|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 26, 2012 1:41:26 GMT
You say that you're unconvinced that there's a god. Why aren't you convinced? No evidence. That is a sufficient reason to be unconvinced of any claim. None at all. Being unconvinced does not equate coming from nowhere as you said. It comes from looking at the evidence and thinking critically about the matter. I form beliefs, just as anyone else does, after careful consideration. After careful consideration, I remain unconvinced that a god created the universe. As to how the universe came into existence, I dont know. It is that simple. You are unable to get this simple explanation through. What are you talking about? What x? what y? Explain. Why not? What if it is just a bare floor? Why must there be something? You have not provided any logical argument for that other than your feelings and your personal experiences. Sorry, they dont count.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 26, 2012 1:46:51 GMT
The video I provided opens with a courtroom. There are 12 members in the jury in a murder case. Now, Some jury members form opinions about the guilt of the defendant before any evidence is presented. As more and more evidence is presented, they change their minds or become convinced that the defendant is guilty. But there are a couple of jury members who, after careful consideration of all the evidence , still cannot say for certain whether the defendant is guilty or not. Atheists are these people who, after looking at all the evidence, remain unconvinced that there is a god, or there is no god.
Some of the jury members may be convinced that the evidence points to her guilt, others believe the evidence points to her innocence. A couple are unconvinced either way, and wait for more evidence. Atheists are in this category.
I don't know for certain that there is a god, and I don't know for certain that there is no god. Therefore I don't believe both these claims: 1. "There is a god" 2. "There is no god"
Both claims are unprovable. So I don't believe either statement.
The default meaning of atheism is what I outlined above. Atheists have formed no beliefs -- i.e. they lack beliefs, even after careful examination of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 26, 2012 13:55:36 GMT
You're confusing one thing with another. You're talking about not knowing / not being sure, and I already understand this, but that isn't what I'm talking about. You think that I'm saying that you must have a definite idea about what to think (ie something other than god) and you're saying that it's possible to not have one, but I already get that. The point that I'm trying to make to you is about something else.
Ok, so you are unconvinced that there's a god. You've considered the evidence and decided that actually there really isn't any, and that what has been proposed to you as being evidence is in fact not evidence. I understand and I agree that this is what's going on in your mind. We don't need to keep going over that as I'm not disputing it.
I also know what atheism is. It is the lack of belief in god. This is another point that we really don't need to keep going over.
What I've been trying to tell you is something else. Let's say that you become aware of the concept of a creator. Do you believe that this creator exists? If not, then this disbelief must be the result of a thought process of some kind. I hope we can agree so far. If you've examined whatever information comes your way and decided that it doesn't actually constitute evidence, there must be a reason, there must be some criteria by which you have judged the evidence to be invalid to you.
That criteria is part and parcel of your belief system. Your belief system / philosophy only allows certain things to be possible in your mind, while other things are not allowed to exist (to you). What I've been telling you is that whether you like it or not, you always carry around with you a belief system, and if god does not feature as a possibility (or let's say, a strong likelihood) in that belief system, then there must be either 1 thing or many things or a range of possibilities that take its place. This means that "I don't know" is a possibility, but to not know, you must be unsure among a range of other alternatives. If you don't believe in god, then there is either 1 other concept taking its place, or, a number of alternatives vieing for that place, and you don't know which one is most plausible. But whichever way you look at it, there is no vacuum. And you don't even have to be consciously aware of what all those other alternatives are, because the point is that there's no vacuum, and that therefore there necessarily must be at least 1 other concept. I never said you have to know what your alternative belief to god is, what I'm saying is that your belief system either has another idea, or, in your case, your belief system is still weighing up other alternative beliefs to have but is as yet inconclusive.
