|
On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable?
Well, most non-religious folks are agnostic. But atheists proper tend to argue it's the default option to not believe in a thing. Which is fair enough I think. I personally do think religion has a positive case it has to prove for itself, which I think it can and should.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure forum rules allow discussions like the one above (is this a tenet of this religion) and not so much "is there a God" because that become a shitshow pretty fast.
|
On May 20 2017 01:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable? For the same reason you believe there is not a pink teapot in orbit around Mars.
but we don't know that there isn't one--part of the big reason we keep sending things to mars is because we don't know what's there. Science believes in the infinite possibilities of the universe and only has opinions on the things it can prove, and has no opinions on the things it can't.
Atheism is literally the opposite of that.
|
On May 20 2017 01:49 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable? Well, most non-religious folks are agnostic. But atheists proper tend to argue it's the default option to not believe in a thing. Which is fair enough I think. I personally do think religion has a positive case it has to prove for itself, which I think it can and should. Anyway, I'm pretty sure forum rules allow discussions like the one above (is this a tenet of this religion) and not so much "is there a God" because that become a shitshow pretty fast.
I'm not against the idea of skepticism--ie to want proof of things you believe in.
I'm just wondering about the internal mindset of believing something whose axiom is that it can't be proven, and then going to other believers and telling them your unprovable axioms is more right then their contentious axioms.
|
Sometimes people pass off cynicism as skepticism. The skeptic accepts God cannot be provide to exist or not exist, but does not think less or more of others for believing in God. The cynic thinks less of believers and seeks to personal gratification through belittling them through debate or performance. This is why a lot of say that if you ask someone why they believe in God, you are asking the wrong question.
|
On May 20 2017 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 01:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable? For the same reason you believe there is not a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. but we don't know that there isn't one--part of the big reason we keep sending things to mars is because we don't know what's there. Science believes in the infinite possibilities of the universe and only has opinions on the things it can prove, and has no opinions on the things it can't. Atheism is literally the opposite of that.
This post is quite full of false dichotomies. Well done. I know you're trolling, but even trolls deserve a good meal from time to time, so lets go!
Firstly, lets get it straight that NASA has not yet sent the Mars Mission in Search of Pink Teapots. There are many things we send missions to Mars to go and find out. Pink teapots isn't one of them. But why not? Well, because we have absolutely no reason to believe that there might be a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. The scientific method is quite a bit more involved than that.
Second. You're making a categorical error. If you want to be a skeptic, then fine. I'm a brain in a vat, and you're just some silly input that the evil doctor running experiments on my brain has decided to feed me as input today. Cogito ergo sum and other tautologies are about the sum of what I can possibly KNOW about the universe. Of course, I'm not a radical skeptic, but clearly a radical skeptic cannot rule out the existence of god, just as he cannot rule out the brain-in-a-vat case. He is fundamentally doubtful, and thus cannot ever KNOW anything. However, even a radical skeptic could BELIEVE. Either in a god, or that he's brain-in-a-vat for all I care. The scientific method is all about what you can KNOW about the universe. A true skeptic says "nothing", and a truly skeptical scientist presumably retreats and studies theoretical math or philosophy. All other epistemical philosophies have a different interpretation of what the truth is and tp what extent things are knowable... and for all of them, the scientific method is the (current) best methodology for figuring out what IS the truth.
One of the tools in the scientific toolbox is Occam's Razor and its family: the simplest explanation is usually correct, or alternatively, strong claims require strong evidence. A pink teapot being in orbit around Mars is a pretty strong claim, given everything we know about teapots and Mars. So scientifically speaking, there is no reason to accept that hypothesis. Now whether god's existence is a similarly outrageous claim depends on to what extent you accept scripture as evidence. Personally, I think it's a pretty good story, but it's basically fiction. So I disregard it all as evidence for the existence of god. Plenty of people think otherwise.
