From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't know what Coomba98 thinks of alien visitation (as he didn't mention anything about it), but the rest sounds logical and I agree with it.

What would your thoughts be on the evidence required to show that a thing is nonexistent or unlikely to exist?

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town. My thoughts on the evidence required to show that something doesn't exist are that science does not deal with this. We don't prove a negative, we look for evidence that supports a positive. For example, in grad school a project I worked on dealt with potential examples of hominid admixture, specifically between HSS and Neanderthal. We looked for evidence to support the hypothesis. Nobody looked for evidence to prove it never happened. Again, science doesn't deal in evidence supporting negatives. Only evidence supporting the existence of things/events etc... Does that make sense?

a reply to: Barcs

What's the difference between athiesim and agnosticism? Why did Darwin identify himself as agnostic rather than atheist for example?

Louis CK

Which came first chicken or egg

Egg obviously

Ok where did the egg come from

from a #ing chicken of course

a reply to: chr0naut

The only attribute they have in common and that differentiates them from Theists is that they believe that there is no God or gods. It is the belief that differentiates them. Rationality, logic or intellect is not the differentiator.

Well.. Then one can say that we are all atheist, the only thing that differentiates us, is that atheist believe in one less god than theists do. Theist are Atheist to all other gods, minus the one they are raised to believe in.

a reply to: peter vlar

No need to apologize, thanks for replying at all (especially in a clear and straightforward manner).

It makes some sense but I don't fully agree. I would define science as the application of reasoning to information gained from observation and experimentation. While demonstrating something absolutely doesn't exist (outside of what you've observed) may be impossible, estimating a probability for a thing existing within certain bounds or conditions may be possible (if difficult).

I think it necessary to draw inferences for every day life. Will I survive the trip to the grocery store? I won't really know beforehand, but I have some intuition which may be analyzed with the application of statistics. Defaulting to 'no' when considering if a thing is safe may be prudent for some situations, but I also need to be able to say 'yes' with reasonable certainty sometimes, to be able to function.

Surely someone answering questions about evolution could sometimes say probably not if appropriate. Did an animal ever evolve on our planet which had wheels instead of legs? Are there any around today (artificial constructs such as cars don't count)? Should I be concerned about the possibility of a fire breathing dragon burning my house down?

With regard to the origin of our universe; I think science and logic are appropriate tools for consideration. Intuitively I think there's a good chance of intelligence playing a role in its origin (mind you, I'll accept the goomba from the original Super Mario Brothers as exhibiting a crude form of intelligence). Was life or awareness involved? We've seen life create, so that wouldn't be unprecedented. The more details you give though, the less likely an unknown will match your prediction. So, the more detailed your prediction the more evidence required to support it. I don't see the question of intelligence playing a role in the origin of our universe as being beyond science, and I don't think logic should be abandoned for any serious considerations.

a reply to: chr0naut

You are confusing a political agenda with a spiritual (or in this case lack of spiritual) one. Because I know you would not be so dishonest to suggest that atheists have no moral grounding, and this is why stuff happened?

a reply to: chr0naut

You need to work on that. It was almost pythonesque but not quite. You're also barking up the wrong conifer if you think I am pining for fjords, I'm more likely to be dair (dour) about it....

a reply to: chr0naut

Many of your posts misrepresent atheism. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you do not grok it.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Barcs

What's the difference between athiesim and agnosticism? Why did Darwin identify himself as agnostic rather than atheist for example?

It's like how I was trying to explain to Chronaut: Most people who call themselves atheist or agnostic are actually agnostic atheists. They don't know if god exists, so they lack belief in god but would be open to the possibility should a valid reason to believe be discovered. So, technically an agnostic lacks faith in god, so the atheist title still applies. Now it doesn't always apply, because there are some stern atheists out there that believe there is no god and nothing could convince them otherwise, and there are stern agnostics who believe humanity can't know and will never know the answer. These types of people seem to be rare, however.

