Why Atheism?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.
...

It is not a belief. Try again.

---

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

Thanks for the answers ahead of time, I mean these in all seriousness as these main questions are in fact ones that make me raise and eye brow to some of the atheistic claims. Peace and be safe !

You made a huge mistake here. He has no idea what inductive means yet you assumed he does. This is another crank.

[paulpablo]

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

Thanks for the answers ahead of time, I mean these in all seriousness as these main questions are in fact ones that make me raise and eye brow to some of the atheistic claims. Peace and be safe !

Atheism isn't a belief in anything it's a lack of one in relation to gods so....

1 No one is replacing the word entity with nature, we are just deleting the word entity. An atheist might believe in anything else apart from a god or gods, an atheist could believe we came from aliens who have been here forever.

2 I can't make sense of this question.

3 Atheism isn't a belief that something can or cannot spring from nothing and has nothing to do with beliefs about nature.

[bladevalant546]

It is not a belief. Try again.

Then what is it? I heard it can be a indifference, however it depends on what type of atheist apparently, strong, weak etc.

You made a huge mistake here. He has no idea what inductive means yet you assumed he does. This is another crank.

Induction is simple….it is merely make a claim based on repeated observation. For example, you drop a pen off the table 3 times and it falls three time you can inductively prove that it will drop a 4 time, even though there is a remote chance it could phase through the floor. At least that what can happen according to chaos theory. I swear some people do not read. So for the sake of induction (which btw can simply be disproven by a contradicting event.)we have no seen any observational evidence to show things can come from nothing. However, most of my questions were already answered with reason and rationality.


Now for paul, yea when Cthulhu Dreaming responsed he was rather educational.

[paulpablo]

It is not a belief. Try again.

Then what is it? I heard it can be a indifference, however it depends on what type of atheist apparently, strong, weak etc.

You made a huge mistake here. He has no idea what inductive means yet you assumed he does. This is another crank.

Induction is simple….it is merely make a claim based on repeated observation. For example, you drop a pen off the table 3 times and it falls three time you can inductively prove that it will drop a 4 time, even though there is a remote chance it could phase through the floor. At least that what can happen according to chaos theory. I swear some people do not read. So for the sake of induction (which btw can simply be disproven by a contradicting event.)we have no seen any observational evidence to show things can come from nothing. However, most of my questions were already answered with reason and rationality.


Now for paul, yea when Cthulhu Dreaming responsed he was rather educational.

Responsed? Why are you telling me that when he responsed you that he was educational? Was that remark meant for me I'm just assuming it was because you said my name at the beginning.

[Lord Privy Seal]

I have a few questions I would like to ask that hound me concerning the philosophical belief known as atheism.

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

That's not how it works. We all pretty much agree when it comes to the existence of the Cosmos. Even the most hard-bitten hyper-skeptic ("How do we know anything's real, maaan? We could all be brains in pickle jars!") or "physical reality is just a dream we're having!" New Ager will still pay their bills on time and call an ambulance when they get chest pains, instead of just dreaming their problems away. The difference between atheists and theists is that theists add stuff (gods/goddesses, angels, demons, djinn, faeries, etc.) to their inventory of things they accept as real, and atheists don't.

So, it's not:

Theist [*insert supernatural entities here*]
Atheist [*insert Cosmos here*]

...so that the atheist is replacing the supernatural with the natural. It's more like this:

Theist: [Cosmos] + [*insert supernatural entities here*]
Atheist: [Cosmos]

The most common reason for atheists to refrain from adding supernatural entities to our concept of reality's contents is that there is no evidence for their existence. It's not as if theists live in a world with pillars of cloud and fire and booming Divine voices and flying carpets and talking donkeys, and atheists don't. We all live in the same godless Universe. In order to sustain belief in deities, you have to have faith as a heroic virtue, the ability to keep on believing no matter what. All it takes for us to not believe in deities is to not have that kind of faith. It's as easy as not lifting weights.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. If you're standing on a freeway and a truck is headed right for you, its existence has nothing to do with whether or not you "claim objectivity." You can invoke all the philosophical bafflegab you like to try to cast doubt on its existence or say that it is no more 'real' than any other socially-constructed taboo or deconstructivist interpretation of Dali's artwork. You can even shut your eyes tight and have faith really, really hard that it's not there, or that an angel will stop it from hitting you. It'll run you over anyway. You acknowledge this every single time you look both ways before crossing a street.