Finally, "science" is not a thing. "Science" has no beliefs or opinions at all. People have opinions. And many scientists have many different opinions, both about what is provable, and what isn't.
|
On May 20 2017 02:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 01:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable? For the same reason you believe there is not a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. but we don't know that there isn't one--part of the big reason we keep sending things to mars is because we don't know what's there. Science believes in the infinite possibilities of the universe and only has opinions on the things it can prove, and has no opinions on the things it can't. Atheism is literally the opposite of that. This post is quite full of false dichotomies. Well done. I know you're trolling, but even trolls deserve a good meal from time to time, so lets go! Firstly, lets get it straight that NASA has not yet sent the Mars Mission in Search of Pink Teapots. There are many things we send missions to Mars to go and find out. Pink teapots isn't one of them. But why not? Well, because we have absolutely no reason to believe that there might be a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. The scientific method is quite a bit more involved than that. Second. You're making a categorical error. If you want to be a skeptic, then fine. I'm a brain in a vat, and you're just some silly input that the evil doctor running experiments on my brain has decided to feed me as input today. Cogito ergo sum and other tautologies are about the sum of what I can possibly KNOW about the universe. Of course, I'm not a radical skeptic, but clearly a radical skeptic cannot rule out the existence of god, just as he cannot rule out the brain-in-a-vat case. He is fundamentally doubtful, and thus cannot ever KNOW anything. However, even a radical skeptic could BELIEVE. Either in a god, or that he's brain-in-a-vat for all I care. The scientific method is all about what you can KNOW about the universe. A true skeptic says "nothing", and a truly skeptical scientist presumably retreats and studies theoretical math or philosophy. All other epistemical philosophies have a different interpretation of what the truth is and tp what extent things are knowable... and for all of them, the scientific method is the (current) best methodology for figuring out what IS the truth. One of the tools in the scientific toolbox is Occam's Razor and its family: the simplest explanation is usually correct, or alternatively, strong claims require strong evidence. A pink teapot being in orbit around Mars is a pretty strong claim, given everything we know about teapots and Mars. So scientifically speaking, there is no reason to accept that hypothesis. Now whether god's existence is a similarly outrageous claim depends on to what extent you accept scripture as evidence. Personally, I think it's a pretty good story, but it's basically fiction. So I disregard it all as evidence for the existence of god. Plenty of people think otherwise. Finally, "science" is not a thing. "Science" has no beliefs or opinions at all. People have opinions. And many scientists have many different opinions, both about what is provable, and what isn't.
I'm glad you got that out of your system, now let's get back on the topic at hand.
How does an atheist--one who does not believe in god. Have a faith whose axiom is that it can't be proven.
This is different from a teapot around mars because, for the most part, that is a provable fact. Ie, we can (with great cost) put enough eyes around mars to know for certain if there are teapots there.
However, atheism at its core functions differently.
It starts with an axiom--God does not exist.
When asked for proof, the response is rightfully--you can't prove a negative.
As such, how can a person believe in something he knowingly knows cannot be proven.
EDIT
Theism works in the opposite context--perform X, Y, Z and you will be rewarded. If you are wrong, then it doesn't matter since nothing happens to you. If you were right, then you will see the proof in the afterlife.
Ie, theism hinges on an eventual reveal of proof or truth. Atheism hinges on the impossibility of that proof.
