Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205337 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #275 –
As this thread has amply shown, atheists (or anti-theists) are bad at definitions and very reluctant to improve in this area. At the same time they easily shoot accusations such as no evidence or missing the point (characteristically coupled with not defining what kind of evidence they mean or what the point was, if any).

So here are some tongue-in-cheek definitions from me, simply because I am good at them. Choose your category. If you think yours is missing, show how to improve these categories.

Pretty much every atheist who ever participated in this thread rejected, when apparently still in rational mode, any positive claims about God, i.e. they reject the claim "God does not exist." This does not harmonise well with their heated antagonism to theistic positive claims, but it's convenient for their rejection of burden of proof on their own part. Probably hey simply like to watch theists agonise under burden of proof. So the first definition is -

ANTI-THEIST: God's a problem in every way, but not my problem! It's the theist's problem.

Otherwise I think lack of positive claims about God goes under agnosticism.

SOFTCORE AGNOSTIC: I don't know if God exists.

INTERMEDIATE AGNOSTIC: I don't know if God exists. I tried and could not figure it out.

HARDCORE AGNOSTIC: I don't know if God exists. When I don't know, nobody knows!

NEGATIVE ATHEIST: God does not exist, because there are so many other things in life that fascinate me.

POSITIVE ATHEIST: Goed does not exist and I can prove it by offering a better alternative explanation to everything!

This last category is yet to be seen here.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #276 –
Quote from: ersi on
POSITIVE ATHEIST: Goed does not exist and I can prove it by offering a better alternative explanation to everything!

This would be more my cup of tea.  There is a perfectly marvelous alternate explanation offered today by science after 3000 years of gathering information and doing real world experiments to prove it's validity.  It is scientifically and mathematically sound (if one is capable of understanding even a little about those subjects), but perhaps most convincing of all, it meshes perfectly with everything else we know about our universe. 

You want to take the subject of god and argue it, to no end, with your brand of logical philosophy when you haven't ever taken the time to point out the flaw with the scientific explanation.  Don't use philosophy, simply point to the physics or math that is in error with just a brief explanation--that's not asking too much is it?  Or do you simply not trust 3000 years of mankind's best efforts to answer the oldest questions of all time? 
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #277 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
There is a perfectly marvelous alternate explanation offered today by science […]

Otherwise known as "arm waving"! Most scientists abjure or eschew such "explanation" — when they aren't otherwise giving it the neglect it deserves.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #278 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Otherwise known as "arm waving"! Most scientists abjure or eschew such "explanation" — when they aren't otherwise giving it the neglect it deserves.

I suppose you have no answer to the question of 'where science's explanation is flawed', either...I didn't think so. 
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #279 –
You could try, e.g., How the Laws of Physics Lie (free pdf) by Nancy Cartwright, of Stanford, LSE, and other well-known institutions. Sorry, no video yet… :)
(I wonder: Would you forgive her mentoring of Naomi Oreskes?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #280 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
You could try, e.g., How the Laws of Physics Lie (free pdf) by Nancy Cartwright, of Stanford, LSE, and other well-known institutions. Sorry, no video yet…


I will reiterate.....'I didn't think so'. 

Sure, I will read it, but is this the original version or the one she had to rewrite?  I'll get back to you (so don't say I didn't warn you). 
James J
 

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #281 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
is this the original version or the one she had to rewrite?

While your question is presumptuous -meant merely to cast aspersions, I'd like you to expand it into a full-blown accusation… :)
I'll be happy to respond to such.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #282 –
JS, for example take the post where I speak about the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist fails at crucial distinctions (crucial for science). A concrete example of such physicist is Lawrence Krauss, so this is not out of thin air.

Or take the posts where I refute atomism, which used to be so widely influential metaphysical assumption that it even made its way to spiritual literature. If atomism is not the foremost metaphysical assumption any more, then that's again science's problem: You can't switch your fundamental perspective every now and then and at the same time claim to have something to do with truth in the relevant sense!

Or take Sam Harris's (and your) reductionist view of free will. Are you even willing to expose your brand of scientism properly* here so that it would be open to peer review? If yes, your theory of free will implodes. If not, your complaints that everybody else somehow fails to understand you are futile.

* "Properly" includes the metaphysical assumptions and hidden presuppositions. Over millennia, science has made zero progress in even detecting any metaphysical assumptions and hidden presuppositions, much less defining what they are, so inevitably you will have to face logic and philosophy.

---------------
There's a gap in my definitions between negative and positive atheist. The positive atheist has a better explanation to everything than the theist, but there's a distinct category of atheists who disbelieve God due to evidence that God does not exist (and no, mere lack of evidence does not properly equal evidence).

