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.
Part of the issue here seems to be that you don't really grasp what basic atheism is. You , like so many other confused theists, regard atheism as an affirmative assertion that no gods exist, and so regard it as a belief system in its own right and get bent out of shape that atheists seemingly get by with making assertions with no evidence, while you aren't allowed this. But this shows a lack of understanding of what atheism is, which is really an egregious lack on your part given the multitude of opportunities to understand what atheists believe from their own words here in this forum. So here it is.
<snp>
::Sigh:: I am not arguing that God exists until proven otherwise. I am saying you cannot argue that the existence of God lacks evidence without establishing what evidence does not reflect evidence of God. This is ultimately a question of Ontology that science cannot answer. Perhaps a brief exploration of the actual questions involving either side of the ontology issue may prove illuminating. If ANY aspect of Reality could reflect credible evidence of God your atheism is just your preferred belief as is theism.
Does the fact that Reality is the reason our universe exists constitute evidence it is God or not? If not why not?
Would our ability to understand how the universe exists constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME existing mechanism for its existence? If so, why?
Does the fact that Reality is the reason life exists constitute evidence it is God or not? If not why not?
Would our ability to understand how life exists constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME existing mechanism for its existence? If so, why?
Does the fact that Reality is the reason consciousness exists constitute credible evidence it is God or not? If not why not?
Would our ability to understand how consciousness exists constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME existing mechanism for its existence? If so, why?
Does the fact that Reality is the reason our universe is governed by discoverable laws instead of chaos constitute credible evidence it is God or not? If not why not?
Would our ability to understand why laws exist instead of chaos constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME existing mechanism for their existence? If so, why?
Does the fact that Reality is the reason consciousness exists with the ability to discover how the universe functions and predict future outcomes constitute credible evidence it is God or not? If not, why not?
Would our ability to understand why consciousness exists with the ability to discover how the universe functions and predict future outcomes constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME existing mechanism for the existence of its capabilities? If so, why?
Does the fact that Reality is explainable constitute evidence that God does not exist since there obviously must be SOME explicable mechanism for its existence? If so, why?
My position is that atheism is a counter-claim to theism, and the position brings more clarity to me. Sure, there is an attempt to claim an overall life force (that is supposedly neutral) and that it is full of endless characteristics, that it has no "not". Maybe there is some being who has transcended home sapiens and can experience a reality where there is no "not", but I have no choice to analyze my reality with my human brain. The term sapien comes from the Latin word "sapientia "good taste, good sense, discernment; intelligence, wisdom," according to etymonline.com.
What makes me human is being able to discern and that includes "not". So when I look at reality, I do see a lot of it as seperate things because that is what my brain was built to do.
Atheist have a responsibility to talk about ideas that have science evidence independent of activism against religion in the united states no matter how much people hate religion in the states.
People that do not understand the evidence do not get to define atheism as lack belief based on what some atheist don't know. Those atheist cry about a god of gaps and they use a no god of gaps in the exact same manor. atheist hiding an agenda are equally dishonest as theist that do it.
"I don't know why. I believe its god."
"I don't know why. I believe its not god."
yeah ... they are aren't the same.
"Atheist have a responsibility to talk about ideas" What? Atheists, by definition, don't have a responsibility to do anything. I knew two of them years ago. One of them never mentioned it until somebody else brought it up. He did know something about science, but he never brought it up regarding atheism. The other guy never mentioned religion, atheism, spirituality, or anything relative to any of that and simply shrugged it off if anybody else brought it up. I knew them both for decades and this was consistent.
Yes, a lack of belief IS a belief. It is a state of knowledge about Reality and its polarity is irrelevant. It is a state of mind regarding the ontology of the evidence science is discovering. I have explained this as many times as anyone has made the stupid lack of belief in a claim nonsense. Regarding the evidence of Reality, you can CHOOSE to believe it is evidence of God or you can CHOOSE to believe it is evidence of something else that is NOT God. But since it is evidence of what DOES exist, there can be no question of its existence, just what it IS evidence of.
NEITHER choice above, (however worded) can be claimed as the default belief (notice it is a BELIEF about an existing Reality). The bottom line: atheists see Reality as a bunch of separate things. I see Reality as separate manifestations of ONE thing - the spacetime field. My view is solidly supported by QFT and QED. Your separate things theory is perceptual and only superficially supported by perceptual and measurement limitations which is why - NO DEFAULT.
You said "It is a state of knowledge about Reality" and I disagree. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a state of knowledge. Saying "I don't believe in God" is not saying anything about "knowledge" or "Reality." I don't know why you keep saying things that are simply not true.
(You'll probably write a long paragraph with a bunch of capital letters, big words, bold type, and veiled insults, but it still won't make a lack of belief in God a state of knowledge about "Reality.")
Some atheist will not believe anything no matter how much evidence is presented. Some atheist will even go so far as to knowingly limit the discussions to a deity only. Nothing else can be discussed to them.
What evidence do I use for that statement?
List the traits we would associate with a fundy theist. Then ask ourselves how an atheist with those traits will express their atheism. Do we see that anywhere.
If the traits of an atheist and a theist are the same (we have no idea since you never say what traits you are talking about), then you have learned absolutely nothing about either atheism or theism.