|
On May 20 2017 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 02:21 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 01:44 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 01:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If you can't prove a negative, why do atheists believe something they know to be unprovable? For the same reason you believe there is not a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. but we don't know that there isn't one--part of the big reason we keep sending things to mars is because we don't know what's there. Science believes in the infinite possibilities of the universe and only has opinions on the things it can prove, and has no opinions on the things it can't. Atheism is literally the opposite of that. This post is quite full of false dichotomies. Well done. I know you're trolling, but even trolls deserve a good meal from time to time, so lets go! Firstly, lets get it straight that NASA has not yet sent the Mars Mission in Search of Pink Teapots. There are many things we send missions to Mars to go and find out. Pink teapots isn't one of them. But why not? Well, because we have absolutely no reason to believe that there might be a pink teapot in orbit around Mars. The scientific method is quite a bit more involved than that. Second. You're making a categorical error. If you want to be a skeptic, then fine. I'm a brain in a vat, and you're just some silly input that the evil doctor running experiments on my brain has decided to feed me as input today. Cogito ergo sum and other tautologies are about the sum of what I can possibly KNOW about the universe. Of course, I'm not a radical skeptic, but clearly a radical skeptic cannot rule out the existence of god, just as he cannot rule out the brain-in-a-vat case. He is fundamentally doubtful, and thus cannot ever KNOW anything. However, even a radical skeptic could BELIEVE. Either in a god, or that he's brain-in-a-vat for all I care. The scientific method is all about what you can KNOW about the universe. A true skeptic says "nothing", and a truly skeptical scientist presumably retreats and studies theoretical math or philosophy. All other epistemical philosophies have a different interpretation of what the truth is and tp what extent things are knowable... and for all of them, the scientific method is the (current) best methodology for figuring out what IS the truth. One of the tools in the scientific toolbox is Occam's Razor and its family: the simplest explanation is usually correct, or alternatively, strong claims require strong evidence. A pink teapot being in orbit around Mars is a pretty strong claim, given everything we know about teapots and Mars. So scientifically speaking, there is no reason to accept that hypothesis. Now whether god's existence is a similarly outrageous claim depends on to what extent you accept scripture as evidence. Personally, I think it's a pretty good story, but it's basically fiction. So I disregard it all as evidence for the existence of god. Plenty of people think otherwise. Finally, "science" is not a thing. "Science" has no beliefs or opinions at all. People have opinions. And many scientists have many different opinions, both about what is provable, and what isn't. I'm glad you got that out of your system, now let's get back on the topic at hand. How does an atheist--one who does not believe in god. Have a faith whose axiom is that it can't be proven. This is different from a teapot around mars because, for the most part, that is a provable fact. Ie, we can (with great cost) put enough eyes around mars to know for certain if there are teapots there. However, atheism at its core functions differently. It starts with an axiom--God does not exist. When asked for proof, the response is rightfully--you can't prove a negative. As such, how can a person believe in something he knowingly knows cannot be proven. EDIT Theism works in the opposite context--perform X, Y, Z and you will be rewarded. If you are wrong, then it doesn't matter since nothing happens to you. If you were right, then you will see the proof in the afterlife. Ie, theism hinges on an eventual reveal of proof or truth. Atheism hinges on the impossibility of that proof.
Let's start with you invoking Pascal's wager. You say that "if you're wrong it doesn't matter". But most monotheistic religions have a clause that if you don't believe, you go straight to hell. So that doesn't seem right at all, because even if you DO believe in one of the many alternative pantheons, you might have picked the wrong one!
|
Atheism stems from the lack of proof. If valid proof of God would be presented, not a single person would be atheistic. Perhaps you'd have people that reject answering to that supreme being, and that's actually fine, you have the right to rebel against your maker, but not a single person would deny its existence.
Also, regarding to my previous post of answering the last posts of you and Plansix, I'll concede on that because the ship has sailed on that topic.