I don't know the motivations for Darwin calling himself agnostic, but my guess is that he didn't want to associate the science of evolution with atheism and didn't want a bunch of angry theists protesting him. Unfortunately this happened anyways, because many theists don't comprehend that evolution is not synonymous with the origin of life.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: chr0naut

The only attribute they have in common and that differentiates them from Theists is that they believe that there is no God or gods. It is the belief that differentiates them. Rationality, logic or intellect is not the differentiator.

Well.. Then one can say that we are all atheist, the only thing that differentiates us, is that atheist believe in one less god than theists do. Theist are Atheist to all other gods, minus the one they are raised to believe in.

That is essentially a re-statement of a Dickie Dawkins quote: "Everybody is an atheist in saying that there is a god - from Ra to Shiva - in which he does not believe. All that the serious and objective atheist does is to take the next step and to say that there is just one more god to disbelieve in."

Essentially, Dawkins definition would be correct (if not a bit sexist) but the suggestion that all theists are atheist, denies the actual and debated differences in belief.

But also the argument that this is a reasoned conclusion, falls down as follows:

It leaves three possibilities to the Atheist position:

1. The Atheist is 'non-believing' in the same manner as inanimate objects 'non-believe'. Such 'non-belief' clearly arises from non-cognition.

2.The Atheist knows for sure that there is no God and therefore 'disbelieves' (belief negated by empirical evidence). As previously pointed out, this conclusion requires omniscience and self-cotradicts.

3. The Atheist has a belief about the non-existence of God, based upon cognition of the question.

(There are other possibilities but they have been clearly defined as; agnosticism, igtheism and/or ignosticism - separate definitions, but related branches of, the atheist position/s).

Obviously, cases 1 and 2 don't hold. Case 3 also does not require acknowledgement that it is belief based, but it is. In case 3, the Atheist is a 'religious idealist' (their position is conformant to Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism).

The debate around atheism has a theological history. If atheism is not believed, then I cannot see how it could have any sort of argument or case for support.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

You are confusing a political agenda with a spiritual (or in this case lack of spiritual) one. Because I know you would not be so dishonest to suggest that atheists have no moral grounding, and this is why stuff happened?

Many atheists have high moral grounding, indeed.

... but the moral grounding of the other ones, indicates that it is immaterial to the case.

It is the same with Theists.

a reply to: chr0naut

I believe your trying to get deeper into a subject that has nothing to with the op and further deflecting from real questions of interests directed at you.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

You need to work on that. It was almost pythonesque but not quite. You're also barking up the wrong conifer if you think I am pining for fjords, I'm more likely to be dair (dour) about it....

It was an entirely silly response, as I had hoped the would convey.

a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe your trying to get deeper into a subject that has nothing to with the op and further deflecting from real questions of interests directed at you.

I am trying to delve deeper into the comparitive rationality of the atheist argument. The OP was Slayer69's challenge to atheists to rationalize their position, asking specifically for atheists to answer some "thought excerciser questions". I don't think I am off topic, except where I have tried to use humour as a gentle response to what I see as absurdities.

I have tried to respond and provide reasoned answer to all questions posed to me. Where some questions were repeated I have not chosen to repeat an answer in some cases.

a reply to: Barcs



While I never knew Darwin personally, he seems to me to have left some records and correspondences in which he states his considerations clearly and with an admirable degree of sincerity. He did state unambiguously that he believes the biblical account of God to be invalid. Given that; I don't think his concluding his considerations by settling on agnosticism, was politically motivated.

Looking up atheism in my copy of Webster's New World Dictionary, I see:

atheism [Gr a-, without + theos, god] the belief that there is no god -atheist n. -atheistic adj.

While you may find broader definitions than this, there are people who hold that there are no gods, and identify themselves as atheists. While Chr0naut's definition may not be the broadest, or the one you go by, I don't think it's invalid. Moreover, you seem to be criticizing his choice in language, rather than the point he is obviously trying to make (which gives a bad name to a perfectly honorable branch of linguistics and logic). Wouldn't the conversation be more productive for yourselves and those observing if you just chose a more specific word, such as positive atheism, to use in your debate? Do you think Chr0naut's comparison between theism and positive atheism is valid? Other than his choice in wording, where is he wrong?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

a reply to: chr0naut

See that seems like some revisionist history right there. I don't like revisionist history.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.