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.
You're saying it is rational to believe in things for which there is no evidence? There are an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence. How can a person possibly believe in them all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
So an atheist should go ahead and pretend to believe in something? How should an atheist go about choosing which thing they should pretend to believe in?
"Evidence" is relative. No info or data is infallible....everything is based upon "belief" in the accuracy of the the supporting info...because it might not be accurate. You can never know for sure. We actually "know" very little, if anything at all.
Not only should we make determinations based upon Belief...EVERYTHING IS based upon Belief. We base our belief in the conclusions and determinations we come to based upon probability.
That "Lack Belief" spew many Atheists put out is completely bogus. Once you have contemplated the issue, either you Believe a God Entity exists or you don't believe a God Entity exists.
Only those that have never even considered the matter could reasonably claim "Lack of Belief".
"Evidence" is relative. No info or data is infallible....everything is based upon "belief" in the accuracy of the the supporting info...because it might not be accurate. You can never know for sure. We actually "know" very little, if anything at all.
Not only should we make determinations based upon Belief...EVERYTHING IS based upon Belief. We base our belief in the conclusions and determinations we come to based upon probability.
That "Lack Belief" spew many Atheists put out is completely bogus. Once you have contemplated the issue, either you Believe a God Entity exists or you don't believe a God Entity exists.
Only those that have never even considered the matter could reasonably claim "Lack of Belief".
Any atheist here will agree that they make a few basic assumptions about life that allows them to derive all other conclusions. We all acknowledge that we must assume that we exist. There is no way to prove it. We must assume that events can be learned from (IE, if I drop a ball and it falls, then if I drop it again, it will fall again).
I have no doubt that none of the atheists here contest these things. I believe it would be a category mistake to compare these assumptions and religious beliefs.
No. It isn't "Lack of Belief"...it is "Belief In A Lack". And the evidence bears that out.
Only "Belief In A Lack" constraints one to spends YEARS preaching that Belief to strangers. You see Atheists here with hundreds, thousands, TENS OF THOUSANDS of posts to this board, and others like it. Touting the NonBelief Doctrine of The Atheist Religion.
The determination you make in your first sentence, "I see no evidence to believe that something is true, so I don't.",...is not logical.
Let me give you an example:
I show you someone with a closed fist, and ask you if you believe a small amulet exists within the confines of their hand.
Is it logical and reasonable to take the position that you do not believe there is a amulet in their hand, on no other basis than that you have been presented no evidence that there is?
Would that pass muster from a standpoint of Pure Logic?
Now...what if after I ask you that question...I then show you writings that are the most epic writings in the world that say all the members of that persons family always carry an amulet in their hand for the past 100 generations. Also, I bring you a billion people that give personal testimony and say they have anecdotal evidence that that person always carries an amulet.
This may not be objective evidence, but it is evidence to be considered. Making it even less logical for one to insist that it is reasonable to determine they have have no amulet in their hand unless they are presented proof beyond any doubt.
You are choosing not to believe it, not just "lacking belief" at that point. You have made a determination as to your Belief Position on the matter.
In fact, in the example I gave, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, it would be more reasonable to say either, "I can't be certain, but most likely there is.", or, "I still don't know". It would even be kinda inane for someone to say, "I lack belief in an amulet in that persons hand". Either you believe there is, or you don't.
The same with the existence of a God Entity...either you believe a God Entity exists, or you don't. Only those that have never considered the matter could reasonably claim "Lack Of Belief".
See..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
"God Exists" has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"!
"God Exists" has been sooooooo prolific, for sooooooo long...it can be considered a "Standard of Human Understanding".
When a concept reaches a "saturation point" that is to such a degree that it is considered to be "The Standard"...a position that deviates from that will have to prove itself to be given merit against the long established standard.
Since "GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for you than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and you are wrong.
I don't like your analogy. We all know that amulets exist. I've seen many amulets in person with my own eyes I've touched them. Tasted them.. lol jk, but you get my point. I've never seen any tangible evidence for a deity, so the amulet is already more plausible. Also, I know that the hand is real, so I could study the hand: Do the fingers look like they're bulging out a bit? Can I see between the cracks at all? Do the dimensions of that hand match up in size with the other hand? This is something you can't do with a god.
Continuing further, now you find out that those writings were written hundreds of years after the family and not by any members of the family. The writings are also full of inconsistencies with reality. Hmm these writings don't seem to be like the best evidence to me. And now, I have billions of people that have never met anybody in the family and have never personally seen the amulet are claiming with certainty that it is there. Furthermore, the only reason these people believe there is an amulet is because they've been told from birth about the amulet in the hand, and if they dare question it, they are shunned from society or worse. But, as I said before, we all know amulets are real, which makes this case much more plausible despite the inconsistent writing and the people claiming the amulet is there despite never seeing it themselves.
And finally, you could look in the hand and verify if it is there for not, which is something you can't do with a god. So I wouldn't have to put any faith in if it was there or not. So, while that is a nice thought exercise, it really is appples and oranges when it comes to believing in a god.
Regarding the Galileo thing, essentially you are asking me to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. lol that's not the way things work. If a theory is unfalsifiable, it shouldn't be considered.
"Evidence" is relative. No info or data is infallible....everything is based upon "belief" in the accuracy of the the supporting info...because it might not be accurate. You can never know for sure. We actually "know" very little, if anything at all.
Not only should we make determinations based upon Belief...EVERYTHING IS based upon Belief. We base our belief in the conclusions and determinations we come to based upon probability.
