U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How plausible is this theory (explain)?
You've convinced me, where do I join your cult? 0 0%
Nope, totally don't buy it. 10 83.33%
Sorta of, but I believe X instead... 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2014, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,876 posts, read 3,797,576 times
Reputation: 4619

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
LOL. You forgot the exclamation points !!I understand Cruithne . . . but you DO need to acknowledge that not only do you NOT have any evidentiary basis for your preference . . . you never can have. You can not evidence anything by lack of evidence!

Couldn't if I wanted to.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2014, 10:57 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Couldn't if I wanted to.
Actually I'm in a similar position . . . so I can relate!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 11:01 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,736,247 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
LOL. You forgot the exclamation points !!I understand Cruithne . . . but you DO need to acknowledge that not only do you NOT have any evidentiary basis for your preference . . . you never can have. You can not evidence anything by lack of evidence!
Emphasis added.

That's not really accurate.

Evidence simply means anything that tends to make a fact in question more or less likely to be true.

The lack of evidence, where evidence would normally exist if the fact in question were true, is evidence that the fact is not true.

For example, if I told you that I am sitting in your living room right now, the lack of visible evidence that I am present in your living room would be evidence that the I am not sitting in your living room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 11:08 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Emphasis added.
That's not really accurate.
Evidence simply means anything that tends to make a fact in question more or less likely to be true.
The lack of evidence, where evidence would normally exist if the fact in question were true, is evidence that the fact is not true.
For example, if I told you that I am sitting in your living room right now, the lack of visible evidence that I am present in your living room would be evidence that the I am not sitting in your living room.
That is true it is not ENTIRELY accurate . . . smart aleck!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 06:02 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,945,258 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
you DO need to acknowledge that not only do you NOT have any evidentiary basis for your preference
This is false. We have lots of good evidence that not believing in stuff that there's no evidence for is a useful approach to gathering knowledge. Of course that kind of approach gets in the way of various salespeople, con artists and the like so naturally they try and cast doubt on the obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,102,293 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback View Post
Atheism and Theism both require an element of faith.
Theists have faith that a "higher power" exists.
Atheists have faith that none exists.

I think your looking for an easy way out.

Take a side, and let the chips fall where they may.
I don't know what your definition of faith is but mine is belief without requiring evidence (beyond perhaps personal subjective experience and/or personal need -- but these are not valid and admissible as evidence).

An atheist requires evidence to believe, and, lacking evidence, does not believe. It is the antithesis of faith.

Of course not a single thing anyone knows (regardless of their belief position -- atheist or theist) is 100% ironclad certain. It is in fact true that I cannot disprove god anymore than a theist can prove god; after all, gods as generally posited are not falsifiable. This is where theists get hung up on thinking atheism is faith -- because theists use faith to make up for lack of proof so that they might believe.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, an atheist does not need to support belief and so does not need faith. Further, the LACK of evidence supports our UNbelief. Unbelief is a rational position where valid evidence is lacking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 06:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 6,085,863 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I don't know what your definition of faith is but mine is belief without requiring evidence (beyond perhaps personal subjective experience and/or personal need -- but these are not valid and admissible as evidence).

An atheist requires evidence to believe, and, lacking evidence, does not believe. It is the antithesis of faith.

Of course not a single thing anyone knows (regardless of their belief position -- atheist or theist) is 100% ironclad certain. It is in fact true that I cannot disprove god anymore than a theist can prove god; after all, gods as generally posited are not falsifiable. This is where theists get hung up on thinking atheism is faith -- because theists use faith to make up for lack of proof so that they might believe.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, an atheist does not need to support belief and so does not need faith. Further, the LACK of evidence supports our UNbelief. Unbelief is a rational position where valid evidence is lacking.
I don't disagree with a thing your saying.
And in fact, share your belief in verifiable facts

You may have more verifiable facts, in support of your hypothesis.
But it's still an hypothesis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 06:55 AM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
This is false. We have lots of good evidence that not believing in stuff that there's no evidence for is a useful approach to gathering knowledge. Of course that kind of approach gets in the way of various salespeople, con artists and the like so naturally they try and cast doubt on the obvious.
Mystic knows that well enough. I have explained that the evidence we have is for proven physical processes that do not show any evidence of god-input. This is evidential basis for the materialist default, and that is the rationale for atheism being logically sound and theism not.

Mystic knows this, but refuses to accept it. Because, if he does, his claim that 'God' is an equally good name for everything as 'nature' falls to the ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,102,293 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback View Post
I don't disagree with a thing your saying.
And in fact, share your belief in verifiable facts

You may have more verifiable facts, in support of your hypothesis.
But it's still an hypothesis.
I don't even claim it's a hypothesis. To qualify as a hypothesis, scientifically speaking, the hypothesis has to be falsifiable. Gods as generally posited are not falsifiable and therefore not provable.

Anyone making positive or negative assertions about gods is speculating, not hypothesizing. I am not making either kind of assertion about gods; I am simply stating my belief position.

The only thing atheists have is a belief position: we don't believe. Our unbelief is far more reasonable than belief because of the utter absence of evidence for gods, but at the same time, it can never be 100% certain. That last phrase though is just a technicality. It is 99.999% certain that there are no leprechauns, but 0.001% probability of leprechauns existing is nowhere near enough for me to be hedging my bets about it. It's the same with gods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2014, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,876 posts, read 3,797,576 times
Reputation: 4619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback View Post
I don't disagree with a thing your saying.
And in fact, share your belief in verifiable facts

You may have more verifiable facts, in support of your hypothesis.
But it's still an hypothesis.
This makes no sense.

What specifically about what Mordant said are you reading to be a 'hypothesis'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top