Posts: 3286
Threads: 179
Joined: April 29, 2012
Reputation:
24
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 11:17 am
I have always been an atheist due to lack of evidence for any gods. When did you become a non believer in Zeus and Thor??
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will fly to the stars.
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 11:43 am
(May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?
That all stories about all gods are clearly myth.
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm
(May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?
It seems to me, judging by the large number of versions of "there's no evidence" one-liners, that many people who identify themselves as an atheist espouse some sort of positivist argument:
Quote:Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.[1] Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this derived knowledge.[2]
Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
However, there are a bunch of problems with this philosophy so most atheists' arguments aren't very sophisticated. BTW, the same thing happens for theists--many do not have sophisticated arguments for their belief--relying on experiences and trust in the contents of their holy book(s).
The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all. These are metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.
Posts: 67287
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2016 at 12:37 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all. If you say so...but I;d caution against removing a solid line of confirmation for ones beliefs....particularly if were going to refer to....
Quote:metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.
-all of which are well documented failures.
So, now..what do we have left? A free floating belief with no known method of confirmation? If only christers would accept such a thing......
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8277
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
42
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm
(May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?
There is absolutely no evidence for god in the human experience. Until we receive evidence there is no compelling reason to think he exists.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Looks like another Shit-and-Runner.
When one of these shows up we have to have someone say "because I hate god." That's what they want to hear.
Maybe the admins could set up a roster and let everyone know who is on Nut Patrol duty that day?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 1:40 pm
(May 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all. If you say so...but I;d caution against removing a solid line of confirmation for ones beliefs....particularly if were going to refer to....
Quote:metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.
-all of which are well documented failures.
So, now..what do we have left? A free floating belief with no known method of confirmation? If only christers would accept such a thing......
I was not clear. In the context of the discussion of positivism, science cannot have an opinion as to the question "does God exists". Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is not the subject of empirical verification.
Evidence from science can be used to support, deny, or undercut premises about the nature of reality and a possible intersection between the natural and the supernatural.
I keep hearing that the natural theology arguments are well documented failures. Just because a group of self-congratulatory atheist say it over and over on a forum does not make it so. Since they are logically valid (the conclusions follow from the premises), you don't think believing the premises are true is warranted. However, when asked for defeaters, most are versions of 'we don't know'. When finally pushed, the more intelligent among you concludes something like 'it does't prove God exists...it just makes those who already believe feel better about their belief.' So...how is this predictable chain of events 'a well documented failure' for a probabilistic argument?
Confirmation comes from natural theology, direct revelation, and personal experience.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Quote:Science cannot prove or disprove God.
Then god is an irrelevancy.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 2:16 pm
(May 18, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Quote:Science cannot prove or disprove God.
Then god is an irrelevancy.
I believe that michio kaku made a statement that string theory would prove once and for all that if there is a god or not.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 18, 2016 at 2:16 pm
(May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 17, 2016 at 3:51 pm)sk123 Wrote: I am curious what some compelling reasons are for becoming an atheist. What are some reasons that have been the deciding factor?
It seems to me, judging by the large number of versions of "there's no evidence" one-liners, that many people who identify themselves as an atheist espouse some sort of positivist argument:
Quote:Positivism is a philosophical theory stating that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.[1] Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this derived knowledge.[2]
Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
However, there are a bunch of problems with this philosophy so most atheists' arguments aren't very sophisticated. BTW, the same thing happens for theists--many do not have sophisticated arguments for their belief--relying on experiences and trust in the contents of their holy book(s).
The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all. These are metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.
If I should not base my belief in a god on demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic, what should I base my belief on?
Without meeting the criteria I require to accept existential claims as being true, what should my justification be for doing so?
I disagree with your claim that the existence of a god can not be commented on by science. Whenever a god claim includes: the existence of the universe, the beginning of life, "miracles", etc, it is trespassing directly on the realm of science.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
|