You do seem to have difficulty recognizing the implications of your claims.
You do seem to have difficulty recognizing the difference between atheists that can argue for atheism and the more common atheists who simply do not believe religious claims. You also seem to have difficulty recognizing the difference between imply in infer.
As I can argue for atheism, I do recognize the implication of my arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
We both have the same evidence available. If atheism is a conclusion from what we do know, and what we do know are scientific facts, that absconds with ALL the factual scientific evidence as evidence of your atheism, not my theism. What FACTS establish that?
Because you are arguing for something extra with no evidence for that extra.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What does that imply you are claiming about the factual nature of your atheism as opposed to my theism??? On what basis is this abduction of the evidence for your atheism based??? Is there any chance that the ontology of what the evidence is evidence OF ever enters your philosophically-challenged ASSumptions???
By philosophically-challenged ASSumptions, you mean rational arguments based on the only evidence we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Does science currently have any DIRECT measurement of the presence or absence of consciousness??? If not, how on earth can you reject by CONCLUSION the existence of a known phenomenon of Reality. Your composition fallacy nonsense does not apply because it assumes Reality is all separate phenomena that can currently only be ASSumed not proven.
Our reality is conscious because we are conscious is a classic example of the composition fallacy,
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
In fact, the spacetime field as the substrate for ALL manifestations of energy, mass, and momentum belies any such separateness. To clarify your irrational concerns that I am claiming proof for MY theism as the default belief, I am NOT.
No one is doing this. You do seem to have difficulty recognizing the implications of what other people write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am simply supplying the needed understanding about why YOUR atheism is not and cannot be accepted as the default belief EITHER!!!.
Which is not possible with your philosophically-challenged ASSumptions. You also seem to have difficulty recognizing what our arguments actually are, despite the fact that we have told you so many times.
Correct, it is a negative belief (for those who want to play the belief / faith game). My belief is that gods probably do not exist, ergo I do not believe gods exist. What it is not is a belief about what our reality is, the apathetic atheist do not care about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is a state of knowledge about Reality and its polarity is irrelevant. It is a state of mind regarding the ontology of the evidence science is discovering. I have explained this as many times as anyone has made the stupid lack of belief in a claim nonsense.
No, it makes no claim about the state of our reality, many atheists do not care about that. You are arguing your belief I do not own a gold plated Porsche 911 is a claim about what car I do own. Your explanation is stupid, not the definition of atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Regarding the evidence of Reality, you can CHOOSE to believe it is evidence of God or you can CHOOSE to believe it is evidence of something else that is NOT God. But since it is evidence of what DOES exist, there can be no question of its existence, just what it IS evidence of.
And your claim is for something extra. Choice has nothing to do with if I believe you claim or not, the lack of evidence for your extrapolation does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
NEITHER choice above, (however worded) can be claimed as the default belief (notice it is a BELIEF about an existing Reality). The bottom line: atheists see Reality as a bunch of separate things.
No, we recognize there are separate things. But thank you for telling us our thoughts on what reality is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I see Reality as separate manifestations of ONE thing - the spacetime field.
Some atheists do as well, although the science literate may question your claim the one thing is the spacetime field. Others do not even think about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
My view is solidly supported by QFT and QED. Your separate things theory is perceptual and only superficially supported by perceptual and measurement limitations which is why - NO DEFAULT.
QFT and QED are solidly supported, your extrapolation is NOT. If there is no default, your belief is as valid as that of any other religion.
"Atheist have a responsibility to talk about ideas" What? Atheists, by definition, don't have a responsibility to do anything. I knew two of them years ago. One of them never mentioned it until somebody else brought it up. He did know something about science, but he never brought it up regarding atheism. The other guy never mentioned religion, atheism, spirituality, or anything relative to any of that and simply shrugged it off if anybody else brought it up. I knew them both for decades and this was consistent.
Indeed. Atheists and indeed atheism has no more responsibility than anyone else. As has been noted, those atheists who don't want to do anything about it are not obliged to. The feelings of a moral responsibility in regard to being an atheist is a personal decision.
Indeed. Atheists and indeed atheism has no more responsibility than anyone else. As has been noted, those atheists who don't want to do anything about it are not obliged to. The feelings of a moral responsibility in regard to being an atheist is a personal decision.
Yes.
I moved here to Arizona almost two years ago and quickly became very good friends with one particular next door neighbor. I never said a word about being an atheist, although it was mentioned that I was Buddhist. For whatever reason, suddenly at lunch one day my neighbor related that he had become an atheist. There was no more discussion of it. And, as far as I know, it is his "quiet position". Just a position. I'm more aggressive here on this forum, but not in general, although should the right situation arise I might very well be more aggressive 'in real life'.
I think ..indeed I know...I would argue the same way face to face as i do on the boards. I don't look like the atheist professor. I don't shout. I don't scowl. I smile and even laugh as I argue. It just looks so much worse (even with the smilies) on the boards. And of course, I don't even talk about atheism (or religion, if I can help it) in the normal course of life.
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.
On what basis is this abduction of the evidence for your atheism based??? Is there any chance that the ontology of what the evidence is evidence OF ever enters your philosophically-challenged ASSumptions???