|
On May 20 2017 01:26 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 17:02 xM(Z wrote:On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. my mistake was extendint Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. that last part ... are you serious ... for years i've been dragged to church and i've also read the bible. i remember being stuck in the woman side in the church(yes, the church was split between men side and women side and the children would go with the women) and during sermons some random words from the priest would trigger a painful memory in a woman and she'll start crying. not long after, they were all crying because that shit was contagions; it used to get me and i'd start crying for no reason. i hated it. i've listen to sermons and i remember what the priests were saying about Adam and Eve sins. i've been to baptisms, i've seen parents sigh with relief after their kids were baptized and i've seen parents feign in church while begging priests for a postmortem baptism for their dead child just so he wouldn't go to hell; that baptism never came and there were no priests at the burial reading last rites. devastated parents, believers, with a kid in hell(because yea, belief ...) were in church the next day praying to fucking Jesus for their child, in hopes that maybe, just maybe he will give them a pass. what else could they have done?... i tried to meet you half way but you, talking to me about metaphysical happenings and whatnot is an assholery. I am serious that I think you should try to approach any ideology from the point of view of its reasonable adherents, not the nutcase fringe. I am furthermore serious that you don't get to say what the true interpretation is of something you don't believe has a true interpretation because you ultimately think it's bullshit. That said, I think the important thing to say in response to this is that I'm really sorry you had to go through that shit. It's awful. It's heretical, and it's contrary to the gospel. I understand that that experience has turned you personally off from Christianity and that's fair; but I do ask that you don't lump us all in with that group or think they are more "right" than we are (as surely you don't). I'll go into details, but please remember that my fundamental thought is that I'm really sorry all that crap happened, and that I'm physically angry about it. + Show Spoiler +As an FYI, I'm currently a seminarian at one of the top seminaries in the country, studying under some of the most respected (and most published) scholars in religion out there. I'm not some liberal talking out my ass because I'm a softie... I'm not a softie and there's plenty of stuff I'm hard as nails on, but I try to have it be the kind of abusive crap that got Jesus riled up, like the shit you described.
The men and women's side? Yeah all the evidence is that Jesus taught to mixed gendered groups, and that this was unusual at the time (it may have been part of why he taught outdoors or at residences, but rarely at synagogues). The earliest churches were often led by women.
The whole salvific baptism thing is insane. Yeah baptism is a wonderful sign of being accepted into the community of believers... but that's a community in and of this world. The idea that God only saves people we bothered to dip in water is profoundly insulting to the divinity. Incidentally, even though I believe that, I've been taught that the correct thing to do if a parent asks you to baptise their stillborn is to do it... not because it does anything for the child (heck, I'm a Protestant; we don't even pray for the dead because we trust God with them). It's a way of showing kindness to parents going through some rough shit.
Anyway, I'll leave it there if you wish. Thanks for sharing and I am deeply sympathetic; fundamentalism does some genuine damage and I'm really sorry for all you've witnessed. i initially thought that all Christians are in the same boat on the whole original sin/sins of our fathers thing. when you said they weren't, i believed you(when i said i'll meet you half way) but you still didn't believe me, my side of things, about the eastern church. i gave links showing that the baptism requirement is a church dogma and i exemplified with things i've actually experienced.
if you want more, at the latest (2015) meeting between some Jewish and Orthodox Christian clerics, in Greece, the jewish side asked for something like "the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate, the historic document rejecting the charge of collective Jewish guilt for the killing of Jesus" and the orthodox clerics gave them the finger(more or less).
so the Eastern Church's 'official' dogma is that since a jew killed Jesus, all jews share a collective guilt of sorts. Deciding to finally address the “elephant in the room” in his closing remarks, the head of the Jewish delegation, Rabbi David Rosen, called for the Orthodox Christian leaders to issue a statement on the status of the Jewish people. “A doctrinal repudiation that the Jewish people had been rejected by God could have enormous consequences,” said Rosen, the international director of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee. Rosen’s request was met with silence, raised eyebrows and the occasional shake of the head by the Christian delegates. In concluding remarks, the head of the Orthodox delegation, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, did not directly address the Jewish request, speaking only about the need for greater people-to-people contacts and his desire to include youth in the next round of talks. What Rosen and several other Jewish participants were calling for was a grand gesture similar to the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate, the historic document rejecting the charge of collective Jewish guilt for the killing of Jesus. That document, which had its 50th anniversary marked last month, went a long way toward paving the way for improved Jewish-Catholic relations, and the Jewish participants in the Athens dialogue were hoping for something similar from their Orthodox interlocutors. Rosen was careful to note that unlike the Catholic Church, Orthodox churches do not have a hierarchy with a single leader like the pope, and that “there had never been an institutional charge of deicide against the Jews from the Orthodox Church.” Nevertheless, Rosen said that such a statement from Orthodox leaders would go a long way toward eliminating “traditional prejudice” toward Jews. The talks were part of a series of events commemorating 25 years of full diplomatic relations between Israel and Greece. The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is the second largest stream in Christianity, mainly centered in Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East .