That "Lack Belief" spew many Atheists put out is completely bogus. Once you have contemplated the issue, either you Believe a God Entity exists or you don't believe a God Entity exists.
Only those that have never even considered the matter could reasonably claim "Lack of Belief".
And yet, I honestly do not believe in any deity which mankind has worshiped over the years. What would you have me do?
Any atheist here will agree that they make a few basic assumptions about life that allows them to derive all other conclusions. We all acknowledge that we must assume that we exist. There is no way to prove it. We must assume that events can be learned from (IE, if I drop a ball and it falls, then if I drop it again, it will fall again).
I have no doubt that none of the atheists here contest these things. I believe it would be a category mistake to compare these assumptions and religious beliefs.
Our existence and gravity continuing to function as it has for the foreseeable future are things of very high probability.
As far as "Religious Beliefs"...they each must be assessed upon the merit they hold based upon probability.
Where many go off into the weeds...is to think that if one has "No Evidence", that is a logical basis to lack belief in any probability.
Others may consider the evidence on hand as having greater merit and thus indicate a greater probability. And just because you don't know of any evidence that is supportive of probability, doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any.
Thus...anyone claiming to "Lack Belief" is just whimping out so they don't have to take a firm stand and defend it. You either believe there is sufficient evidence to support probability, or you believe there is not.
No one that has considered a matter can claim they "Lack Belief" in it. That is not reasonable. You DO have Belief...to whatever greater or lesser degree you have it. You cannot "Lack Belief" in a matter you have assessed...about Religion or anything else.
And yet, I honestly do not believe in any deity which mankind has worshiped over the years. What would you have me do?
This indicates that after a consideration and assessment, you believe that those Deities probably do not exist in Reality.
You believe they do not exist. Of course, we can not know absolutely...as we cannot know anything to be absolute.
So, what you could do is state your position the way it actually is: You believe there is a near zero probability in the existence of a Deity. This is my belief as well.
Don't do what many Atheists do and claim "Lack of Belief". Once you have considered a matter...to claim a "Lack of Belief" is inane.
You DO have a Belief...that the probability is negligible.
Few things I have found to be more bogus than to hear people claim they "Lack Belief" in a concept they are making a belief statement about.
This indicates that after a consideration and assessment, you believe that those Deities probably do not exist in Reality.
You believe they do not exist. Of course, we can not know absolutely...as we cannot know anything to be absolute.
So, what you could do is state your position the way it actually is: You believe there is a near zero probability in the existence of a Deity. This is my belief as well.
Don't do what many Atheists do and claim "Lack of Belief". Once you have considered a matter...to claim a "Lack of Belief" is inane.
You DO have a Belief...that the probability is negligible.
Few things I have found to be more bogus than to hear people claim they "Lack Belief" in a concept they are making a belief statement about.
Not having a positive belief is a lack of belief. Seems to me it is simply stating the same concept in a different way.
You and I have discussed your pantheistic views before. And yes, I do agree that our views are more alike than different.
No. It isn't "Lack of Belief"...it is "Belief In A Lack".
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Let's make is simple for you to digest. People have no reason to believe that there is a tooth fairy or little green leprechauns or that they can magically fly away or instantly turn into a black jaguar. This is not a "Belief a Lack".
There is nothing to substantiate believing any of the above therefore no belief system needs to be established.
Dickering about lack of belief and belief in a lack and the old tinkering about with the details of a simple not being convinced by theist claims is old stuff, and looks to me like trying to wangle cheap and irrelevant points against atheism for lack of anything better. Same with the inversion of logic, though Goldies' sneering a negative evidince is his own product. I have explained before that i is perfectly valid when used in the right way.
Arach's 'forcing' of this or that on society is his own gambit, too, but no better. The fact is that logic and reason have the best track record for reliability, and that has made its' own case. Nobody is Forcing it on anyone. Rather the believers are trying to force us to reject it, apparently under the illusion that this will make theist claims more credible.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Let's make is simple for you to digest. People have no reason to believe that there is a tooth fairy or little green leprechauns or that they can magically fly away or instantly turn into a black jaguar. This is not a "Belief a Lack".
There is nothing to substantiate believing any of the above therefore no belief system needs to be established.
What I posted is, "The most ridiculous thing you have ever read", huh? Wow! I think you need to expand your reading then!
I say that "Lack of Belief" spew is ridiculous...and I back up my basis for that. You don't need to simplify anything to help me "digest" it. There is very little, if presented logically and reasonably, that I am not capable of understanding.
No matter the concept, idea, or information that is presented...we "believe" in its probability to a greater or lesser degree. It is ALWAYS a "Belief Position"
The only way you could "Lack Belief" is if you never considered it at all.
My position on the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns (the standard childish things I typically see people with flawed arguments put up as examples) is that I BELIEVE there is a negligible probability that they exist.
"Nothing to substantiate believing" is not a logical statement or concept. That statement turns "Believing" itself into the issue...rather than the matter being considered. Once you consider something, you can only logically make a determination as to whether you, "Believe there is anything to substantiate it". It is necessarily always what you "Believe" about it. It is impossible to have a "Lack of Belief" about it, once you've consdered it...and you will necessarily establish a "Belief Position" relative to its probability of being true or false.
How can one "Lack a Belief" as to whether they exist or not, if they hold a belief as to whether they exist or not?
Claiming you lack something you hold is what's ridiculous.
But I'm hip to why they try to pass off that inane "Lack of Belief" spew...so they can wimp-out on taking a real stand they will then have to logically defend.
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.
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.
