Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

I can see Atheism's "facts" are only a belief, and a belief held by a minority...

majority rule establishes "fact"

Truth is not established by democracy or mob rule.

And, atheism is not so much a belief but a lack of belief.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Yes, and in the past the majority believed the earth to be flat.

yes well I am willing to wait around say 2500 years or so to see what the "majority" believes in then...

I quite possibly can ascertain that there is nothing new under the sun, and in 2500 years or so Atheism's numbers will be the same and still be in hopes "faith" of improvement.

only time will tell the truth...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

I can see Atheism's "facts" are only a belief, and a belief held by a minority...

majority rule establishes "fact"

Truth is not established by democracy or mob rule.

And, atheism is not so much a belief but a lack of belief.

yes this is the stuff logic is based in, and a degree is based on...

I will even use a Wiki link to confirm that it is in "fact" majority which establishes "fact"

Fact in science
Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

* the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;
* whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;
* to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation; and
* to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I will even use a Wiki link

to confirm that it is in "fact" majority which establishes "fact"

That article says no such thing.
Perhaps you mistook the context...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I will even use a Wiki link

to confirm that it is in "fact" majority which establishes "fact"

That article says no such thing.
Perhaps you mistook the context...

I find it hard to grasp you do not know how fact is indeed established, yet I have read by another poster somewhere that you were a respected and admired poster.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


science is but a philosophy, and it is philosophy which has given birth to experiment which is deemed pure science...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Real Philosophy, unlike the pseduo-philosophy of religious doctrine, does not deal in revealed wisdom. Just ideas, that may be improved or further rationalised.

Science is but a tool for gathering information, theorising, demonstrating, making use of that knowledge, like light refraction in fibre optics. Without evidence, it's just a lewd guess, much like your theory of an omnipotent intelligent being.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

science is but a philosophy, and it is philosophy which has given birth to experiment which is deemed pure science...

You claimed it is "majority which establishes fact", then posted an article claiming it backed up your assertion. When in fact, the article said this:

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

Objective, verifiable observations are not consensus.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Real Philosophy, unlike the pseduo-philosophy of religious doctrine

but we are not dealing in pure philosophy in this section are we ?

we are dealing in the philosophy of Atheism just as this topic title states, in case you have forgotten what the topic is about and which section we are in...

this topic is dealing with the esoteric discussion of asking Atheists anything, including their non-belief.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Objective, verifiable observations are not consensus.

but observations of perceived facts must be presented to a consensus to be established as "true" or "false" does it not ?

if only one person or a limited group believe something is "true" / "fact" is does not make it so...

the fact remains the "majority" of "consensus" believe in a God.

that is until atheists can present "fact" and "truth" to the contrary...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


There is no specific philosophy in Atheism, you don't have to adhere to any dogma. We have no specific philosophy other than the lack of belief in a deity. That's what Atheism is.

For some atheists, they might not believe in a supernatural deity, but they don't have any particular great reason for not doing so. Some of them may be contrarians, who just wan't to simply rebel, There is no respect for this position in debate.

For other Atheists, they have reason to believe that religion is a cause for irrationality and threat to the stability of civilisation. It's metaphysical philosophy is that which has been debunked many years before Jesus was born by great Philosophers. Zeus, Ra, Oden, Sheeva, Bhudda, all of them included should be put in a category with Homeopathic medicine, tarot card readers, fortune tellers, mediums and "spirit" guides. Unfalsifiable hypothesis should not be believed without proper rationalisation if you value truth.

"Revealed" truth without scientific method is simply faith. Don't know what more it takes to convince someone tbh.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

There is no specific philosophy in Atheism, you don't have to adhere to any dogma. We have no specific philosophy other than the lack of belief in a deity. That's what Atheism is.

round and round we go...

but atheists do adhere and actively to a claim that their are no deities...

gotta love the "we" when we get to hear it used in a certain context...

I have to admit to alot of posters, I do not read past the first flaw I find in alot of statements because the basis of the rest of the statement would be questionable...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
but observations of perceived facts must be presented to a consensus to be established as "true" or "false" does it not ?

No.

if only one person or a limited group believe something is "true" / "fact" is does not make it so...

Correct, because truth is not established by belief nor numbers of people subscribing to that belief.

the fact remains the "majority" of "consensus" believe in a God.

So what? None of the majority has proven that any god(s) exist.

that is until atheists can present "fact" and "truth" to the contrary...

Nobody can prove a negative .Those making the claim have the burden of proving it. Otherwise, any claim would be held as true until proven otherwise.

For example, I could claim that goblins live under my bed and fold my laundry. And let's say 70% of the world believes it's true. Do you have any reason to believe this is true? Do you have any reason or method to disprove it?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Scenario:

People believe the sun revolves around the Earth.

A minority speaks out. Galileo states that it is his belief based on his findings that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Although they may consider the Sun revolving around earth as current "fact" it is in fact not the truth. (By the way, he was condemned for his theory by many religious people and removed from society, WICKED! Took them a few hundred years to apologise)

Similarly, the Earth was believed by the majority to be flat as a "fact" as you say, this was not truth, nd thus the fact was updated later on. But now we know for a FACT that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, this cannot change. It will not become a prism.

Stating there is a "GOD" (a supernatural omnipotent dictator) is a guess without evidence. It's an argument from ignorance which fails on a basic level. Although you cannot prove the existence of a deity, the theory doesn't stand in favour for it's truth or it's falsehood.

It's simply "you can't prove me wrong, therefore God exists"

which is similar to saying "there is a teapot on pluto beyond our telecopes reach, therefore it exists you can't prove me wrong" There is absolutely no reason to believe in this theory without evidence. Can you see where we are coming from?

And before you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of abcense" i will say that just because you can't prove the unfalsifiable false doesn't mean you can claim rediculous "TRUTHS".

So...basically we currently do don't whether reality is inifinty or whether reality was created by an intelligent being, then for that fact alone, which is a FACT, we don't know, how do YOU know that God exists, other than the bible?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
but atheists do adhere and actively to a claim that their are no deities...

Incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there are no deities, not the claim that there are no deities. There is a subtle but significant difference between the two.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


To be more accurate, atheism is the lack of belief in deities, unless you're going to say you're a gnostic atheist. It's the negation of the claim "God(s) exist(s)" which becomes "God(s) do(es) not exist". It's an acknowledgement that theistic claims have yet to meet a burden of proof.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I can't be sure. Epistemological certainty on the matter of such a being would be impossible without actually being it yourself. You'd have to know everything to be certain. Hence agnostic atheist. I don't know, but I don't accept the claim.

Just like you don't believe in the invisible, intangible, silent, odorless, floating dragons that live in my garage, but there's absolutely no way for you to disprove their existence by the very nature of the claim. You can't say you can't see, smell, touch, hear, or taste them because their very definition would make such things impossible. It would be a claim you cannot refute.

Or can you prove that the invisible, intangible, silent, odorless, floating dragons living in my garage don't exist?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

To be more accurate, atheism is the lack of belief in deities, unless you're going to say you're a gnostic atheist. It's the negation of the claim "God(s) exist(s)" which becomes "God(s) do(es) not exist". It's an acknowledgement that theistic claims have yet to meet a burden of proof.

You are correct. Thank you. I did not state that with as much clarity as I had liked.

(Bedtime at 3:30am last night, up at 8. Stage performance takes it out of a man)

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
but observations of perceived facts must be presented to a consensus to be established as "true" or "false" does it not ?

No.

if only one person or a limited group believe something is "true" / "fact" is does not make it so...

Correct, because truth is not established by belief nor numbers of people subscribing to that belief.

the fact remains the "majority" of "consensus" believe in a God.

So what? None of the majority has proven that any god(s) exist.

that is until atheists can present "fact" and "truth" to the contrary...

Nobody can prove a negative .Those making the claim have the burden of proving it. Otherwise, any claim would be held as true until proven otherwise.

For example, I could claim that goblins live under my bed and fold my laundry. And let's say 70% of the world believes it's true. Do you have any reason to believe this is true? Do you have any reason or method to disprove it?

oh no ! this multi-quote thing is not looking good... I was wondering who was going to be the first to pull it out the bag and easily be able to take things out of context with it.