[Merged] Atheism=Religion=Pointless - Page 11

Garrette · 14th December 2010, 02:25 PM

Hmmmm.....

How about this: My words and actions are indistinguishable from someone who has no belief in a god. Therefore, there is no reason to think I have a belief in a god.

Trent Wray · 14th December 2010, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Because the faithers don't want to acknowledge that someone can live without faith. "I can't, so you can't."

Originally Posted by SumDood

You're using semantics to twist the definition of 'faith based claim'. To me, that means a claim based on faith, with faith being that which is believed without evidence. Whether I or you believe the claim or if the claim is true or not has NOTHING to do with if the claim is based on faith.

To simplify, lets leave out the 'I believe' for the claims:

"There are no gods."
"There are no unicorns."
"1+1=2."
"1+1=ketchup."
"I am not a brain in a vat."

Are these faith based claims or not?

Yes I am playing a tight game of semantics here .... so let me reitterate what I'm trying to say by using your examples.

None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe.

Now, if you say that you believe you are a brain in a vat .... THEN that is faith based. Because of what you are choosing to believe ..... and again, this is irregardless of the evidence.

So if you say that you believe unicorns don't exist .... and unicorns don't exist .... it just so happens that your belief is in line with what the evidence shows. However, you are still choosing to believe what you believe, even if it's correct. And this is where I'm twisting it even more to include the idea that you might not even believe what you claim to believe. And again ... this has nothing to do with whether or not 1+1=2 or ketchup, or there are gods or not. It only has to do with whether or not ITS TRUE THAT YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

So then I'm asking myself, how can a person prove that they actually believe something? Because even if your actions are in line with what the majority thinks you should be doing based on your belief ..... it's almost irrelevent. Both a believe and atheist are still just homo sapiens doing what homo sapiens do ..... any and all other labels based on belief are irrelevant I'm thinking. Because beliefs are in our minds, and all our actions are limited to the same sphere of possibility.

IOW .... believers and atheists all do the same human sh*t. So just looking at actions doesn't show us what a person truly believes. Dressing up in garb and kneeling down and praying ... anyone can do that. Screaming that you love the Lord or that there are no gods .... anyone can do that. That isn't proof of what is going on in your actual mind.

So I'm thinking our semantic issue boils down to how we are defining the term "belief". And since being an atheist involves a person's beliefs ..... I'm saying a person cannot prove they are an atheist anymore than a believer can prove they are a believer ..... because you cannot examine "belief" in it's raw form so to speak.

If you say you are a cancer patient .... this we can examine. If you say you are a Brit .... we can find out where you were born. If you say you are born again of the Holy Spirit .... what can we look at? Clothes and actions and falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? If you say you are an atheist ... what do we look at? Clothes and actions and NOT falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head?

IOW ... we can only guesstimate based on a person's actions and choices and words, but never know for certain what they believe 100%. And I'm further saying that a person cannot fully trust their own understanding 100% without any doubt, because it's obvious that throughout our lives we are too biased to our own psyche to fully discern it objectively and impartially. Plus, we change our minds throughout our lives as our ability to comprehend and understand changes. So this only makes it even more complicated how to "prove a belief".

So I'm separating the idea that a person THINKS they believe something ... from what is actually true in the world. 1+1=2 and that's based on evidence, not faith. However .... if you choose to believe it doesn't equal two, that is based on your faith that you are correct. If you choose to believe that it DOES equal two, that is still based on your faith that you are correct ... and the evidence is in line with what you are CLAIMING you believe. But how can I know for sure you actually believe it? I can't examine your belief like it's a thing .... see?

Quote:

I think the problem might be our definition of 'faith'. You seem to use it as belief in something that cannot be proven. I say it is belief in something for which there is no evidence. Slight difference, but important.

I sort of see the difference you are pointing out, but not completely. I wouldn't limit faith to believing in something that cannot be proven ... because you might be believing in something that can be proven AND is backed by evidence. But it's still faith if you have to choose to believe.