If you ever do reach the point where you can say for sure what else you think, it will be a belief. But one thing is for sure, and that is that as long as you don't believe in god, you believe in a godless universe of some kind. If you don't believe that the universe was "created" by a "creator" then you either believe that it somehow created itself, has always existed, or some other concept. Right now you may not know which to think, but all of them involve a godless universe. Or you might end up believing in god, but that's just another belief too. Or you may never reach a conclusion, in which case none of the alternative beliefs will ever rise above the rest. You're making out as though your disbelief in god is only the product of insufficient evidence, when in fact it is that and more, it is the product of having weighed all the possible beliefs to hold and not considered any of them to be "the one". Either way, it's all belief. The clue is in the use of the word atheist. By using that word, you're effectively telling people that even though you can't be absolutely certain, you are onclined to believe in a godless universe. If you didn't have that inclination you wouldn't call yourself an atheist. And then there's the spectrum of theistic probability. What's that? It's a scale that represents how strong or weak your belief in the likelihood of god is. The further away from god you are on that scale, the closer you are to something else. For you, that something else is inconclusive, but whatever it is, it is a godless universe. There is no vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 26, 2012 20:19:26 GMT
As i explained earlier, the essential question of the human condition is curiosity about the unknown. God is an explanation for that, and not a very good one. Lack of belief is not a belief in and of itself. The problem with belief is that it is not rational. Not believing, however, is not.
Also, disbelief in a claim does not involve any thought process at all. It is the default position. The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 26, 2012 21:31:44 GMT
You keep misunderstanding almost everything I say. I'm not saying that a lack of belief in x is, in itself, a belief in y. I'm saying that it indicates a belief in y. You cannot have a disbelief in x without having a belief in y. If you're an atheist it means that your belief system leans away from the idea of god, but towards what? Towards a godless universe, there's no doubt about that, otherwise you wouldn't call yourself an atheist. Out of all the theoretical possibilities about the universe, you have specifically picked one particular aspect, one particular set of ideas (theistic) to reject. You don't believe in god, you reject the whole idea, you lean away from it. That's fine, but don't make out as if you lean towards absolutely nothing at all (the mystical neutral, impartial, default zone), because you do in fact lean towards the belief in a godless universe, hence your atheism.
This isn't about default positions or burden of proof, we're not discussing that. The term "default position" is utterly meaningless and you haven't even justified the use of the term in any way whatsoever, you've just assumed that we're all in agreement that it is relevant but it isn't. There is no default position, there is only the position in which you stand and where your belief system leans towards, and as an atheist, it is clear which direction that is. You keep applying ideas to humans which simply don't have anything to do with us. There is no neutral zone, no default position, there is just you and your belief system and the ideas which resonate with it. That's it. It's like you're trying really hard to bestow some idealised concept of absolute unbias and impartiality upon yourself, when actually you are as much a believer as I am. It is impossible for me to be a disbeliever in a godless universe without being a believer in a godful one. Likewise, you cannot disbelieve in god without believing in some sort of godless universe. You might not have a complete idea of what to confidently believe, but whatever it is, it is godless and you believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 27, 2012 9:04:32 GMT
You keep misunderstanding almost everything I say. I'm not saying that a lack of belief in x is, in itself, a belief in y. I'm saying that it indicates a belief in y. You cannot have a disbelief in x without having a belief in y. And this is exactly what I am contesting. I don't need to lean towards any other belief to disbelieve x. I don't even need to know or believe anything about alternatives to x to disbelieve it. If I said to you "I saw a pink unicorn ". You would disbelieve me. You dont need to believe anything about alternatives or know anything about unicorns to disbelieve me. Disbelief needs no companion. So you think you are a better judge of my position than me? This is exactly my problem. You don't understand my position adequately. And hence you don't buy your perception of my position. You are not arguing against my position, you are arguing against what you think my position is. I don't form beliefs about anything until I have looked at all the evidence, as I explained earlier. You agreed with this. There is no adequate evidence on any side, be in a god-created universe, or a godless universe. Therefore I have not formed a belief about the universe. You agree with my premise and then disagree with its logical conclusion. I find that confusing. The default position of the legal system is "Innocent until proven guilty" Because innocence of all people is the default position and assumed as true. This means the burden of proof to find the defendant guilty lies upon the prosecution. Similarly, the default position regarding any claim is "I don't believe you until you prove your claim". Atheism is the default position regarding the claim that "god exists". No. atheism is not a belief system. It is a response. Please don't indulge in your need to prove I am a believer like yourself. As I have explained numerous times with examples, I don't believe. And I am very slow to form beliefs. It just so happens that I have not formed any beliefs about the universe yet. I may, someday. A kid doesn't have to be a believer in an alternative to maths to disbelieve 2+2=5. Your logic doesn't hold up. Disbelief requires no companion. It is the default position. You really should watch that video I provided earlier to understand about 70% of my position, if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 27, 2012 9:06:34 GMT
I would appreciate it if you quoted me so that I know which part of my argument you are addressing specifically. It is hard for me to present arguments for a whole block of argument from you without knowing which specific part of my argument you are referring to. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 27, 2012 14:32:20 GMT
You say that you don't need to lean towards any other belief in order to disbelieve x. I totally disagree with you and here's why. You're human. From the moment that you were able to form them, you started to form beliefs about everything and anything. Why did you do this? Because you need a belief system, it's just the way it is. You wouldn't be able to even survive or function without one, let alone ever get anything done. Your entire life is built on your belief system. And when I say belief system I'm not just talking about a bunch of things that you believe, like a list, I'm talking about the very criteria by which you form them. Your belief system is a system of what you believe and disbelieve. They both come from the same place, that's the point I keep making and it's an important one that I think you keep missing.