my mistake as i've said, was to extend that view over the whole christianity but you vehemently dismissed my side of things and took it as a direct attack on your belief. i still have no idea if you believe it's a church thing or an isolated incident, a nutcase fringe(event) as you put it.
in the last years it might have gotten better, less practiced by priests, even if at an official level things are kept purposely muddy.
i never tried taking a jab at you, your faith, your belief etc, or at least that wasn't my intention. i started with my reality then switched to playing with phrases, words, meanings and their obfuscated logic without attaching to them any faith shattering, belief bending, life changing meanings.
if you believe in things then more power to you; i see no point in trying to convert you/anyone to ... nothing or to the lack of something.
|
But why is it useful to prove that God doesn’t exist? Beyond debate for the intellectual exercise, of course. What is the aim of rational thinkers in proving something they freely admit is easily provable?
|
|
|
@acro
Pascal's wager is about *why* you'd believe, I said nothing of the sort. Simply that theism always has a fixed point in which it's believers can know if they were right or wrong in their choice. An eventuality of realization as core to their belief; be that reincarnation, afterlife, brain in a jar, etc...
ie they will find out eventually and are acting and preparing for that eventuality.
Atheism goes the opposite route, that they believe in a negative (the non-existence of something), a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven.
@Uld
What your describing is agnosticism, not aethism. Not wanting to commit to one belief or another until proof comes showing truism. Ie, only give credence to things with evidence available and not to things without evidence available.
Aethism goes one step further to state that an unprovable negative is the baseline of reality simply due to their inability to perceive things currently.
Those are two different things.
Although I do believe majority of humans are agnostics (even most theists I would brand more as agnostics)
|
On May 20 2017 03:39 Plansix wrote:
But why is it useful to prove that God doesn’t exist? Beyond debate for the intellectual exercise, of course. What is the aim of rational thinkers in proving something they freely admit is easily provable?
It is as useful as believing God doesn't exist.
It would be better to not have an opinion one way or another and to reserve opinion on theism based on what evidence says and not on what can't be proven.
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable?
|
Read up on Calvinism; they actually had to add addendums because people literally stopped caring about being good people and just partied and caused chaos until they were told how people would know you were one of the select few.
It's also why suicide is deemed hell worthy in Christian doctrine--to prevent short cuts to heaven.
But yeah, it's totally rad!
|
No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be.
Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all..
Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief.
On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable?
Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it.
It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space.
|
On May 20 2017 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@acro
Pascal's wager is about *why* you'd believe, I said nothing of the sort. Simply that theism always has a fixed point in which it's believers can know if they were right or wrong in their choice. An eventuality of realization as core to their belief; be that reincarnation, afterlife, brain in a jar, etc...
ie they will find out eventually and are acting and preparing for that eventuality.
Atheism goes the opposite route, that they believe in a negative (the non-existence of something), a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven.
@Uld
What your describing is agnosticism, not aethism. Not wanting to commit to one belief or another until proof comes showing truism. Ie, only give credence to things with evidence available and not to things without evidence available.
Aethism goes one step further to state that an unprovable negative is the baseline of reality simply due to their inability to perceive things currently.
Those are two different things.
Although I do believe majority of humans are agnostics (even most theists I would brand more as agnostics)
There are many unprovable things we believe all the time. And your "you can't prove a negative" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that the null hypothesis is what you accept as true barring evidence to the contrary. The null hypothesis is that none of the pantheons exist.