Now, if you're not choosing to believe something ... but rather, you understand something by default and not with conscious choice, then I don't think that's faith. For example, if your whole life you've believed the world was flat and never heard any different .... EVER .... so this idea was never challenged at all, then you're not choosing to believe it. You believe it by default. It doesn't require faith. It's just knowledge you have .... regardless of whether it's correct or not. Because you haven't been exposed to an alternative, it "just is" in your personal frame of reference. However, if you are given an alternative, and then choose to believe, you are acting on faith. And that faith might be based on fact with evidence .... or perhaps something with no evidence and cannot ever be proven.

I think the word "faith" is so anathema to most skeptics and non-believers that when they hear it, they get defensive and equate it immediately with spirituality or religion and then the slippery game of semantics comes into play. When I use the term faith, I'm speaking of it on a basic everyday level ...... for example, when I drive my car I have faith I won't get into an accident. If I believed I truly was going to get into an accident, I wouldn't drive my car that day. Etc and so forth. This is an example of a faith we all utilize and take for granted because we base that faith on the evidence that all the days before this day, I didn't get in an accident ... so I'm not likely to get into one now. Although it's just a calculated risk ..... it's based on a hope and guess as to what is going to happen. It's faith imo.

Quote:

I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a vat. I certainly don't believe it. I accept the universe to exists as it is presented to me. Does that mean I have 'faith' that I'm not a brain in a vat? By your definition, sure. Can I prove a leprechaun doesn't turn off my refrigerator light when I shut the door? No, but I know that is not the case. I have weighed the evidence and have made an informed decision.

And again ..... you claim you have weighed the evidence and made an informed decision. But it doesn't matter. That's an anecdote. How do I know that you have done that? How do I know you really don't believe in leprechauns?

Now, it's obviously practical to take you at your word. It's a faith in you I would take for granted. However, it's still faith in your claim ABOUT YOURSELF. It's not about the leprechauns. It's about you. Atheism is about the lack of gods. An atheist is one who believes there is no god. A person claiming to be an atheist is making a claim about THEMSELF and their belief as well as what their view on atheism and gods are. It's that claim about themself that I'm saying cannot be proven. And as such, it unravels the rest to a degree .... making it pointless to claim any stance ultimately. To believe each other has a certain stance, is to believe in each other's intellecual honesty. Which is to say, we are trusting each other's words ... and imo that's a form of faith in each other.

Trent Wray · 14th December 2010, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Garrette

SumDood beat me to it, but since it was addressed to me, I'll chime in anyway.

You may have to believe me based on faith, but my status as an atheist is not dependent at all upon your belief or lack of it.

That's like saying that having brown hair is a matter of faith. It is not. I may, perhaps, be lying to you if I tell you I have brown hair, and you may or may not believe me when I tell you I have brown hair, but the fact is that I either have brown hair or I do not.

Such my lack of belief in any gods. I have a complete lack of faith. If you choose not to believe me, or even if you do, it matters exactly zero to the veracity of my claim of having no faith.

And then, of course, we can turn this right back on you: You do not believe in Vishnu; that lack of belief is purely a matter of faith. According to your logic, that is.

So you admit that your are conflating your belief in my claim with the claim itself.

Excellent. We agree.

And now you're back to conflating your belief in my claim and the claim itself.

Let's take the brown hair thing. Your belief about your hair color and my belief about it is irrelevant as to your actual hair color. So your hair being brown or not is going to be a fact based on evidence or it's not.

What isn't provable, is what you actually believe. I can only take you at your word. It might be petty, but it's just petty and ridiculous enough that it shows that to take you at your word involves a level of trust and faith in you and your honesty.

Now ..... this might be where I'm conflating. For you to believe even yourself ... what you THINK you believe about your hair, you are trusting your instincts, reasoning, perception, etc. You are having faith in your own ability to reason and be intellectually honest about your hair color. So in a very small sense, you are having faith in your own belief ... that you actually believe what you think you believe.

It's taking the concept far .... but it's showing that a level of "hoping I'm correct" is still there. It's independent of the actual hair color. If it is in alignment with it ... great. If not ..... it's not. Both outcomes are still based on faith.

Originally Posted by Garrette

Hmmmm.....

How about this: My words and actions are indistinguishable from someone who has no belief in a god. Therefore, there is no reason to think I have a belief in a god.

You are a Scotsman because you act like all other Scotsman. Not good enough.

I could say fundamental goodness is indistinguishable from god, therefore fundamental goodness is god.

Trent Wray · 14th December 2010, 05:52 PM

Here is another way of looking at it perhaps .....