So, the negative atheist has so much else to do that he has not much room for God. The positive atheist has such a good theory of everything that there's really no logical space conceivable for God. And then there's EVIDENTIAL ATHEIST who has proof that God does not exist, and proof that all proofs of God fail. This category has also been missing here.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #283 –
Harris is a hoot! He's so smart he can appear dumb on any subject… And he's so dumb he repeatedly does: Note the use of the word 'flourish' in the quote below:
… my view of moral truth demands a little more than this -- not because I am bent upon reducing morality to "physical" facts in any crude sense, but because I can't see how we can keep the notion of moral truth within a walled garden, forever set apart from the truths of science. In my view, morality must be viewed in the context of our growing scientific understanding of the mind. If there are truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish; consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil.
(
source)
Is flourishing an ultimate good?
Harris will always find something or other to be such. But the only 'science' involved will be that of opinion polling, which doesn't seem a very deep access of morality and -need we mention?- ethics?
Focus-grouped slogans seem a poor recompense for a scientist's sincere explorations. But Harris' bugaboos don't particularly interest me; I don't care why he believes what he believes. It's enough to see what silliness his proscriptions and prescriptions are…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #285 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
While your question is presumptuous -meant merely to cast aspersions, I'd like you to expand it into a full-blown accusation…  :)
I'll be happy to respond to such.

It's just that the laws of nature and physics have been fixed for 13.8 billion years...she's a bit more wishy-washy.   :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #286 –
Quote from: ersi on
* "Properly" includes the metaphysical assumptions and hidden presuppositions. Over millennia, science has made zero progress in even detecting any metaphysical assumptions and hidden presuppositions, much less defining what they are, so inevitably you will have to face logic and philosophy.

Science would lose all credibility if it delved into the the matters of the supernatural.  No one can make up an entity or anything else and expect science to look into it.  You are so blinded by (what I call) 'the spooky nature of things' that you can't even for one minute think that it is not real.  To you it is a plain as the beard on your face, but not everyone can see your beard (don't go crazy-silly on me here, it's only metaphorical).   :)


Quote from: ersi on
there's a distinct category of atheists who disbelieve God due to evidence that God does not exist (and no, mere lack of evidence does not properly equal evidence).

It is no longer 'the lack of evidence', it is the lack of necessity.  Occam's Razor is about theoretical parsimony and introducing God infinitely complicates matters.  Now you have a new entity without cause and a new unknown force in the universe that would ultimately put science back to square one.  Science can't consider spooky things or philosophical arguments because it is a vain effort to give an explanation which involves more assumptions than necessary.  Science, technology and progress would come to a halt if it adopted your way of thinking.   :knight:

Btw, even good circumstantial evidence can land one in the lethal injection chamber...just playing with you, relax! 
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #287 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

Quote from: ersi on

who has proof that God does not exist

While it is logically impossible, such people don't exist.

The fact that you are not an evidential atheist doesn't mean nobody is. Different from you, there are people who actually care about evidence and proof. Here's a start http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2011/10/20/what-are-the-best-arguments-for-the-non-existence-of-god/

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Science would lose all credibility if it delved into the the matters of the supernatural.

In fact, science loses all credibility whenever it delves into the matters of the supernatural, so the reasonable suggestion is for scientists to stop doing that. Don't get all heated about the supernatural, drop your dogmas about it, and leave the supernatural have its own life. The same applies to metaphysics. Scientists should stop demonstrating their ignorance in areas outside their area of expertise.

Just like you. For someone eager to establish the validity of science, you have way too much to say about the supernatural and metaphysics, namely against them as if you proved something when you didn't. But I know why you act like that. You are not merely trying to establish the validity of science. You are outright worshipping science. You are giving science the place where other people have God, or where rational godless people have nothing.

For example this very claim of yours "Science would lose all credibility if it delved into the matters of the supernatural." Is this a scientific finding or a philosophical proposition? If scientific, by which scientific method did you arrive at it? By which method did you approach the supernatural and detect loss of credibility in science? On the other hand, if the claim is philosophical, then you are actually using the validity of philosophy to establish the validity of science, instead of letting science stand by itself.

Of course I know why you are doing this. Philosophy is indispensable to establish any rational validity, so it's not just that it's hard for you to let science stand on its own, but outright impossible. Moreover, you see no distinction between the notions of science and philosophy, you conflate the two, and you call the result science rather than philosophy. This is a failure of logic, but hey, you are in good scientific company when you do this, namely in the neoatheist company.

