such an event will happen in the future).

Furthermore, I think there is a general assumption that nature is random (among theists at least), which is not true. Nature does not behave completely haphazardly; it has specific properties and behavior (the forces of nature), including the elements (a proton has different properties than carbon). We also now know that nature has self-organizing properties (e.g., left-handed crystals, snowflakes) and it is capable of creating complex elements undirected (e.g., all the heavy elements were formed by the natural process of nuclear fusion). And of course experiments showed that amino acids (what are referred to as the building blocks of life) can be created by natural forces and evolution has shown how organisms adapt and change under natural forces. Frankly, if there is a god, then it didn't have to do much work.
 Smootheticate
Joined: 12/11/2011
Msg: 388
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 1:46:47 AM
f we were to defer to Webster's incredibly narrow definition, then it would become redundant, because we would ALL be atheists by definition, as I'm sure there is no one who simultaneously believes in all gods/religions.


The definition doesn't change that. Radical Muslims call anyone who doesn't believe in their version of GOD non-believers so even using Oxford's "desbelief in a deity" definition the same problem arises. One person's GOD is another person's blasphemy regardless of what definition we use.

If you don't agree with Merriam's definition then it would most likely mean that you are Agnostic, which according to both Oxford and Merriam mean the same thing.

Oxford's Agnostic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Webster's Agnostic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I doubt your issue is with semantics but being properly understood. You are saying you have a disbelief in GOD but not a belief that GOD doesn't exist. That really makes no sense and is why you constantly have to "correct" people. From my understanding of the definitions and what you said you sound much more like you are Agnostic, which at the very least seem to have continuity in definition between Merriam and Oxford and makes things much more striaght forward.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 389
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 2:12:38 AM


---------------------------------------------------
@_shakti_



Hahah do people not tire of endless semantics? Lol.. Wowsers.


Apparently not, e.g “god is energy” .. sounds familiar ?

if god is energy then a cheeseburger is god and god is potentially fattening. Hopefully believing in cheeseburgers doesn’t present a dichotomy for you.... LOL

You got your meal, praise the almighty cheeseburger :-)


---------------------------------------------------
@Jeffrey65802



If no one can prove G-d exists, no one can prove it doesn't either.


The other common fallacy used by believers to protect their god. Given a definition, the non existence of god can easily be proven. This is the driving force for the trend among believers to undefine or redefine god at will and at random as needed. god is energy, god is nature, nature is god, god is the creator, god transformed..., etc, etc.



Man perceived being a part of a greater whole 'being' and called it G-d.


Nothing unreasonable in that. There are many people who refer to nature as god. In that case, the word “god” is simply used as an acknowledgement of how amazing nature is but, it certainly isn’t something to “believe in”. It doesn’t make any sense to believe in, or pray to, a rock, a carrot or a cat, or even to the whole (among the infinite possibilities.) The problem comes when this loosely defined “god” is used to create moral and ethics code that must be followed “in the name of god”.



I see tremendous value in various religions even when G-d is elimintaed from the formulae.


I see _some_ value in religions in what they’ve done in the past, in spite of the fact that they use lies to gain followers which I consider shameful, reprehensible and hypocritical. I have serious doubts there is any value to religions today.



As a universally applicable collections of 'laws' religions are great.


I strongly disagree with that statement. First, the laws are not universal and the “efforts” to preserve those laws are at the root of some the most disturbing crimes and behavior in human history. I do believe religions have made some positive contributions but overall they’ve done a lot more harm than good. Religions break humanity into groups, promote unfounded ideas upon which they then claim to be the holders of “the way”, and in some cases (christianity/catholicism), the only way. While they preach(ed) “don’t kill” they encouraged atrocities like the Crusades and the Inquisition. I see religions as being totally parallel to racial discrimination, both have surprisingly similar roots and effects.

I believe (since I cannot prove it) that we would have done a LOT better without religion than we’ve done with it. Maybe we wouldn’t have wasted 500 to 700 hundred years of our existence in the dark ages, not to mention the countless lives that were “lost” for no good reason during that time.


---------------------------------------------------
OT

Science has established as fact, that a god as defined by catholics, muslims and others, has never and will never exist.