When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea.

So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level. The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist.

So if we could look at the "belief focus" of both an atheist and a believer, how would we tell them apart .... and how could we be 100% certain that we had correctly identified the belief focus in it's entirety? So long as there is room for error, I'm saying it's still a faith based belief in the person's claim on themselves ..... not the actual focus or it's existence.

John Jones · 14th December 2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Because anecdotes aren't evidence. Prove that you are an atheist without any anecdotes or mention of thoughts and feelings.

Yes it is .... because how do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in unicorns? Is personal testimony now evidence all of a sudden? For all I know you do believe in unicorns ....

Oh good grief. This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever seen in a field of discussion renowned for idiotic arguments.

How do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in arguments against a belief in unicorns? ...

If you were being facetious, give us a clue.

John Jones · 14th December 2010, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Here is another way of looking at it perhaps .....

When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea.

So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level.

The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist.

Non sequitur.

Garrette · 14th December 2010, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Let's take the brown hair thing. Your belief about your hair color and my belief about it is irrelevant as to your actual hair color. So your hair being brown or not is going to be a fact based on evidence or it's not.

What isn't provable, is what you actually believe. I can only take you at your word. It might be petty, but it's just petty and ridiculous enough that it shows that to take you at your word involves a level of trust and faith in you and your honesty.

I was going to say that you've shifted goal posts. Originally it was that I couldn't prove to you that I am an atheist. Now you've changed it to that I can't prove to myself that I am an atheist.

That remains true, but becomes less relevant because you wrote this:

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Now ..... this might be where I'm conflating. For you to believe even yourself ... what you THINK you believe about your hair, you are trusting your instincts, reasoning, perception, etc. You are having faith in your own ability to reason and be intellectually honest about your hair color. So in a very small sense, you are having faith in your own belief ... that you actually believe what you think you believe.

It's taking the concept far .... but it's showing that a level of "hoping I'm correct" is still there. It's independent of the actual hair color. If it is in alignment with it ... great. If not ..... it's not. Both outcomes are still based on faith.

So you're simply someone who believes that nothing necessarily is. In that case we have nothing to discuss because you cannot prove we are having this discussion as opposed to me simply dreaming it or you dreaming me dreaming it.

In the most trivial of senses you may be accurate, but this stance advances nothing, adds no value, and--semantic arguments aside--detracts from no position, either.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

You are a Scotsman because you act like all other Scotsman. Not good enough.

Of course it is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence of being Scottish is plenty good enough.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

I could say fundamental goodness is indistinguishable from god, therefore fundamental goodness is god.

If that is how you define it, but then you have simply defined god away. Have at it.

Garrette · 14th December 2010, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Here is another way of looking at it perhaps .....

When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea.

So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level. The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist.

So if we could look at the "belief focus" of both an atheist and a believer, how would we tell them apart .... and how could we be 100% certain that we had correctly identified the belief focus in it's entirety? So long as there is room for error, I'm saying it's still a faith based belief in the person's claim on themselves ..... not the actual focus or it's existence.

Besides this being completely different from your previous argument, it is absolutely incorrect. The highlighted part is simply wrong. There is no focus for non-belief. Sam Harris was right. "Atheist" shouldn't even be a word.

You may as well say I focus on the non-existence of satyrs.

Or must we now define which type of atheist I am? Since I was raised Catholic before dropping my belief, am I now a Papist-Atheist? But if I had started as a Muslim I would now be a Mohammeden-Atheist? Heck, since I know about Horus and Vishnu and Odin and a thousand others, am I a Pan-Atheist, far more advanced than someone who hasn't heard of Set?

Trent Wray · 14th December 2010, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Oh good grief. This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever seen in a field of discussion renowned for idiotic arguments.

How do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in arguments against a belief in unicorns? ...

If you were being facetious, give us a clue.

Idiotic huh? So why respond then if it's idiotic .... what do you gain by calling my thoughts idiotic?

If you are trying to joke around with me ... I'm not much in the mood. My entire argument is "thinking outloud" and yes, parts of it actually are somewhat facetious but to show a point which I'll make below.