The rest of your post is more of the same fallacious and unengaging tirade of unsupported assertions. I formerly took the trouble of directly replying to your post, even though I didn't quote you. You quote me, but

- You disregard where I responded to you
- You don't reply to anything I actually say
- You (deliberately?) avoid addressing our only conceivable common ground
- Your text is a pile of unfounded assumptions upon unfounded assumptions, nothing methodically scientific, nothing logically coherent, even nothing personally interesting.

At least you are on topic, kind of. Carry on.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #288 –
I thought that we could agree at least that it's impossible to prove the inexistence of whatever. (And that, just for this reason, such arguments like those of that link are nonsense.) All hope is gone now.  :cry:

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #290 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

I thought that we could agree at least that it's impossible to prove the inexistence of whatever.

To prove negatives is both common sense and logically coherent. For example, it's possible to demonstrate the set of people who are not members in these forums. They are NOT here AND it can be demonstrated right here. So no rational atheist would agree with your tenet.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #291 –
Don't you know what "inexistence" means?
(Well... I forgot that you have a problem with the word "nothing" and alikes.  :sherlock:)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #292 –
You can prove that married bachelors don't exist. They don't exist by the nature of their definition. By the same token, you can prove the inexistence of God by demonstrating that a certain relevant definition of God is logically self-contradictory or such.

Another way to prove the inexistence of God is to demonstrate the necessity of certain type of evidence that should be there if God by a certain relevant definition existed. Then move on to establish the lack of such necessary evidence and this in turn proves the inexistence of God.

And my first example was also applicable. The non-members of these forums do not exist HERE, and you can prove their non-existence HERE. You don't have to go anywhere to prove their existence elsewhere. You don't have to leave this place here, but it's exactly this place here where they don't exist - and you can logically prove it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #293 –
This is getting better. :)
Self-contradictory things' inexistence don't need to be proven. That's fine - and I'm not referring to those. God is not self-contradictory by its very definition (which doesn't mean much).
Quote from: ersi on

Another way to prove the inexistence of God is to demonstrate the necessity of certain type of evidence that should be there if God by a certain relevant definition existed. Then move on to establish the lack of such necessary evidence and this in turn proves the inexistence of God.

Unfortunately, this is circular (or rather recursive), because, in order to prove the inexistence of something, you have to prove the lack of something else...
Your first example is applicable to the lack of things somewhere, but not to the inexistence of anything anywhere in the universe (and beyond). For instance, you cannot prove that goblins don't exist, because, even knowing that there's no evidence for them, you should know about everything that exists in the whole universe in every possible ways, in order to be sure that they are not there. The most we can say about them (absolutely) is that we haven't found any yet.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #294 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

This is getting better. :)
[...]
For instance, you cannot prove that goblins don't exist, because, even knowing that there's no evidence for them, you should know about everything that exists in the whole universe in every possible ways, in order to be sure that they are not there. The most we can say about them (absolutely) is that we haven't found any yet.

So you are agnostic about goblins. This is indeed getting better :)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #295 –
I'm sure goblins don't exist -- but I'm not willing to prove it to anyone. :) (If not for any other reason, just because it's impossible.)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #296 –
Quote from: ersi on
You can't switch your fundamental perspective every now and then and at the same time claim to have something to do with truth in the relevant sense!


This is, and always has been, a normal and healthy part of the process of science. While it's true that all scientific ideas are subject to change if warranted by the evidence, many scientific ideas (evolutionary theory, foundational ideas in chemistry and physics) are supported by many lines of evidence, are extremely reliable, and are unlikely to change.  Science makes no promises, I'm sure you've heard me mention that before. 

Quote from: ersi on
Are you even willing to expose your brand of scientism properly* here so that it would be open to peer review? If yes, your theory of free will implodes.

Lol...again with the word games.  You are mixing your brand of 'willingness' with mine.  You are trying to say that my perceived willingness to expose my brand of scientism is a demonstration of your idea of willingness, making my brand of willingness the same as yours.  See where your logic leads to--a total convolution of ideas. 

Quote from: ersi on
Just like you. For someone eager to establish the validity of science, you have way too much to say about the supernatural and metaphysics, namely against them as if you proved something when you didn't. But I know why you act like that. You are not merely trying to establish the validity of science. You are outright worshipping science. You are giving science the place where other people have God, or where rational godless people have nothing.