 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 390
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 3:37:40 AM

Science has established as fact, that a god as defined by catholics, muslims and others, has never and will never exist.


Do you have a link for that or are you just making more shit up as per usual.Did you know the LCE is out of date?Where is the scientific evidence? Facts would be good? You said facts. Where are they?
 DevilfromToronto
Joined: 9/23/2012
Msg: 391
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 3:39:53 AM
Apparently not, e.g “god is energy” .. sounds familiar ?

if god is energy then a cheeseburger is god and god is potentially fattening. Hopefully believing in cheeseburgers doesn’t present a dichotomy for you.... LOL


I haven't read all the posts, regarding to the energy related posts, I supposed they were saying what people called God(s) can be in any forms like energy, not necessary to be human look alike.



If no one can prove G-d exists, no one can prove it doesn't either.


The other common fallacy used by believers to protect their god. Given a definition, the non existence of god can easily be proven.


maybe the limited talent of the scientists should be blamed


Science has established as fact, that a god as defined by catholics, muslims and others, has never and will never exist.


doctors to patients, teachers to students, chefs to eaters.... etc., why is what people called God(s) related to scientists ?? If scientists are not talented enough, of course they will (anytime) conclude the non-existence of God(s), just like a chef has nothing to handle a patient, or, you and I will never date because we are obviously speaking different languages lol

p.s. I am not debating whether or not there is/are God(s), I always tried to find out, not relying on any category of specialists. I don't read loong posts, rest of your post is safe Justlooking, even though I may not agree with !!
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 392
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 7:42:39 AM

Do you have a link for that or are you just making more shit up as per usual.Did you know the LCE is out of date?Where is the scientific evidence? Facts would be good? You said facts. Where are they?

The god of the Bible is undoubtedly a human creation. It thinks like us, feels like us, has the same ambitions and desires... it is human in all but name. I think the single best explanation is that it is based on kings of the ancient world, who were often times seen as gods on earth. Note that the idea of God changes throughout time. In the OT he is a tyrannical despot, demanding total subservience. Today, God prefers democracy and freedom (at least according to George W. Bush). We make gods, in our image.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 393
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 8:21:38 AM

Someone seems to think that the Book of Merriam Webster is the inspired word of God but I can't find it in either the Old or New Testaments....


Someone thinks their make_believe definition of a word is more valuable than the most respected dictionary in the English Language. If you want to avoid communication problems and have a coherent conversation there needs to be a standard on which words are defined. When it comes to the conventions of the English language Merriam-Webster dictionary is the established norm.


Despite the exasperation expressed by some regarding the futility of quibbling about definitions, it's worth focusing on the resistance to correction and continued insistence of certainty expressed by this particular poster.

Old theistic habits die hard, and the way this poster clings to a single reference while ignoring (multiple) contrary references provides an interesting analogue with the attitude that some texts are inerrant gospel - no cross referencing is sufficient to sway their fixed opinions, which they (incorrectly) imply are unarguable 'facts'.

Amusingly, the analogue of irrational bias clinging to the favoured source, unable to comprehend new or contrary information, goes further because the allegedly inerrant gospel of Merriam-Webster is actually self contradictory regarding the definition, of 'atheist'.
Inerrant gospels featuring self-contradiction, lax editing, and misdirection seem to be a magnet for certain types.

But anyway, Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for 'atheism', one of them being "a disbelief in the existence of deity", and the other being "the doctrine that there is no deity".
The first is the definition the poster quoted above, relying faithfully on Merriam-Webster, claims is illegitimate (Doh!), the second is a definition of a gnostic atheist.

Comically, this poster goes on, in post #478, to redefine agnosticism, which is presumably just an another expression of his personal crusade to make reality conform to his 'god-did-it' theory.
Sans cross references, sans fact checking, sans correspondence to anything objective.
Thus, by providing the antithesis, illustrating the benefit of the scientific method, not just to atheism but to the discovery of truth in general.

.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 394
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 8:55:10 AM

A proposition which is not proven to represent a fact is a belief, whether the proposition is positive or negative. A proposition which has been proven is the enunciation of a fact.