So do you actually have something to add other than "what you're saying is stupid" ? If so ... have at it. Otherwise, feel free to not respond

Originally Posted by Garrette

I was going to say that you've shifted goal posts. Originally it was that I couldn't prove to you that I am an atheist. Now you've changed it to that I can't prove to myself that I am an atheist.

So you're simply someone who believes that nothing necessarily is. In that case we have nothing to discuss because you cannot prove we are having this discussion as opposed to me simply dreaming it or you dreaming me dreaming it.

In the most trivial of senses you may be accurate, but this stance advances nothing, adds no value, and--semantic arguments aside--detracts from no position, either.

Originally Posted by Garrette

Besides this being completely different from your previous argument, it is absolutely incorrect. The highlighted part is simply wrong. There is no focus for non-belief. Sam Harris was right. "Atheist" shouldn't even be a word.

You may as well say I focus on the non-existence of satyrs.

Or must we now define which type of atheist I am? Since I was raised Catholic before dropping my belief, am I now a Papist-Atheist? But if I had started as a Muslim I would now be a Mohammeden-Atheist? Heck, since I know about Horus and Vishnu and Odin and a thousand others, am I a Pan-Atheist, far more advanced than someone who hasn't heard of Set?

You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist".

And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god".

The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective.

Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief ... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief? You see what I'm saying? Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something.

So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief. Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them?

It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere.

I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief.

Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example. And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus .... therefore it requires a certain amount of faith to even believe in your own definitions. Not even all atheists can agree with each other whether atheism is a philosophical stance or not (and that thread sparked this train of thought I'm having). So not only do believers not agree on who or what god is and isn't, but atheists can't agree completely on the nature of atheism. The wikipedia defition for faith and atheism is one thing ... the practical application and claims of the ones who claim to be faith walkers and atheists is another. And this forum is a fine example of that.

So yes ... I'm still saying that it takes a certain amount of faith not just to trust another's personal claims (which skeptics claim isn't evidence anyway ... mere personal claims with no tangible proof of anything) .... but to trust your own claims in regards to your BELIEFS .... especially if you are claiming to lack belief and the other "scotsman" can't all agree on what a true scotsman is anyway.

And yes ..... you point out the other ultimate end of my argument ..... the trivial idea that a person could walk around believing that "nothing is" so to speak. "I can't trust anything because every single thing period requires faith to believe in ..... everything." The ultimate end of that is essentialy solipsism. And that is a nonsensical argument which is impossible to prove or disprove. And the solipsistic argument is actually one of the reasons I was being somewhat facetious .... to lead up to it. Because if my reasoning actually stands up on any level, then yes ..... every single aspect of how we relate to each other is based on "faith in what we are experiencing" yada yada, and nothing really is as it seems, and the only thing I can really trust is my own existence. And although I don't believe in solipsism (lol) ...... it's one extreme way to interpret reality. It's one of those extremes that you couldn't prove.

Like god .... or the atheist .... because they are somewhat extremes of the same coin. God is not possible to prove 100% because there would have to be a small percentage of faith that god's claims on being god were actually true (since we have no reference point) ... and likewise the atheist claiming they lack complete belief would require faith on the part of the believer in the atheist .... because for someone to lack complete belief in an area and be cognicent of it is unprovable. You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes. And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural. How can you prove they are lying? Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level.

Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx

If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries

But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual

Marduk · 14th December 2010, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist".

You know you can't spell Atheist without spelling an anagram of "A She Tit"

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god".

Its an alien acronym for
Genetic
Operations
Director

Garrette · 15th December 2010, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist".

And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god".

The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective.

Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief ... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief? You see what I'm saying? Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something.

So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief. Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them?

It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere.

I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief.

Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example. And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus .... therefore it requires a certain amount of faith to even believe in your own definitions. Not even all atheists can agree with each other whether atheism is a philosophical stance or not (and that thread sparked this train of thought I'm having). So not only do believers not agree on who or what god is and isn't, but atheists can't agree completely on the nature of atheism. The wikipedia defition for faith and atheism is one thing ... the practical application and claims of the ones who claim to be faith walkers and atheists is another. And this forum is a fine example of that.

So yes ... I'm still saying that it takes a certain amount of faith not just to trust another's personal claims (which skeptics claim isn't evidence anyway ... mere personal claims with no tangible proof of anything) .... but to trust your own claims in regards to your BELIEFS .... especially if you are claiming to lack belief and the other "scotsman" can't all agree on what a true scotsman is anyway.

