Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Brian37]

I never claimed life is perfect. Logic is a tool, but there is still good ways to approach how logic works better and simply going "that feels right" which is laypersons use of the term "logic". Another BS cliche is "common sense".

You don't simply use the word "logic" anymore than it is to argue the laws of thermodynamics separately like some theist do trying to attack science.

What you really mean by "logic" is that humans evolved to seek patterns. But that by itself is not "logic". Even in science the procedure is to test your data with control groups and then have independent peers review it to insure your own bias has not crept in.

People have reasons for lots of things that feel logical and they look for reasons to call that "logic". No that is simply fishing for excuses to hold a position.

There is a way to approach problem solving as to gaining knowledge and there are simply people looking for excuses to justify the positions they hold.

I don't see how any of that is some sort of claim that there is perfect knowledge. There still are things in life, when confirmed consistently you can use and build upon, and other things that simply hold no weight and are not worth considering once they are known to be irrelevant to our current and best data.

If something is irrelevant to our current and best data, then all this means is that it's not reasonable to believe in that something. But it isn't proof that, therefore, that something does not exist. Nor does it mean we should never consider the possibility of its existence and base our views on such a consideration.

Now that you know that Thor does not cause lightening, do you waste your entire life considering that a possibility? How much time do you waste considering the existence of Apollo just because you have not lived the entire future yet?

Human imagination is infinitely limitless in the ability to make claims. Having an open mind about the future does not constitute coddling crap after the fact "just in case".

I am getting a blowjob right now from Angelina Jolie. Now you cant prove that I am not, so by your logic it happened merely because I claimed it. Somehow you rightfully reject that claim without considering it a possibility because you cant see me right now.

That last paragraph is really nothing more than your human empathy clouding your judgment. Not all claims are true by default nor are all claims equal by default and many claims still are not worthy of consideration.

Christopher Hitchens "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

[GrandizerII]

Now that you know that Thor does not cause lightening, do you waste your entire life considering that a possibility? How much time do you waste considering the existence of Apollo just because you have not lived the entire future yet?

I don't waste any time just by considering the possibility (no matter how remote).

Actually, if I know that Thor doesn't cause lightning, then this means I know it can't be true (so not possible).

I am getting a blowjob right now from Angelina Jolie.

It's possible, yes. I don't know where you or Angelina Jolie are currently at. The question is: Is it likely? I strongly doubt it.

Now you cant prove that I am not, so by your logic it happened merely because I claimed it.

No, that's not my logic.

Somehow you rightfully reject that claim without considering it a possibility because you cant see me right now.

How about you cease acting like you can read my mind and just follow what I'm saying?

[Brian37]

Now that you know that Thor does not cause lightening, do you waste your entire life considering that a possibility? How much time do you waste considering the existence of Apollo just because you have not lived the entire future yet?

I don't waste any time just by considering the possibility (no matter how remote).

Actually, if I know that Thor doesn't cause lightning, then this means I know it can't be true (so not possible).

I am getting a blowjob right now from Angelina Jolie.

It's possible, yes. I don't know where you or Angelina Jolie are currently at. The question is: Is it likely? I strongly doubt it.

Now you cant prove that I am not, so by your logic it happened merely because I claimed it.

No, that's not my logic.

Somehow you rightfully reject that claim without considering it a possibility because you cant see me right now.

How about you cease acting like you can read my mind and just follow what I'm saying?

Yea you strongly doubt it and how much time did you waste considering that claim before you dismissed it?

The better tactic isn't "Prove it isn't true", the responsible thing to do before you adapt a claim someone might make is "Provide me evidence".

Here is why "Prove it isn't true" does not work. See if you can spot the pattern.

"Prove Allah isn't a real god"
"Prove Yahweh isn't a real god"
"Prove Vishnu isn't a real god"
"Prove Apollo isn't a real god"
"Prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist".

Again, you are playing a semantic game with words. "I don't know the future" does not mean we should dwell on the past, or treat any claim as true by default merely because someone made a claim. Otherwise all the claims above are "Possibilities" with equal weight. You accept them as not all being equal. So if you refuse to throw something in the trash can, "Just in case" psychologically that is YOU and your sense of fair play clouding your judgment.

---

How about you cease acting like you can read my mind and just follow what I'm saying?

Not reading your mind at all. I am going by the fact I have seen this argument countless times from other people for the past 13 years. I am sure you believe what you claim, I am not putting words into your head, I am explaining to you where your logic is flawed.

[GrandizerII]

A couple seconds max is not much time wasted. This isn't a chore to me to accept that I could be wrong.