I have a rather full life outside of our discussions here Eric.  All my children and grandchildren live nearby, I have a large extended family, I am President of the Residential Council where I live, I tutor students in math, psychology and one blind Canadian girl at a Theological Seminary college, in theology (strange but true, I can understand theology and teach it well without believing in God), I love to go to the beach and Caribbean, I love to watch all kinds of sports, I contribute to a sex-advice site often, I have a pretty good sex life myself, I have friends, drink occasionally with them and then we talk about everything under the sun.  I don't believe my lifestyle reflects any kind of preoccupation with science in body or mind. 

The only reason Hawking even mentions God in connection with science is because he felt that the question of how everything came into being was a job for physics to answer.  Science has no interest in telling people what to believe because it has no agenda with them, so if science mentions God, it is only to present its findings on creation and not because it has an opinion about God.  Individual scientists may have things to say about the supernatural, vis-a-vis Krauss, but not science itself. 

I must admit that I am out of my realm when discussing philosophy with you Eric, but that's not the only reason I tend to not get into it with you.  Would anything have changed when we were done?  I don't need a degree in philosophy to see that it is of little use or value to a person like me.  I have taken courses in philosophy, argued philosophical issues (and enjoyed it), plus I've researched some of your ideas about logical philosophy and simply found them not to be as logical as one would expect.  I see word games instead of logic, but maybe that's just me. 

I see beauty and truth in simplicity, so does nature, therefore I go with the simplest and most reasonable answer for my existence.  Too many people who believe in God have an agenda that usually leads to one giving up some of their hard earned money.  You may have an agenda (reason), for believing in God (certainly not $$), but that is really none of my business. 

I will do my best to argue with you philosophically about God/supernatural, so c'mon put up your dukes, what was your last question? 

James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #297 –
Quote from: ersi on
And my first example was also applicable. The non-members of these forums do not exist HERE, and you can prove their non-existence HERE. You don't have to go anywhere to prove their existence elsewhere. You don't have to leave this place here, but it's exactly this place here where they don't exist - and you can logically prove it.


A non member is something not here by your definition. In order to be God you'd have to be here having an effect. Anything else isn't "God". A creator, alien or whatever, but not God. As circular as proving aliens don't exist because we haven't seen them here. If it's here it's assumed not to be extra-terrestrial. Are there people that read the forum but aren't members? Non-members here are something you've presumed doesn't happen. Just like a bachelor that's not 'married' to their job. The play on word is the defining factor of existence to you. Not too far off from JS's approach. You both look to make it sound good.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #298 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

I'm sure goblins don't exist -- but I'm not willing to prove it to anyone. :) (If not for any other reason, just because it's impossible.)

As I showed above, the existence or non-existence of goblins is perfectly provable. It's just that you are not an atheist of the evidential type, and you are doing your best to stay that way. I give you that.

The same goes @ensbb. You are bad at definitions in general. Non-members may view this site, but they cannot log in. For members, "here" means the ability to log in, among other characteristics that distinguish members from non-members. Non-members cannot log in, and from their point of view the place or state where we are is called "there". If you fail at this distinction, you fail at the definition of member versus non-member. You either stay on topic and talk properly about non-members or you don't. You have chosen not to. Without crucial distinctions it's easy to change the topic all the time and not get into the bottom of anything. Hence you don't qualify as evidential atheist.

Here's another clue: Rigorous definitions are vital to science, but it's not (empirical) science that gets to define anything. Namely, definitions are not empirical; they are logical, conceptual. For example, we have had this video in this thread earlier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw How do scientists get started? They GUESS it! Now, what venerable sir in the video doesn't say is that a guess is a proposition, and that a conclusion is also a proposition. How do you tell one kind of proposition apart from the other? No, you cannot detect the distinction physically. You can only define it logically. The same way as premises are distinguished from the conclusion in logic, in science when you have the scientific method and a guess (hypothesis) preceding your proposition, then you have a conclusion. Philosophy did this work before physics, and physics is benefitting from this. Science became possible when the philosophical work of logical distinctions had been done, not the other way round. Without knowing the difference between the guess and the conclusion, nobody would know if they are guessing things, drawing conclusions, or beating around the bush, but logical people know the difference.

Definitions are not circular. They are made up of logical distinctions, and I just showed how absolutely vital logical distinctions are. That's why I mentioned above that, when we talk about anything, we do it according to a relevant definition. Otherwise we are just talking, and just talking may very well be circular, but without any aim it's worse than that.

Still no evidential atheist detected here. No positive atheist either. No scientific method, hence no scientific conclusions. With denial of philosophy and logic, all you have is painfully flawed reasoning. JS is an anti-theist occasionally posing as something else, but not very good at acting. Keep trying and you may become something else some day.