And yes ..... you point out the other ultimate end of my argument ..... the trivial idea that a person could walk around believing that "nothing is" so to speak. "I can't trust anything because every single thing period requires faith to believe in ..... everything." The ultimate end of that is essentialy solipsism. And that is a nonsensical argument which is impossible to prove or disprove. And the solipsistic argument is actually one of the reasons I was being somewhat facetious .... to lead up to it. Because if my reasoning actually stands up on any level, then yes ..... every single aspect of how we relate to each other is based on "faith in what we are experiencing" yada yada, and nothing really is as it seems, and the only thing I can really trust is my own existence. And although I don't believe in solipsism (lol) ...... it's one extreme way to interpret reality. It's one of those extremes that you couldn't prove.

Like god .... or the atheist .... because they are somewhat extremes of the same coin. God is not possible to prove 100% because there would have to be a small percentage of faith that god's claims on being god were actually true (since we have no reference point) ... and likewise the atheist claiming they lack complete belief would require faith on the part of the believer in the atheist .... because for someone to lack complete belief in an area and be cognicent of it is unprovable. You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes. And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural. How can you prove they are lying? Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level.

Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx

If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries

But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual

Still can't say I agree with your thought process, and the highlighted portion is the major reason why.

Me saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god" does not equate to "I have something for nothing."

And saying "I am an atheist" is simply shorthand for saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god."

From your comments I see that this is really just an academic exercise for you, but you have not shown what you claim to have shown, i.e., that atheism is faith-based. Everything you have shown is old hat and hinges on theism being faith-based which is not in dispute, except by the occasional DOC-like or edge-like poster.

SumDood · 15th December 2010, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Yes I am playing a tight game of semantics here .... so let me reitterate what I'm trying to say by using your examples.

None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe.

Now, if you say that you believe you are a brain in a vat .... THEN that is faith based. Because of what you are choosing to believe ..... and again, this is irregardless of the evidence.

So if you say that you believe unicorns don't exist .... and unicorns don't exist .... it just so happens that your belief is in line with what the evidence shows. However, you are still choosing to believe what you believe, even if it's correct. And this is where I'm twisting it even more to include the idea that you might not even believe what you claim to believe. And again ... this has nothing to do with whether or not 1+1=2 or ketchup, or there are gods or not. It only has to do with whether or not ITS TRUE THAT YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

I really don't see where you're going with this and what it brings to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

So then I'm asking myself, how can a person prove that they actually believe something? Because even if your actions are in line with what the majority thinks you should be doing based on your belief ..... it's almost irrelevent. Both a believe and atheist are still just homo sapiens doing what homo sapiens do ..... any and all other labels based on belief are irrelevant I'm thinking. Because beliefs are in our minds, and all our actions are limited to the same sphere of possibility.

IOW .... believers and atheists all do the same human sh*t. So just looking at actions doesn't show us what a person truly believes. Dressing up in garb and kneeling down and praying ... anyone can do that. Screaming that you love the Lord or that there are no gods .... anyone can do that. That isn't proof of what is going on in your actual mind.

So I'm thinking our semantic issue boils down to how we are defining the term "belief". And since being an atheist involves a person's beliefs ..... I'm saying a person cannot prove they are an atheist anymore than a believer can prove they are a believer ..... because you cannot examine "belief" in it's raw form so to speak.

If you say you are a cancer patient .... this we can examine. If you say you are a Brit .... we can find out where you were born. If you say you are born again of the Holy Spirit .... what can we look at? Clothes and actions and falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? If you say you are an atheist ... what do we look at? Clothes and actions and NOT falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head?

IOW ... we can only guesstimate based on a person's actions and choices and words, but never know for certain what they believe 100%. And I'm further saying that a person cannot fully trust their own understanding 100% without any doubt, because it's obvious that throughout our lives we are too biased to our own psyche to fully discern it objectively and impartially. Plus, we change our minds throughout our lives as our ability to comprehend and understand changes. So this only makes it even more complicated how to "prove a belief".

