From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

So only scientists can be atheist. I know you did not say this. I am asking for clarification.

No, that is entirely immaterial to both definitions (for 'scientist' and for 'atheist').

a reply to: chr0naut

You know we can't see what you post prior to an edit (unlike facebook) right? If we see something before you edit, and screen cap it we might know, but all we see is "edited on xx/yy/zzzz")

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

You know we can't see what you post prior to an edit (unlike facebook) right? If we see something before you edit, and screen cap it we might know, but all we see is "edited on xx/yy/zzzz")

You could see the difference if you had quoted it.

Perhaps if you doubt the provenance you could copy and paste the entire definition into Google search (enclosed in quotes to ensure that the sentence construction is also part of the search). If you find exact duplicates then it may possibly be a cut and paste.



I just tried it and the top Google search results were for variations of "Scientific Method", i.e: there don't appear to be exact quotes indexed in Google. It is, therefore, most likely to have an original source.

a reply to: chr0naut

Stop being reactive neighbour. All I said was that you appeared (notice that word?) to have cut and pasted a definition, not given YOUR defintion (as aksed). I am not accusing you of anything.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Stop being reactive neighbour. All I said was that you appeared (notice that word?) to have cut and pasted a definition, not given YOUR defintion (as aksed). I am not accusing you of anything.

It would appear that your assumption, once again, had no basis in fact.

Two can troll at that.

a reply to: chr0naut

Really? You replied to something I had not said. So one assumes you were being reactive. Oh and you still have not shown you understand atheism. Remember, I have no skin in that game either.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Really? You replied to something I had not said. So one assumes you were being reactive. Oh and you still have not shown you understand atheism. Remember, I have no skin in that game either.

I generally quote the post to which I reply as it clarifies the context of my reply.

I can see how my response to what you said (evidenced by the quoted text to which it is a response), which you do not think was a response to what you posted, is confusing to you. It has me scratching my head, too.

I have explored the various definitions of atheism and Atheism, why they are different and the definitions of other variants of atheism that one might hypothesize about. I have demonstrated that acceptance of atheism does not reqire rationalization due to its irrational, unevidenced and self-contradictory nature.

Even a severely intellectually challenged person would have no difficulty understanding atheism.

Neither have you shown that you understand atheism.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger. Your making atheism more than what it is.

Change athiest to pixilist and you will understand.

Do you believe in pixies?

Coomba98

a reply to: chr0naut

I understand atheism, as I've actually been one in the past. Back when I would be considered an objectivist in my late teens. I decided I did not have to be purely rational to function, and that moved me to hard Polytheism rather fast.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger. Your making atheism more than what it is.

Change athiest to pixilist and you will understand.

Do you believe in pixies?

Coomba98

Of course, but I don't really listen to much indie rock these days.

a reply to: chr0naut

Aaaaagh. I saw what you did there digger. Lol.

I ment pixies as in mythical creatures of folklore, considered to be particularly concentrated in the high moorland areas around Devon and Cornwall, suggesting some Celtic origin for the belief and name.

Do you believe they exist? Or are you a pixilist like me?

Coomba98

Funny how every time I make a good counterpoint, the post seems to get completely ignored. I guess when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about atheism or the lolworthy "Atheism", it makes sense to brush it under the rug. Burden of Proof, Occams Razor, Hitchens's razor are good enough for me. I'll be waiting for that god evidence. Arguing semantics isn't going to help you here.

a reply to: Barcs

But I thought he was using Hitchens's razer to dismiss positive atheism. What about Occam's razor? If someone sees something they believe was designed and created, wouldn't it take more than Occam's razor to explain things otherwise?

a reply to: VP740

Without theism, atheism does not exist, it's just the normal(default) state. Otherwise you need millions of other labels for yourself based on other things you do not believe. This is why the other thread was created explaining "pixilists". Without the belief in pixies, pixilism does not exist, it is just logical to reject that particular belief since it lacks evidence. If somebody asks me for my beliefs, I'm going to tell them what I DO believe, not list all the things I don't.

So with Hitchens's razor you have to apply it to the positive assertion of existence. I don't need evidence to reject theism, since theism has no evidence in the first place. It does not make sense to take Hitchens's razor and apply it to a conclusion you reached by using the that reasoning in the first place. That kind of turns it into a circular argument because you can literally do that for anything. To say atheism is a belief, is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. No matter how much somebody hates stamps, disagrees with them or avoids them in life, not collecting them will never become a hobby, it is lack of a hobby. Similarly, lack of belief isn't a belief in itself.