A "full naturalist point of view" is simply the application of the scientific method to understand what's out there, as accurately as possible.

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

We do not think that the Cosmos sprang out of nothing (ex nihilo). When a physicist talks about "nothing," they do not mean a total absence of any sort of existence whatsoever. Take a region of space, let's say the inside of a shoebox. Remove all particles, fields, and spacetime curvature. The shoe box now has "nothing" inside it. But, this "nothing" still has properties: natural regularities, such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, relativity, etc. still apply. In accordance with the Uncertainty Principle, the region inside the box will never have an energy of exactly zero. Instead, there will be "quantum fluctuations" of positive energy (virtual particles) and negative energy (minute fluctuations of spacetime curvature, i.e. gravity) so that the variations in energy multiplied by the variations in time are greater than or equal to Planck's Constant divided by two. A Big Bang is a fluctuation in which a large amount of positive energy (all that "stuff," like galaxies, etc.) emerges in tandem with an equivalent amount of negative energy (gravity). As Lawrence Krauss puts it, "there is 'something' rather than 'nothing' because 'nothing' is unstable."

There are a number of different Big Bang models that propose different candidates for "where the Big Bang came from," such as "brane theory" (Big Bangs are caused by a collision between fluctuating spacetime membranes), or Lee Smolin's fecund cosmoses model (when a black hole forms in one cosmos, it spawns the Big Bang of another cosmos). Physicists do not think that the Cosmos appeared out of an absolute non-existence (ex nihilo). To the contrary, non-existence doesn't exist.

Now, since you have agreed that things do not spring into existence ex nihilo, please note that this is a problem for any hypothesis of divine creation ex nihilo. We already know that things don't appear out of non-existence (the principle of Conservation of Energy and Matter). "Because a god said so" doesn't change that. In the Book of Genesis, when Yahweh says "Let there be light," if there is no light, how can it hear the command and obediently leap into existence? The non-existent cannot obey commands. If the deity is not taking some of its own energy and transforming it into light, then the command as such is redundant. "Light just springs into existence out of nothing" is no different than "Light just springs into existence out of nothing, because somebody told it to." The command cannot be causal because when it is given, there is no light or anything else for it to act upon. Non-existence, by definition, can't do anything, in response to commands or otherwise.

If the deity is transforming some of its energy into light, then it's just another case of one form of energy transforming into another. This happens all the time, without any need for the involvement of a deity.

[Ryantology]

1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.

Nature exists. The entities are imaginary. Replacing something imaginary with something real is not the same as equivocating them. Not to mention, there is no element of worship for (most of) us. It's a big, dumb process and we're part of it. That's all.

2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?

When you deal with people whose 'evidence' of their worldview is entirely subjective, and can only be 'verified' by individuals in 100% subjective ways (ask a Christian to share their proof and you'll never get anything), how could the claim be false?

3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?

We operate on faith as much as theists do. Not all faith is of equal validity. Faith based on observable, confirmable and testable evidence can be valuable. Faith based entirely on books and mental glitches is worthless.

[Simon Moon]

It is not a belief. Try again.

Then what is it? I heard it can be a indifference, however it depends on what type of atheist apparently, strong, weak etc.

In general, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.

There are 2 truth claims with regards to the existence of gods:

1. God(s) exist.
2. God(s) don't exist.

Atheism is a response to the first truth claim. Atheism does not necessitate belief in the second.

When a theist makes the first truth claim, simply responding, "I don't believe your claim. I have not seen sufficient demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support it", is all it takes to be an atheist.

SOME atheists will also make the second claim.

[bladevalant546]

To answer it was directed at another person paulpablo, I agree with you assessment.

Thanks to everyone for given me some answers, it render insight into an otherwise bias opionion against your philosophical stance. With that logic atheism is a rational position thank you for helping me clean up some misconceptions.

[Napoléon]

the philosophical belief known as atheism.

Hearing this same misconception every day gets bloody tiresome.