The propostion “I do not believe in god” is identical to the proposition “I do not believe god exists”. In the proposition, “I do not believe in god” what is being denied is the belief in god’s existence. Otherwise, there could be someone who does not believe in god and while simultaneously believing god exists.

In the absence of proof, affirmative or negative, of the existence of god, what is left are the mutually exclusive beliefs that god exists or god does not exist. In both cases, simple beliefs, since neither proposition is proven.


This is a bit of defective reasoning. Or perhaps incomplete reasoning.

"I do not believe in god" is close enough to "I don't believe god exists" to be identical, I'll give you that. But it is NOT identical to saying "I insist that god does not exist, and that others who do so are wrong." One is active, and one is passive.

For myself, for example, after examining all of the facts available to me about gods and beliefs associated with them, I concluded that I do not NEED to declare one way or another that god(s) do or don't exist. All that I DO need to work on, is whether or not I will permit other HUMANS to attribute god-like authority to themselves over my or other people's lives.

I reasoned thus, for example: IF there is a god who is all-everything (knowing, seeing, etc), then that god cannot be fooled by a non-god. There is therefore no point to my adjusting my life to try to fool said god into approving of me. If knowing about this god can't have any affect on my life whatsoever, then there is no point to my bothering to pursue anything about god. In fact, if a human DOES attempt to learn how to cater to a god, and they are MISTAKEN, then they will make their existence worse through their well-intentioned efforts.

Hence, a-theism, is quite literally the most logical and practical approach to take to my existence. My A-theism, is not at all ANTI-theism. Perhaps this is why I am comfortable with the factual limitation of logic and of science: that there can be no proof that magic beings do NOT exists, does not matter. I don't NEED to pretend that science can prove that Thor is a fantasy, because I literally have no reason to care whether "he" ever existed. Science HAS established how and why weather features like lightning occur, and how I can best protect myself from damage from it, without any need to deal with magic beings at all.

Therefore, it isn't that science proved gods don't exist, nor does it need to. It did prove that I don't need to concern myself with gods, in order to maximize my life experiences. Again, basic, literally defined A-theism is my best bet: but I do NOT need to declare that gods don't exist.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 395
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 8:07:49 PM


This is a bit of defective reasoning. Or perhaps incomplete reasoning.

"I do not believe in god" is close enough to "I don't believe god exists" to be identical, I'll give you that.


This must be a miracle. Logic has prevailed once. By the way, when two entities are identical they are more than just “close enough”. If they were just “close” that would not be “enough” to make them identical. I can clearly see where the defective reasoning is, there was no need to mention its presence.



But it is NOT identical to saying "I insist that god does not exist, and that others who do so are wrong." One is active, and one is passive.


And who ever said it was ?. Just in case you attempted to refer to something I’ve said, what I’ve said many times is:



from post 105 (reference for proof and verification)

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed.

creation is not possible. Anything that claims to create is by definition false. god is a fallacy. Proven by the LCE. Anyone who wants a different result has the burden of proving the LCE false. Then and only then, maybe there will be gods floating around.


Anyone who wants to claim the LCE does not hold, has the burden of proving it. Anyone who wishes to claim “god created... “ is true, has to prove the LCE false. That’s how science works and, it doesn’t make exceptions because someone is “spiritually inconvenienced” by the LCE which makes it impossible for god to exist.

Claiming “supernatural” planes of existence beyond the reach of science as god’s “residence” only wraps one fallacy (god) into another (supernatural planes of existence). The existence of those “supernatural” planes of existence must be proven as fact before they can be used to support a premise. Lastly, IF they exist, they are subject to scientific scrutiny just as is everything else that does exist.

What I do insist on, is proof that scientific law is flawed or incorrect before allowing it to be modified or arbitrarily limited with wild speculations such as “supernatural this” and “magic that’.



IF there is a god who is all-everything (knowing, seeing, etc), then that god cannot be fooled by a non-god.


god has been fooled by a non-god. Lucifer used to be an angel, not a god. Lucifer became “the devil” and has since given the “all everything” a morphine-worthy headache. Amazing too, how this non-god is a match to god. Good thing god only had to deal with Lucifer, P.T Barnum would have had a field day with him.



Perhaps this is why I am comfortable with the factual limitation of logic and of science: that there can be no proof that magic beings do NOT exists, does not matter.