For burden of proof, I have not seen anybody in this thread claim that "there is no god." If somebody did, then he could ask for evidence. I reject theism and lack belief in god, I don't believe "there is no god". I just don't know and haven't seen evidence. Until I do, I don't have to prove squat.

Occam's Razor states that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is usually true. It takes way more assumptions to explain any version of god, than it does to show how natural processes work in the universe. Pretty much everything that has been extensively studied has been shown to not require any input or interference from a god like entity. Least assumptions = atheist standpoint.

originally posted by: Barcs
Funny how every time I make a good counterpoint, the post seems to get completely ignored. I guess when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions about atheism or the lolworthy "Atheism", it makes sense to brush it under the rug. Burden of Proof, Occams Razor, Hitchens's razor are good enough for me. I'll be waiting for that god evidence. Arguing semantics isn't going to help you here.

I was not trying to prove the existence of God to you. I was outlining that the case for atheism has no stronger grounding in science or reason than the opposite case. Many of the very weaknesses that atheists apply against Theism, are equally applicable to atheism. This doesn't mean that the arguments against Theism are invalid. The equation remains balanced, both sides are zero. To suggest a 'default' in such a situation implies unreasoned prejudice.

If I could present evidence for God that would convince you, it would not alter the rationale that 'speaks' for atheism.

So, I repeat, what it the reason (which implies a line of reasoning) that makes the atheist case the reasonable default? In the case of the claimed "logical default", what is the process of logical steps that makes it the default?

If the reason or logic can be equally applied, then they do not argue for one side or the other. To identify a 'reasonable' or 'logical' default, a person would have to supply a reason or logic which applies to one side ONLY.

a reply to: Barcs

Without theism, atheism does not exist, it's just the normal(default) state.

If you mean negative atheism or agnosticism, then yes that that would be the default state were theism not considered. Likewise, positive atheism wouldn't exist, but it wouldn't be the default state; no one would even consider it at all. Theism does exist though.

If somebody asks me for my beliefs, I'm going to tell them what I DO believe, not list all the things I don't.

You seem to identify yourself as an atheist, to the point where you feel insulted by someone using the word you apply to yourself, with a definition that you don't apply to yourself. This one thing you don't believe, seems to have more importance to you than all the other things you don't believe.

Similarly, lack of belief isn't a belief in itself.

I explicitly stated I was talking about positive atheism though. You sound like you want to push for positive atheism, then camouflage it with negative atheism. If someone were to say 'the blue whale is the largest creature alive today'. And someone were to ask if a bigger dinosaur ever existed; anything other than 'I don't know', would require justification. If someone were to assert that we know that no dinosaur, whether land or marine fauna, ever outweighed the modern blue whale; would I be forced to accept that without question, since they're asserting a thing didn't exist?

It takes way more assumptions to explain any version of god, than it does to show how natural processes work in the universe.

Any version of god? That sounds like a leap of faith. What assumptions are required for any version of god? Would you say human awareness plays no role in the universe? While it seems to me that brain function and the bodies physical reactions can be explained without using human experience in the explanation, we know nonetheless that human experience is real and involved.

If two explorers were to stumble upon some peculiar structures in unknown territory, would it always be simpler to assume those structures were the result of natural processes, and assert that no civilization ever existed there? I think evidence must be gathered and weighed before giving any answer, other than 'I don't know'.

ETA: High fructose corn syrup messes with my guts. When I pick up groceries, I make sure what I'm buying doesn't have it. It's not enough for me to assume it isn't there until I get evidence from unpleasant experience. I check for it on the label whenever I'm unsure.

Here is an example of the default position for the ones that still dont get it.

If i said that ManBearPig was real and that i speak with him all the time would you believe me? Or that ManBearPig is a real being?

Or would you (take the default position and) say that does not describe reality as i experience and perceive it, therefore you need to provide evidence.

Now change ManBearPig to pixies or vampires or flying spaghetti monster.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: VP740

Without theism, atheism does not exist, it's just the normal(default) state.

If theism exists as a belief (which it does) and atheism is only a secondary and dependent antithetical argument, atheism would not be the rational or logical default position. A dependent hypothesis could not be default over a primay and required hypothesis, it vanishes as soon as you remove its progenitor.

However, atheism, defined as an absence of belief, does not require the philosophical belief in theism. i.e: it stands on its own.

