(April 23, 2012 at 7:59 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(April 23, 2012 at 7:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote: As an atheist, just as me as a theist, you should be able to present rational evidence of your stance. I couldn't defend 'theism' either - because it's too wide a subject. I only defend Christianity.

That's complete nonsense Fr0d0. Why would I need to show evidence for my lack of belief in god? It doesn't make any sense.
It's like me saying that you must show evidence that you don't believe in the god Odin or Thor or any other higher power or whatever.

I was an atheist long before I was even aware of the word. Atheism simply means without theism. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It really doesn't.
Besides, evidence for my stance which is atheism. A lack of theism, lack of belief in god. What evidence do you expect to see? What would that evidence prove?

Hey Ace. I'm not asking you to justify atheism, just as I cannot defend theism. What is asked of you is justifications for what you actually believe, rather than what you don't.

For example, you might be a rationalist. A fatalist. An absurdist. You might describe your outlook more loosely.

I'm not going to make the point again about your insistance on impossible evidence. I don't think I'll ever understand how you can justify that!

The above would make you a materialist. If you think that fits, then the onus falls to you to defend that.

So your particular brand of atheism is materialism.

---

(April 23, 2012 at 10:54 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Christianity makes rather more claims, and some of them are about more than your personal convictions.

On a site like this where the vast majority of atheists are rational skeptics and humanists there is a tendency to engage us on that level and we have a tendency to allow 'atheism' to be used as a short hand for those positions. It would be more accurate to use such terms instead of 'atheism', though.

Christianity, as I understand it to be defined, that is, apart from what lies outside of the classification of the mainstream church, and not what might encompass it with the widest definition, claims nothing more than my personal convictions.

Thank-you for your second point. That's what I mean exactly.

(April 23, 2012 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm not going to make the point again about your insistance on impossible evidence. I don't think I'll ever understand how you can justify that!

The above would make you a materialist. If you think that fits, then the onus falls to you to defend that.

So your particular brand of atheism is materialism.

Ok, that's much more clear. I get where you're going now.

Yeah I'm a materialist. The reason being is because I've seen no reason to think that there is anything outside of the physical. How can one examine the non-physical? How can one measure it? Test it? Observe it?
The fact that I've seen no way to verify it is why I've ruled it out. Same reason why I don't believe in god. How can you know with some measure that there is such a being?

Science gives me the tools. Like for example if I wanted to investigate the microscopic, science provides a microscope. If I wanted to investigate the cosmos, science provides a telescope. With them I'll be able to see and share with others what I see. It's testable, measurable.
A god is not. See the problem?

(April 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: How can one examine the non-physical? How can one measure it? Test it? Observe it?

How can you know with some measure that there is such a being?

You can't know. You can only deduce.

If you say that there cannot be anything besides the physical, then that's a claim against something you can't prove. Conjecture, which materialists should steer clear of unless they want to contradict themselves.

See a materialist has to say "I don't know" a lot. Nothing wrong with that, except there are a lot of useful things he could know if he made a few intelligent links. Things fall together, a good solution works out from an hypothesis. A materialist almost denies the human ability to think. Thinking is dangerous because it moves out of the realm of certainty.

Quote:You can't know. You can only deduce.

With what?

Quote:If you say that there cannot be anything besides the physical, then that's a claim against something you can't prove. Conjecture, which materialists should steer clear of unless they want to contradict themselves.

But that's not what I said. I never claimed that there cannot be anything besides the physical. I said I see no reason to think that there is. How can you test, measure and confirm it? How can you know?

Quote:See a materialist has to say "I don't know" a lot. Nothing wrong with that, except there are a lot of useful things he could know if he made a few intelligent links. Things fall together, a good solution works out from an hypothesis. A materialist almost denies the human ability to think. Thinking is dangerous because it moves out of the realm of certainty.

I don't hold hardly anything with absolute certainty. I simply rule out the unproven or unprovable, especially with extraordinary claims. Also depending on it's credibility and value.

Principles and standards my dear Fr0d0. I stand by scientific principles because they work time and time again. Like Occam's Razer. Stick to the simple until there is evidence for the complex, stick to explanations requiring the fewest assumptions. Use known entities to explain unknown entities. Which is logical procedure. Such principles do a fantastic job of filtering out the nonsense. I never chose to be an atheist, but I did chose to stand by said principles and standards of science.

(April 23, 2012 at 12:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, wouldn't be the first time. It isn't like I haven't posted in this thread (and others) before with a similar sort of reception.

You've noticed that too, eh? I think some would rather go after the low-hanging fruit, or are simply trolls. Oh wait, there's at least one more option: The original argument is weak.

My take on it is this: If one can't offer a reasoned response to a strong reasoned criticism of ones argument, said argument needs work.

I will say this Fr0d0 and this is one thing I DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN.... I would tear that hot welsh hide of yours up

"You can't know. You can only deduce."

In the case of gods, it is more induction than deduction. The conclusions appear to be pretty false no matter what the premises.

I didn't become an atheist to prove god doesn't exist. I became an atheist because god hasn't been proven to exist.

It's really fucking simple.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

Quote:You can't know. You can only deduce.

With what?

Your brain.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

Quote:If you say that there cannot be anything besides the physical, then that's a claim against something you can't prove. Conjecture, which materialists should steer clear of unless they want to contradict themselves.

But that's not what I said. I never claimed that there cannot be anything besides the physical. I said I see no reason to think that there is. How can you test, measure and confirm it? How can you know?

I didn't say that you did. I said "if". Reason to think is precicely what you have. But you refuse to think beyond what you already know. (Which is untrue, you just make an exception in this case)

(April 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

Quote:See a materialist has to say "I don't know" a lot. Nothing wrong with that, except there are a lot of useful things he could know if he made a few intelligent links. Things fall together, a good solution works out from an hypothesis. A materialist almost denies the human ability to think. Thinking is dangerous because it moves out of the realm of certainty.

I don't hold hardly anything with absolute certainty. I simply rule out the unproven or unprovable, especially with extraordinary claims. Also depending on it's credibility and value.

You insist that I make extraordinary claims where I make none.

When did I say that God was a physically provable entity? You keep banging on with that like someone said it. I think you're arguing with yourself.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Principles and standards my dear Fr0d0. I stand by scientific principles because they work time and time again. Like Occam's Razer. Stick to the simple until there is evidence for the complex, stick to explanations requiring the fewest assumptions. Use known entities to explain unknown entities. Which is logical procedure. Such principles do a fantastic job of filtering out the nonsense. I never chose to be an atheist, but I did chose to stand by said principles and standards of science.

So do I. Please show me how I don't.

(April 24, 2012 at 2:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Your brain.

And how do use your brain to deduce God?

(April 24, 2012 at 2:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: See a materialist has to say "I don't know" a lot. Nothing wrong with that, except there are a lot of useful things he could know if he made a few intelligent links. Things fall together, a good solution works out from an hypothesis. A materialist almost denies the human ability to think. Thinking is dangerous because it moves out of the realm of certainty.

Yes, but there is no reason to move to a place so far outside of certainty that it is just completely made up.

(April 24, 2012 at 2:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You insist that I make extraordinary claims where I make none.

An absolute, all-powerful God does not count as an extraordinary claim?