Whatever, Brian. That's your way of thinking, and I respect that. But I just don't do absolutes when it comes to matters I don't have sufficient knowledge in.

[robvalue]

I would say that it doesn't take time to have not dismissed things out of hand. You don't have to actively keep thinking about it in order to not dismiss it. It's just that you are in the frame of mind such that if new evidence presents itself, the idea is ready to come out of the attic and be reassessed.

Living practically as if something doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to also erase the possibility from your mind that it may change in the future.

[Sejanus]

It's always gratifying when someone comes along and tells us what we believe. We'd never have known if you hadn't been here for us. How can we ever repay you?

You've almost made it to the fabled 3rd Kudos line!

[Brian37]

A couple seconds max is not much time wasted. This isn't a chore to me to accept that I could be wrong.

Whatever, Brian. That's your way of thinking, and I respect that. But I just don't do absolutes when it comes to matters I don't have sufficient knowledge in.

UGGGGGGGG, rant rant oogggaaa booogggga.

I don't want anyone, atheist or theist to "respect" anything I say. I want others to pony up with evidence. It is not your duty to blindly buy what I say even if you value my right to make the claim.

Now again, when you say "I don't do absolutes" you are assuming that is what I am demanding you do. NO NO NO NO NO.......

I am saying that being open minded DOES NOT include clinging to bad claims or defaulting to all claims having equal weight "just in case".

The psychological reason you do that is because the meme of fairness in western society is deep seeded on rights issues, which is not the same issue as credibility, which is what science addresses, and no ethical science or proper use of method, starts from the assumption that all claims are true by default. Nor does it assume that all claims are equal by default. Nor does it assume that all claims are worthy of consideration by default.

"So you're saying there's a chance"..............Of what? Monkeys flying out of my butt?

Yes it is ok to say "I don't know". But again, what you do not want to accept is that is there is a huge difference between the open minded nature of scientific method and confusing it with how laypeople use "open minded". If scientific method was closed minded you would not be typing on this computer right now. Closed minded would be assuming a magic computer pixy runs your CPU.

---

Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out the stumbling block of humans in science when they hit a gap far too many times that ends up with "well we cant figure out anything else so god did it". He points out that limits our discovery and slows it down. It is not a good way of thinking when you hit something you have yet to understand. The ethical open minded nature of scientific method is to go with established data that is confirmed and build on that. By discarding bad claims you open the door to knowledge. "I don't know" does not negate, nor should it, the use of a trash can to throw bad ideas in. Not only does it not negate it, it is the wise way to keep that door open.

---

I would say that it doesn't take time to have not dismissed things out of hand. You don't have to actively keep thinking about it in order to not dismiss it. It's just that you are in the frame of mind such that if new evidence presents itself, the idea is ready to come out of the attic and be reassessed.

Living practically as if something doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to also erase the possibility from your mind that it may change in the future.

ARRGGGGGGGGGGGG...............

I think far too many theists and even far too many atheists in the interest of rights and pluralism misuse how science keeps and open mind vs how humans in general treat "open minded" from a government human rights standpoint.

Of course the future is not currently set. In 10 years I do not know if my position will change. I certainly am not the same person I was I was 12 or 20. I do not hold the same positions now that I did then.

This is where people, including atheists, need to get used to "agnostic" and "atheist" being valid as a term.

There is a time frame issue people do not consider. There are past claims, current claims and a future that is not set.

As far as past and current claims I am a flat out atheist. I am agnostic about the future. But even that for me, is strictly semantic in word only considering the highly unlikely probability of a god existing since our current best data is running away from the concept on top of saying it isn't even a requirement.

Yes, I do not know the future. But that does not mean we should keep every claim "just in case". You clutter your desk with garbage and never use your trash can, your desk is going to fill up with crap that is going to slow you down, or lead you to bad results.

[GrandizerII]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out the stumbling block of humans in science when they hit a gap far too many times that ends up with "well we cant figure out anything else so god did it". He points out that limits our discovery and slows it down. It is not a good way of thinking when you hit something you have yet to understand. The ethical open minded nature of scientific method is to go with established data that is confirmed and build on that. By discarding bad claims you open the door to knowledge. "I don't know" does not negate, nor should it, the use of a trash can to throw bad ideas in. Not only does it not negate it, it is the wise way to keep that door open.

FWIW, Neil deGrasse Tyson considers himself to be an agnostic.

[Tonus]

Okay, I've been reading back over this thread and I'm finally convinced.

I'm no longer an atheist

All Hail Odin AllFather.

so you settled for a patriarchal system? For shame!

[Whateverist]

Hey, don't be hatin' on the doc for being hetero. We have feelings too. For me it's all about the goddesses.