So, If theism did not exist as a belief (not the true case) and atheism is dependent upon theism (also not the true case) then atheism also could still not be the rational or logical default. It wouldn't exist without theism. If theism doesn't exist, neither does atheism in this case.

If theism is revealed to be the true case (evidenced in a way you could accept) then atheism both as an absence of belief and as a belief, would most obviously not be the rational and logical default, on the strength of the proof of thesim.

Atheism (both as a belief and a non belief) based upon the absence of acceptable evidence for theism will always be un-evidenced, so we could never know if it is true. If athesim is the true case but is unevidenced, we could never know. The absence of evidence does not resolve anything. To suggest that such is the logical or reasonable default in the absence of anything supportive is illogical and unreasonable.

Otherwise you need millions of other labels for yourself based on other things you do not believe. This is why the other thread was created explaining "pixilists". Without the belief in pixies, pixilism does not exist, it is just logical to reject that particular belief since it lacks evidence. If somebody asks me for my beliefs, I'm going to tell them what I DO believe, not list all the things I don't.

So with Hitchens's razor you have to apply it to the positive assertion of existence. I don't need evidence to reject theism, since theism has no evidence in the first place. It does not make sense to take Hitchens's razor and apply it to a conclusion you reached by using the that reasoning in the first place. That kind of turns it into a circular argument because you can literally do that for anything. To say atheism is a belief, is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. No matter how much somebody hates stamps, disagrees with them or avoids them in life, not collecting them will never become a hobby, it is lack of a hobby. Similarly, lack of belief isn't a belief in itself.

For burden of proof, I have not seen anybody in this thread claim that "there is no god." If somebody did, then he could ask for evidence. I reject theism and lack belief in god, I don't believe "there is no god". I just don't know and haven't seen evidence. Until I do, I don't have to prove squat.

Occam's Razor states that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is usually true. It takes way more assumptions to explain any version of god, than it does to show how natural processes work in the universe. Pretty much everything that has been extensively studied has been shown to not require any input or interference from a god like entity. Least assumptions = atheist standpoint.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I was not trying to prove the existence of God to you. I was outlining that the case for atheism has no stronger grounding in science or reason than the opposite case. Many of the very weaknesses that atheists apply against Theism, are equally applicable to atheism. This doesn't mean that the arguments against Theism are invalid. The equation remains balanced, both sides are zero. To suggest a 'default' in such a situation implies unreasoned prejudice.

Sorry, I know you believe this but it's simply wrong. I've asked you this follow up several times and it has not been answered once:

Is it just as logical to believe that Zeus exists as to not believe?
Is it just as logical to believe in pixies than to not believe?

Based on your logic, it is just as logical to believe any possible thing exists as it is to reject it. Again, if this is how you rationalize things, how do you filter reality from fantasy?

Again, it boils down to one simple line:

It is rational and logical to reject a belief that does not have evidence to support it.

I have not heard a single response to this point, regardless of the philosophy and semantics being used to twist atheism into what you want it to be, rather than what it is.

If I could present evidence for God that would convince you, it would not alter the rationale that 'speaks' for atheism.

I can't agree with that. If the evidence was empirical, objective, and could be verified by anybody, then it would very much alter the rationality of atheism, because there would then be a reason TO BELIEVE, and rejection of this evidence would be irrational and illogical. THEN, one could analyze both sides and see that atheism is not logical since there would be tangible convincing evidence that suggests otherwise. To pretend that atheism is not directly connected to the claim of theism is where you are going wrong in your logic. Atheism is not it's own thing. It's the rejection of somebody's baseless claim.

So, I repeat, what it the reason that makes the atheist case the reasonable default? In the case of the claimed "logical default", what is the process of logical steps that makes it the default?

The fact that there is no evidence in favor of theism, which is the positive assertion or claim. You can keep pretending that burden of proof is not on theism, but you are just lying to yourself.

If the reason or logic can be equally applied, then they do not argue for one side or the other. To identify a 'reasonable' or 'logical' default, a person would have to supply a reason or logic which applies to one side ONLY.

Positive claims require positive evidence. "There is NO god" isn't even a positive claim, hence the word NO. And even still, nobody in this thread has claimed that "there is no god", they reject belief in god due to no evidence.

originally posted by: VP740
If you mean negative atheism or agnosticism, then yes that that would be the default state were theism not considered. Likewise, positive atheism wouldn't exist, but it wouldn't be the default state; no one would even consider it at all. Theism does exist though.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean by default state. It wouldn't be considered at all. I'm still looking for one of these mythical "positive atheists". I have never met one or seen one in these discussions.