Factual limitation ? Amazing how easily science can prove Thor does not exist yet, you insist on claiming a demonstrated fallacy to be a “factual limitation”. I do see a severe limitation but, it certainly isn’t in science.



I don't NEED to pretend that science can prove that Thor is a fantasy, because I literally have no reason to care whether "he" ever existed. Science HAS established how and why weather features like lightning occur, ....


But you NEED to pretend it cannot prove that Thor is a fantasy in spite of the fact that you acknowledge that science has established that Thor has nothing to do with how lightning occurs. You insist on supporting a false statement (science cannot prove that Thor is a fantasy) while acknowledging that science proved it false (Science HAS established how and why weather features like lightning occur). Impressive!



I do NOT need to declare that gods don't exist.


I seriously doubt any one has such a need. Incidentally, what you (or anyone else) need or do not need is completely irrelevant as far as what science can do and has done.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 396
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 8:34:41 PM

"I do not believe in god" is close enough to "I don't believe god exists" to be identical, I'll give you that. But it is NOT identical to saying "I insist that god does not exist, and that others who do so are wrong." One is active, and one is passive.

I think you're reaching too far there. IMO, a statement like "I do not believe in god" is passive while "I don't believe god exists" is active. The former states that I lack this particular belief, while the latter is making a positive claim of non-existence. The difference is subtle, but there is a difference.

Frankly, I think the former is the only one that can be logically supported. Lacking belief in God due to lack of evidence is a scientifically-valid statement (like not believing in cold fusion due to lack of evidence - doesn't state that it cannot happen, just that there is no evidence for it). The latter requires justification, which can technically never happen, since we would have to know every single thing about the universe (absolute knowledge, which is impossible). I get very wary whenever someone makes the positive statement that god does not exist. A particular god (such as the Christian God) can be disproven, based on what is stated in the Bible, but a general god, existing outside of spacetime, can never be proven wrong (it is an infallible idea). Of course it ultimately doesn't matter - all infallible ideas should be considered false, on philosophical grounds.
 albinosquirlz
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 397
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/6/2013 10:34:12 PM

A proposition which is not proven to represent a fact is a belief, whether the proposition is positive or negative. A proposition which has been proven is the enunciation of a fact.

The propostion “I do not believe in god” is identical to the proposition “I do not believe god exists”. In the proposition, “I do not believe in god” what is being denied is the belief in god’s existence. Otherwise, there could be someone who does not believe in god and while simultaneously believing god exists.

In the absence of proof, affirmative or negative, of the existence of god, what is left are the mutually exclusive beliefs that god exists or god does not exist. In both cases, simple beliefs, since neither proposition is proven.




This is a bit of defective reasoning. Or perhaps incomplete reasoning.

"I do not believe in god" is close enough to "I don't believe god exists" to be identical, I'll give you that. But it is NOT identical to saying "I insist that god does not exist, and that others who do so are wrong." One is active, and one is passive.



The defective reasoning isn't about the semantics of positive vs negative non-belief. It's the simple fact that we have been fooled into thinking that it is a proposition. It isn't. God existing is the proposition. Disagreeing with a proposition isn't a proposition. We don't propose the "NON"-existence of things..that's obviously absurd.

And the proposition is almost never just the simple idea that god merely exists....but more importantly...what god is saying. That's why atheism is common....and adeism is not.

So why are we being led down this avenue? Easy....in a world of increasing scientific and secular influence (especially in the christianity of the western world), believers are trying to level the playing field when it comes to the burden of proof. This is a defensive tactic they think will buy them time.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 398
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/10/2013 3:48:51 PM
Man how I wish I had the time to write what needs to be posted relative to the current topic in here...it is so needed.
 Smootheticate
Joined: 12/11/2011
Msg: 399
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/11/2013 12:45:09 AM
lol, people still arguing science is relevant to atheism with a bunch of atheists that won't even tell the truth about their faith because they'd rather lie and try and convince people they don't have beliefs. Dumbest shit I've ever seen.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 400
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/11/2013 1:29:19 AM

Dumbest shit I've ever seen.


It's up there with the inability to tell the difference between a count and a measure.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism