I'm an atheist, and lover of science.. but I had to wonder, what if there is something beyond our p

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

The question is, "Can you provide an event that would give a sound logical basis for atheism?"

Yes, the absence of god.

You cannot offer absence of evidence in this case because the condition is unknown. The evidence may be somewhere, someplace you have not experienced. Event is disallowed by your own admission of the current state of existence.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

Understand, after answering the question, the event would then be examined as objectively as possible.

We can try but I don't think it can be done.

It does not need to be done in your example. You offered an event that cannot take place according to the facts of current existence.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

This gets back to a very true statement of lack of complete experience. Since the lack of complete experience absolutely exists, it is illogical to assume a state of disbelief or denial.

I can't speak for other atheists but I accept that I can be wrong. Even though I call myself an atheist, I know that that can change. Like I said before, it is a given and it is the "until I see it" part of the statement. It is the unspoken agnostic part of the position.

This leaves atheists in the unenviable philosophical position of vacillation. Since vacillation is an admission of not knowing and not a statement of disbelief, again, the only logical position is that of agnosticism.

Originally posted by totallackey
You cannot offer absence of evidence in this case because the condition is unknown. The evidence may be somewhere, someplace you have not experienced. Event is disallowed by your own admission of the current state of existence.

I didn't say the absence of evidence I said the absence of god. Remember the truth has nothing to do with how the individual interprets the event.

It does not need to be done in your example. You offered an event that cannot take place according to the facts of current existence.

See above.

This leaves atheists in the unenviable philosophical position of vacillation. Since vacillation is an admission of not knowing and not a statement of disbelief, again, the only logical position is that of agnosticism.

Well the agnostic part is what makes it vacillation so, vacillation is the only logical position. It is there and I have even shown where. I don't see what is so hard to understand.

Originally posted by totallackey


While hopeful you are not labeling the event as "conjecture, anecdote, and hearsay," something in my "spider-sense," tells me you are. This would be a mistake. You can label the subjective interpretation of the event as such (i.e., the cause of the event, the relating of the effects of the event on the individual, and eyewitness accounts), but the event must be logically assumed to have occurred unless proven otherwise.

Not quite/ It needs to be believed before it can be assumed. Belief, as we know, takes a leap of faith. Not believing in god, because it lacks evidence to support the clames of those who assume it exists, doesn't involve leaps of faith, but a rational look at the evidence.

You claim not believing in god is still a belief, but how can I believe in something if there's no thing to believe in? The subject of this conversation is God, you either believe in him your you don't. I don't believe in the absence of a god because I don't believe in a god. If there is no god, there's also no god to be absent. There's no belief there whatsoever. Agnosticism, like theism, is still nothing but doubt of the evidence and common sense.

There is no objective proof of a god.

Correct. But this does not mean the objective proof does not exist in someplace you have not been or otherwise experienced, does it? Of course not...therefore, you cannot discount the possibility. And neither can anyone else who is intellectually honest and logically consistent. Once this state of affairs is admitted, disbelief is suspended. Therefore, agnosticism is the most radical position you can take. Atheism is impossible.

So my logical conclusion should be that somewhere out there exists the possibility of a God? I also suppose there's a possibility of the sun not rising tomorrow, but I'm not going to go out and sell my solar panels. This is the way it will always be with agnostics—attributing the unknown to the possibility of god. Not much different than a theist in my opinion, or at least one who still clings to the hope of there being a god.

Secondly, theism is unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no way it can be refuted.

You had me... then you lost me. How can something be logically refuted for over 500 years and then, at the same time, be incapable of refutation?

edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

Falsifiability pertains to science. I meant theism cannot be empirically refuted. But rationally it has many times, even by some great agnostics.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Answer the following questions:

1) Have you been everywhere?

2) Have you seen everything?

3) Have you experienced everything?

An honest person would answer no to each of those questions, without equivocation or mental reservation.

Since the answer to each of those questions is no, then by default, one must admit there is a possibility evidence, indeed an entity itself, exists somewhere that could point to a deity, or be the deity.

If one refuses to admit this in the face of such facts, then atheism is indeed a belief based on illogical conclusions and intellectual dishonesty.

reply to post by daskakik


Since one must admit to inexperience in some matters or situations, by default, one must admit evidence (or the deity) could be in some matter or situation where experience is lacking. Therefore, absence of god cannot be proven.

reply to post by totallackey


Exactly. Therefore we must also leave open the possibility the existence of unicorns, mermaids, magic, vampires and a Stephen King book with a satisfying ending.

Sometimes you just have to use common sense.

Originally posted by miniatus

Check out The Holographic Universe book if you haven't already.Best scientific explanation that encompasses ghosts as well into the theory of how the Universe works.

Double post,sorry.

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by totallackey

 

Exactly. Therefore we must also leave open the possibility the existence of unicorns, mermaids, magic, vampires and a Stephen King book with a satisfying ending.

Sometimes you just have to use common sense.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... I liked the end of the Dark Tower Series. I thought it was quite satisfying. Thus, all of the aforementioned items on your list may possibly exist.

BAM.

Look, folks, why is this argument still going on?

The universe is subjective.

One can choose to believe "proofs" or not. The fact is: Proof is not actually Proof because Proof is subjective.

We can argue about logic and rationality and belief and truth until the cows come home.

But, really, we can only believe what our own experiences and egos allow us to believe.

Don't be afraid to examine what other people believe. Don't close the door on other belief systems just because they seem "illogical" to you. We all have different types of logical reason and deduction. What is logical to you may be completely irrational and illogical to me.

We need to try to understand one another, not sit around arguing which of our points of view are "better". We can't know anything for certain.

Belief, Faith, Knowledge, Truth, Science, Proof - these all require one thing to exist: the human mind.

Our minds are powerful, regardless of how we choose to use them. Respect this in one another, and all arguments become null and void.

In closing,

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Answer the following questions:

1) Have you been everywhere?

2) Have you seen everything?

3) Have you experienced everything?

An honest person would answer no to each of those questions, without equivocation or mental reservation.

Since the answer to each of those questions is no, then by default, one must admit there is a possibility evidence, indeed an entity itself, exists somewhere that could point to a deity, or be the deity.

If one refuses to admit this in the face of such facts, then atheism is indeed a belief based on illogical conclusions and intellectual dishonesty.

This is another case of widening the goal posts. But you're right, no one has experienced everything. Can anything see everything? no. Can anything be everywhere? no. Whats the point in asking the question if you already know the answer? If these questions are the foundations of agnosticism, we are doomed to believe in the possibility of god for all of eternity. To me, that sounds absurd.

Let's ask some questions about what we do know, rather than speculate on things we can't know.

!. Is the monotheistic god anything but a character in a book?

2. Has the monotheistic god been recorded objectively in any science?

3. Is the belief in a monotheistic god the result of the presence of that god?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

This is another case of widening the goal posts....

And it appears you opted to punt, even before fourth down...

But you're right, no one has experienced everything. Can anything see everything? no. Can anything be everywhere? no. Whats the point in asking the question if you already know the answer?

You ask these types of questions in order to solidify what it is actually known. Ever lose a set of car keys? A good rule of thumb is to stop and ask yourself where you have been and what you have done, so you do not go all the way to Japan to look for your car keys.

If these questions are the foundations of agnosticism, we are doomed to believe in the possibility of god for all of eternity. To me, that sounds absurd.

Acknowledging (a more appropriate word) possibilities is the very foundation of science and is the starting point for all hypotheses. How is this possibly "dooming," anything?

Let's ask some questions about what we do know, rather than speculate on things we can't know.

Can I ask for a ruling from the judges please? Please compare this last quote to the last sentence of the first quote...

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I will answer your questions, although you did not answer mine...

1) I do not know. The reason I do not know is because I honestly answered "no," to my question #1.
2) If you are speaking of actually proving existence, the answer is no. Not yet. And all branches of science, as of yet, have many avenues remaining to explore.
3) To those who believe, I would state the answer is yes. If you ask them, I would surmise they sense and feel a presence.

reply to post by totallackey


Please. I answered your questions, you answer mine.

!. Is the monotheistic god anything but a character in a book?

2. Has the monotheistic god been recorded objectively in any science?

3. Is the belief in a monotheistic god the result of the presence of that god?

reply to post by RedParrotHead


What is it you find dissatisfying about Stephen King?

And yes, the fundamental basis of common sense is to acknowledge current shortcomings and not adopt an attitude of intellectual superiority one could not possibly achieve in a multitude of lifetimes, let alone one.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

Since one must admit to inexperience in some matters or situations, by default, one must admit evidence (or the deity) could be in some matter or situation where experience is lacking. Therefore, absence of god cannot be proven.

Which is why I said that the objective examination that you proposed could be tried but probably couldn't be done.

It is also the reason that it remains unproven one way or the other and people can only base their position on personal belief. I think many atheists acknowledge that when the existence/absence of god is proven they have no problem with adapting accordingly. Again that is what "believe it when I see it" means.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I will answer your questions, although you did not answer mine...

1) I do not know. The reason I do not know is because I honestly answered "no," to my question #1.
2) If you are speaking of actually proving existence, the answer is no. Not yet. And all branches of science, as of yet, have many avenues remaining to explore.
3) To those who believe, I would state the answer is yes. If you ask them, I would surmise they sense and feel a presence.

1) These aren't intellectually honest answers. We can see that God was a character in a book. Has he been shown to be anything else? No he hasn't.

2) You're right, the answer is no.

3) This is wrong. Belief in anything doesn't mean it exists.

Your questions don't need answering, they're quite obvious.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I did answer your questions. Directly above your post. S for you by the way. I like the fact you have chosen to engage in what I find to be good discussion. Thank you. And thanks to our OP for starting the thread.

Originally posted by totallackey
This leaves atheists in the unenviable philosophical position of vacillation. Since vacillation is an admission of not knowing and not a statement of disbelief, again, the only logical position is that of agnosticism.

edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

I don't think I agree with you .. I can disbelieve in a deity simply because I find it completely without evidence and entirely unlikely.. In that sort of reasoning there would be no such thing as religious or atheist because simply not knowing would make you agnostic by default.. that's clearly not the case..

I am still science minded .. I will state that I'm 99.9% confident there is no God... but because I cannot disprove something that doesn't exist, it will force me to take that scientific standpoint that I cannot be 100% certain.. no scientist would.. I just personally reject the idea that there is a God ..there is no conflict there and that doesn't make me Agnostic in my view point, though I take no particular issue of those who want to label me as such either..

As Dawkins likes to say, and I think it's true.. I believe in God just as much as I believe in a flying speghetti monster, Thor or Zeus.. or perhaps even the Easter Bunny

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Please. I answered your questions, you answer mine.

Actually, you did not directly answer mine. You reframed each and every question into ambiguous terms such as anything...You are not any thing, you are some thing. You punted.

1) These aren't intellectually honest answers. We can see that God was a character in a book. Has he been shown to be anything else? No he hasn't.

I answered I do not know. Yes, it is an intellectually honest answer. It is intellectually honest to state the possibility exists that evidence or a deity could exist somewhere where I have not been.

You are correct. The answers to my questions are obvious. Anyone who chooses to, can answer them honestly, dishonestly, or avoid them. You avoided them. You punted. Even though you labeled them as a widening of the goal posts. You must really be lousy at football...

Originally posted by miniatus
I can disbelieve in a deity simply because I find it completely without evidence and entirely unlikely.. In that sort of reasoning there would be no such thing as religious or atheist because simply not knowing would make you agnostic by default.. that's clearly not the case..

I am still science minded .. I will state that I'm 99.9% confident there is no God but because I cannot disprove something that doesn't exist will force me to take that scientific view that I cannot be 100% .. that's well within scientific reasoning.. I just personally reject the idea that there is a God ..there is no conflict there and that doesn't make me Agnostic in my view point, though I take no particular issue of those who want to label me as such either.

Good points.

What would it be called if I say that I am not opposed to the idea of a creator, but this creator is a man of science in another realm and definitely not a god as we define a god?