As for your response to me specifically, you invoked Pascal's wager by implying theists would "not lose" at the afterlife. Your newest statement is empty of any meaning: we will ALL find out upon death whether there is an afterlife or not. Or rather, we won't, because our consciousness will simply be snuffed out, so there won't be anything capable of "finding out" 
E: Oh, and having had many discussions with you on various areas of ethics, I'll bring up "innocent until proven guilty" as a great analogy for this. I hope you agree that everybody is innocent until proven guilty? But how can you prove innocence? You can't because you cannot prove a negative. It's simply the baseline one should accept barring any evidence to the contrary. 
|
|
|
On May 20 2017 04:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@acro
Pascal's wager is about *why* you'd believe, I said nothing of the sort. Simply that theism always has a fixed point in which it's believers can know if they were right or wrong in their choice. An eventuality of realization as core to their belief; be that reincarnation, afterlife, brain in a jar, etc...
ie they will find out eventually and are acting and preparing for that eventuality.
Atheism goes the opposite route, that they believe in a negative (the non-existence of something), a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven.
@Uld
What your describing is agnosticism, not aethism. Not wanting to commit to one belief or another until proof comes showing truism. Ie, only give credence to things with evidence available and not to things without evidence available.
Aethism goes one step further to state that an unprovable negative is the baseline of reality simply due to their inability to perceive things currently.
Those are two different things.
Although I do believe majority of humans are agnostics (even most theists I would brand more as agnostics) There are many unprovable things we believe all the time. And your "you can't prove a negative" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that the null hypothesis is what you accept as true barring evidence to the contrary. The null hypothesis is that none of the pantheons exist. As for your response to me specifically, you invoked Pascal's wager by implying theists would "not lose" at the afterlife. Your newest statement is empty of any meaning: we will ALL find out upon death whether there is an afterlife or not. Or rather, we won't, because our consciousness will simply be snuffed out, so there won't be anything capable of "finding out" E: Oh, and having had many discussions with you on various areas of ethics, I'll bring up "innocent until proven guilty" as a great analogy for this. I hope you agree that everybody is innocent until proven guilty? But how can you prove innocence? You can't because you cannot prove a negative. It's simply the baseline one should accept barring any evidence to the contrary.
Wasn't discussing the Null Hypothesis, simply that you can't prove the non-existence of something.
Innocence until proven guilty is a great example of what I am talking about, wherein you do not accuse someone of guilt until the evidence of that guilt is found. The innocence, however, is merely grace provided by the state that all people within its boundaries be protected from harm until there be good reason for it.
I misspoke on my earlier statement. The reason being Pascal's wager is about the cost/benefit analysis of "why" one should believe--which is not what I was attempting to state.
Atheistsm, as a baseline, already concludes there is no God. Not from proof of this conclusion, but an assumption of correctness despite the impossibility of proving his the non-existence of God.
Theism takes a physical or passed down axiom--book, relic, story that tells of the trueness of their theism. Those sources of data become the starting points, with death usually providing the endpoint of the narratives they follow. Ie, they take the evidence presented to them, and follow it to their conclusion.
Agnostics takes that same data, and asks for more, wanting something more specific, more precise.
Atheism, just from its name, already has its conclusion, and its conclusion comes from an unprovable axiom--the non-existence of something.
It's a metaphysical question and not a theistic one. I don't see how they don't just be agnostic.
|
On May 20 2017 04:01 Uldridge wrote:No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be. Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all.. Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief. Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable? Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it. It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space.
Proving god is real is an agnostic/theistic goal.
Proving god isn't real is an atheistic one.
|
On May 20 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 04:01 Uldridge wrote:No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be. Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all.. Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief. On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable? Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it. It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space. Proving god is real is an agnostic/theistic goal. Proving god isn't real is an atheistic one.
Not really. Just as I have no need to prove I'm innocent. I'm perfectly confident that a couple of millennia without obvious proof of God's existence is sufficient proof of his inexistence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