You seem to identify yourself as an atheist, to the point where you feel insulted by someone using the word you apply to yourself, with a definition that you don't apply to yourself. This one thing you don't believe, seems to have more importance to you than all the other things you don't believe.

I identify myself as a critical thinker and skeptic but consider myself an agnostic atheist when asked about belief in god. It's not about me personally, however. It's about the fact that for what you call "positive atheism", I can't even find a single person that believes it or follows it, yet you guys are generalizing atheism as a whole under that umbrella. Every atheist I have ever interacted with talks about how theism is BS. You guys are only referring to a small minority of atheists by "positive atheists". I'm sure they are around somewhere, I've just never seen one.

I explicitly stated I was talking about positive atheism though. You sound like you want to push for positive atheism, then camouflage it with negative atheism.

I've never heard of such a distinction between atheists since this thread. And why is it that all of the non atheists are the ones trying to define atheism and poke holes it in? That's a bit ridiculous.

If someone were to say 'the blue whale is the largest creature alive today'. And someone were to ask if a bigger dinosaur ever existed; anything other than 'I don't know', would require justification. If someone were to assert that we know that no dinosaur, whether land or marine fauna, ever outweighed the modern blue whale; would I be forced to accept that without question, since they're asserting a thing didn't exist?

The proper answer would be, "we have not yet found fossil evidence of one, so most likely not" (assuming, of course, that this is true, I haven't researched the actual claim here, I'd think there would be bigger dinosaurs). This is why you see phrases like "to the best of our scientific knowledge", "based on the evidence so far", etc. Science is never 100% absolute. Why would anybody say that they know this for a fact? It's not a fact, it's the logical default. You don't believe ANYTHING until reason to believe is presented or found. That doesn't mean you are forced to accept anything without question. There is simply no question to ask, if the positive claim of existence cannot be affirmed or verified. If you say that you believe that there was a dinosaur that weighed more than the blue whale, you would have to prove that. If I say that your claim is BS, that doesn't suddenly make the burden of proof on me.

Any version of god? That sounds like a leap of faith. What assumptions are required for any version of god? Would you say human awareness plays no role in the universe? While it seems to me that brain function and the bodies physical reactions can be explained without using human experience in the explanation, we know nonetheless that human experience is real and involved.

I said any version of god, because each one would have different explanations for things and various nuances. No matter which ones are invoked (unless you are deist and/or believe the universe = god), they all still require numerous assumptions and it raises way more questions than it answers. It also requires assumptions to claim that reality is fake or simulated. Human awareness is human awareness. I don't know how that has anything whatsoever to do with god, that is really just a subjective argument. You can claim consciousness makes us special, but that is just pandering to the unknown, when we can explain it via the brain and central nervous system. Scientists might not know every detail, but to assume it is separate, would require evidence.

If two explorers were to stumble upon some peculiar structures in unknown territory, would it always be simpler to assume those structures were the result of natural processes, and assert that no civilization ever existed there? I think evidence must be gathered and weighed before giving any answer, other than 'I don't know'.

Exactly, you must look for evidence. If there is NO EVIDENCE that suggests a civilization existed there, and the structures appear to have telltale erosion signs, it is safe to say that it did not. Of course you are asking a loaded question here, you aren't asking if a civilization built those particular structures, you are asking if one ever existed there in the history of the planet. Either way the answer is, look for evidence. If you find it, you can prove there was. If you don't find it, it is safe to claim there was not until evidence is found. The problem with looking for god, is that there is nothing to study, nothing to test, no way to verify any of it, so it is logical to remain skeptical of the theist position.

ETA: High fructose corn syrup messes with my guts. When I pick up groceries, I make sure what I'm buying doesn't have it. It's not enough for me to assume it isn't there until I get evidence from unpleasant experience. I check for it on the label whenever I'm unsure.

Completely unrelated to what we're discussing. Remember, the arguments about god are about THE EXISTENCE of god, more specifically the belief in the existence of god without evidence. Asserting existence is a positive claim. We already know HFCS exists. If you were to say that non-fructose ivy syrup (some made up ingredient) was in the products and causing your stomach aches, but can't prove it exists, it would defy logic, and no, people that call that BS would not have to prove that it isn't there.