Who makes laws? Answer : someone who wants you to live a certain way. If there's a law that says you can't do something, the implication is that by extention, you can do everything else (unless there's a law against that too). You don't have to have a law saying "don't do this, but you can do that instead", all you need is a law saying "you can't do this" and the rest is obvious. It's implied. And don't forget that a set of laws is written by someone who wants you to live a certain way, which means that laws come from somewhere, they come from a philosophy, they come from somewhere deeper than the laws themselves. That's why we have the term "the spirit of the law". Likewise with a belief system. It comes from somewhere deeper than any particular belief.
You're making out as though a belief system is driven purely by the analysis of something followed by the application of logic to decide if there are sufficient grounds to believe a thing. It's not like that. Everything has a source, and the source of a belief system goes deeper than that. A belief system is something very profound, and it begins with emotion (the spirit of the law), the rest is rationalization. And here's the point of everything I've just said : You say that disbelieving x doesn't mean that you lean towards y. But belief and disbelief are part and parcel of the same continuum, they come from the same place. If you're not in one place on that continuum, you are somewhere else. You can't be nowhere on it because you have a belief system and it rules your life. Every single aspect of it.
Your belief system always has something to say (whether for or against) about everything that comes into your mind. There is no default position for us sentient beings. Sentient ---> feel ---> emotion ---> belief system ---> an opinion about everything. It's not that disbelief has a companion, it's more than that. Disbelief and belief are two sides of the same coin : your belief system. It's a system which is more profound than the beliefs and disbeliefs that it gives rise to. You can try to be as impartial as you like, but at any given moment in time, you have a belief regarding everything. Again, you keep using the term "default position" without justifying its use.
Everyone is slightly different. I get the impression that you are very linear with your thinking processes. I'm not as linear as you (linear is overrated - I'm more holistic than linear). When you read someone's posts, you address the first bit, then you move on to the next bit and address that, and so on. When I read posts, I read the whole lot (in case I miss any aspect of the whole of what you're saying), and once I get the gist of it, I address it as a whole unless there's something specific that needs more attention. Occasionally I find it slightly annoying that the other person misses the gist of my posts because they break them down into parts and address each part thus missing the whole. Sometimes breaking something down leads to confusion.
But I accept that each person is different and I do the best I can with what I'm presented with, and I wouldn't ask them to change their style, because I know that it's part of who they are. If I started splitting up your posts and addressing each bit separately, it would feel weird and out of character. I will try but only where I think it's absolutely necessary. Having said that, I find it odd that it's difficult for you to present arguments (your own arguments, mind you) to what I say without knowing which of your points I'm referring to. How can you not know what I'm referring to?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 27, 2012 20:53:10 GMT
I know what you are referring to. I just don't know if you bothered going through my examples or the videos that I posted. I cannot know that unless you specifically say something about the examples (such as the pink unicorn one) or the videos(about lack of belief). I do read your posts completely and then break down each part If I have something to say about that part specifically. You present a lot of information and different points in each of your posts and it is easier for me to break it down point by point and address each point specifically. But I understand if you want to address my arguments as a whole.
For example, in your last post, you did not say anything about my example of the default position which you contested in your post before that one. I gave you the example of the legal system. I feel you are jumping around too much and not addressing any one issue to its full conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 27, 2012 21:07:12 GMT
If your videos refer to stuff that you've already said, then I already understand your points. I know what atheism is, I know what a lack of belief is, I get it. And maybe you get most if not not all of what I say to you but you find it difficult to accept as valid. But as you can see, our views are so different that at least one of us has some kind of mental block to what the other is saying because it goes so against one's worldview. It might be me (but obviously I doubt that) or it could be you that is (at least on a subconscious level) "refusing" to accept a different way of looking at things, but one things is for certain (I trust you'll agree) and that is that worldviews are very powerful.
Here's a hypothetical question for you. If it does turn out that I'm right, I mean, if somehow you one day changed your mind and started to agree with me (not that I'm striving to change your mind, although it's always good to debate), and then you looked back to now, would you say that the reason you didn't agree before (ie now) was because your way of thinking somehow put a block on understanding my points, or would you say that it was because I wasn't explaining it properly?
I did understand what you said about the default position, and how you compared it with the legal system. You said basically that the default position is like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Yes I understood that.
You said that without evidence of god, you will not believe in it. I agree that you "shouldn't" believe in god without evidence, but there's more to it than that, because it isn't a simple matter of what you should or shouldn't believe, it goes deeper than that. To judge whether or not something constitutes evidence, you need criteria by which to do the judging, do you not? If we're going to agree on anything at all, surely this must be it. You can't see without eyes, you can't think without a brain, and you can't judge something as constituting (or not) evidence without criteria. My point is, what is the source of this criteria? Is it some default position? No way, we're human, and so the source of all of our criteria for judging anything is subjective. That's why even judges, who are supposed to be impartial, can end up making different judgements even when presented with the exact same evidence. My point being that evidence is subjective because our criteria is subjective. There is no absolute default position for us sentient beings. There is no "should" or "shouldn't". If you look into the etymology of the word "evidence" you'll find that it is dependant and comes from the word "conviction". There is nothing that is, in and of itself, evidence. It becomes evidence to you (or not) depending on your convictions. In other words, if your belief system leans in a certain direction, there will be some things which cannot, for you, constitute evidence.
It's one thing to illustrate what you mean about the default position by using the example of innocent until proven guilty, but it's quite another to explain why that is even relevant here, which you still haven't done. I say that there is no default position and I've explained why, in quite a lot of detail. You say there is, and you illustrate your point, but you haven't demonstrated that it applies to what we're discussing. You haven't demonstrated that there is a default position, you've only illustrated what a default position is. Defining it is not the same as proving that it applies here, that it exists in the context of our discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Jan 29, 2012 6:30:50 GMT
Does that flowchart imply that you are certain/uncertain that you don't believe in god? If so, it is meaningless. The other interpretation is that you are certain/uncertain about the existence of god, in which case it is meaningful. I find no good reason to believe in any god. The Abrahamic god(s) is/are supposedly extraordinary, so there needs/need to be extraordinary evidence to convince me of "their" existence, (one or other of the variants of the said gods). I am certain that I find no good reason to believe in any god, and live accordingly. I know that I don't believe, that is simple. It is my position that I cannot be certain that "God" does not exist, and so the position I take is open to revision, if some new evidence or argument of the necessary extraordinariness were to come along. As I said, I do not take Pacal's wager. The flowchart is not about ME, but about elucidating a number of ways in which people may be in a state of atheism, (ie. being non-THEISTIC), or alternately a state of theism. The main point was that whilst atheism simply implies a lack of theism, (theistic belief), that is not all that there is to "IT". The flowchart may be incomplete, or need improving but it does make its point - there are atheists, and there are atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 4, 2012 13:56:12 GMT
What do you mean when you talk about evidence coming along? Evidence is linked to conviction. You can't consider something evidence without conviction. Conviction doesn't just come along, it's something that you have. Scientists don't just sit around waiting for evidence to drop into their laps, so why are you waiting for evidence of god to just come your way?
|
|
|
Post by wendypotter on Feb 4, 2012 18:02:29 GMT
The video I provided opens with a courtroom. There are 12 members in the jury in a murder case. Now, Some jury members form opinions about the guilt of the defendant before any evidence is presented. As more and more evidence is presented, they change their minds or become convinced that the defendant is guilty. But there are a couple of jury members who, after careful consideration of all the evidence , still cannot say for certain whether the defendant is guilty or not. Atheists are these people who, after looking at all the evidence, remain unconvinced that there is a god, or there is no god. Some of the jury members may be convinced that the evidence points to her guilt, others believe the evidence points to her innocence. A couple are unconvinced either way, and wait for more evidence. Atheists are in this category. I don't know for certain that there is a god, and I don't know for certain that there is no god. Therefore I don't believe both these claims: 1. "There is a god" 2. "There is no god" Both claims are unprovable. So I don't believe either statement. The default meaning of atheism is what I outlined above. Atheists have formed no beliefs -- i.e. they lack beliefs, even after careful examination of the evidence. And what do you call the people who have formed a belief? A belief that there is no God. Consider magnetic monopoles. There are probably scientists who believe that they can not exist. Which is different than the one who have not concluded that they do (or at least can) exist.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 5, 2012 13:13:37 GMT
The video I provided opens with a courtroom. There are 12 members in the jury in a murder case. Now, Some jury members form opinions about the guilt of the defendant before any evidence is presented. As more and more evidence is presented, they change their minds or become convinced that the defendant is guilty. But there are a couple of jury members who, after careful consideration of all the evidence , still cannot say for certain whether the defendant is guilty or not. Atheists are these people who, after looking at all the evidence, remain unconvinced that there is a god, or there is no god. Some of the jury members may be convinced that the evidence points to her guilt, others believe the evidence points to her innocence. A couple are unconvinced either way, and wait for more evidence. Atheists are in this category. I don't know for certain that there is a god, and I don't know for certain that there is no god. Therefore I don't believe both these claims: 1. "There is a god" 2. "There is no god" Both claims are unprovable. So I don't believe either statement. The default meaning of atheism is what I outlined above. Atheists have formed no beliefs -- i.e. they lack beliefs, even after careful examination of the evidence. And what do you call the people who have formed a belief? A belief that there is no God. Consider magnetic monopoles. There are probably scientists who believe that they can not exist. Which is different than the one who have not concluded that they do (or at least can) exist. I would call them positive atheist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism I realize that the words are fuzzy or do not explain the two separate positions of lack of belief and holding a belief that gods do not exist. Most atheists fall under negative atheism and I think this is what most of us mean when we call ourselves 'atheist'.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 5, 2012 13:36:47 GMT
Here's a hypothetical question for you. If it does turn out that I'm right, I mean, if somehow you one day changed your mind and started to agree with me (not that I'm striving to change your mind, although it's always good to debate), and then you looked back to now, would you say that the reason you didn't agree before (ie now) was because your way of thinking somehow put a block on understanding my points, or would you say that it was because I wasn't explaining it properly? I would not change my mind without proof for your claims. So this argument is moot. Okay, so you agree that one, if one applies logic, would not believe the claim that "god exists" until it is proven. Am I right? *EDIT* I realize now that you mean you shouldn't believe in a claim unless it is proven. That is your subjective view and good advice to others, yet you do not follow what you think you should do. I agree. Scientific evidence needs to meet certain criteria. This is why in science we have standards. Scientific evidence is not subjective at all, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific. Leave all that aside though, what I said was the default position regarding any claim is "I don't believe you until you prove your claim". This is the default position of every person who follows logic. Logic breaks down if we start believing arbitrary statements without proof. This default position is not and can never be subjective. Logic is universal. Logic is not the legal system where a law can be interpreted in several different ways. Your comparison to the judges sitting on a case is irrelevant. I never stated that you should believe x only if it is proven. I have repeatedly told you that I am a logical person. I follow where logic takes me. Convictions are had about morals and what should be. Default positions are for evidence and proof. Give me an example of your convictions, other than "god exists". This just tells me you haven't read my earlier posts properly. I said this earlier : The default position of the legal system is "Innocent until proven guilty" Because innocence of all people is the default position and assumed as true. This means the burden of proof to find the defendant guilty lies upon the prosecution. Similarly, the default position regarding any claim is "I don't believe you until you prove your claim". Atheism is the default position regarding the claim that "god exists". I made an analogy about default positions and tied it with atheism, yet you say I did not justify its use anywhere. This is why the default response from a majority of us when another person tells us something outrageous is "No way!" or "Shut up, really?" or "are you serious?" because these responses are responses of disbelief.
|
|