I definitely think we need to separate proving WHAT one believes from proving THAT one believes something. I don't remember exactly how we got on the subject of proof. I thought we were talking about atheism being faith based or not. I can't prove gods don't exists any more than anyone can prove they do.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

So I'm separating the idea that a person THINKS they believe something ... from what is actually true in the world. 1+1=2 and that's based on evidence, not faith. However .... if you choose to believe it doesn't equal two, that is based on your faith that you are correct. If you choose to believe that it DOES equal two, that is still based on your faith that you are correct ... and the evidence is in line with what you are CLAIMING you believe. But how can I know for sure you actually believe it? I can't examine your belief like it's a thing .... see?

Again, what does this bring to the conversation? I can't prove to you that I believe something. I can't prove to myself that I truly believe something. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't prove we're not in the Matrix

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

I sort of see the difference you are pointing out, but not completely. I wouldn't limit faith to believing in something that cannot be proven ... because you might be believing in something that can be proven AND is backed by evidence. But it's still faith if you have to choose to believe.

(bolding mine)
I think I'm going to have to disagree with the bolded line. Do I choose to not believe in unicorns? Do I choose to believe 911 wasn't an inside job? Do I choose to believe I'm not a brain in a vat? One weights the facts and makes an informed decision. I suppose that is 'choosing' to believe something, but I don't see how it can be classified as 'faith'.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Now, if you're not choosing to believe something ... but rather, you understand something by default and not with conscious choice, then I don't think that's faith. For example, if your whole life you've believed the world was flat and never heard any different .... EVER .... so this idea was never challenged at all, then you're not choosing to believe it. You believe it by default. It doesn't require faith. It's just knowledge you have .... regardless of whether it's correct or not. Because you haven't been exposed to an alternative, it "just is" in your personal frame of reference. However, if you are given an alternative, and then choose to believe, you are acting on faith. And that faith might be based on fact with evidence .... or perhaps something with no evidence and cannot ever be proven.

(bolding mine)
If it is based on fact with evidence, it ceases to be faith. And of course we can have a discussion on what constitutes 'evidence'.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

I think the word "faith" is so anathema to most skeptics and non-believers that when they hear it, they get defensive and equate it immediately with spirituality or religion and then the slippery game of semantics comes into play. When I use the term faith, I'm speaking of it on a basic everyday level ...... for example, when I drive my car I have faith I won't get into an accident. If I believed I truly was going to get into an accident, I wouldn't drive my car that day. Etc and so forth. This is an example of a faith we all utilize and take for granted because we base that faith on the evidence that all the days before this day, I didn't get in an accident ... so I'm not likely to get into one now. Although it's just a calculated risk ..... it's based on a hope and guess as to what is going to happen. It's faith imo.

And again ..... you claim you have weighed the evidence and made an informed decision. But it doesn't matter. That's an anecdote. How do I know that you have done that? How do I know you really don't believe in leprechauns?

If we're going to get anywhere with this, we need to decide what we're talking about. "Faith" as in "when I sit down I have faith that this chair will support my weight" is one thing. When you add discussions about having "faith" that we're not brains in vats or "You have to take everything everyone says on faith because you don't know if their lying", it just muddies the water. Can we agree to leave the solipsism and the like out of this discussion?

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Now, it's obviously practical to take you at your word. It's a faith in you I would take for granted. However, it's still faith in your claim ABOUT YOURSELF. It's not about the leprechauns. It's about you. Atheism is about the lack of gods. An atheist is one who believes there is no god. A person claiming to be an atheist is making a claim about THEMSELF and their belief as well as what their view on atheism and gods are. It's that claim about themself that I'm saying cannot be proven. And as such, it unravels the rest to a degree .... making it pointless to claim any stance ultimately. To believe each other has a certain stance, is to believe in each other's intellecual honesty. Which is to say, we are trusting each other's words ... and imo that's a form of faith in each other.

Please, lets start this exchange over with the caveat that I believe what you say and I believe that you believe what you say and vice versa and reality exists.

SumDood · 15th December 2010, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist".

And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god".

The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective.

Really? You honestly think when asked "is there a God?" someone would answer "my boss is God"? And I don't mean a joke like "my boss is God of the Jerks".

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief

Why on earth would anyone need or want to prove whether or not they believe something?

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief?

Do you believe that unicorns exist? If not, how can you believe that you don't have any belief?

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

You see what I'm saying?

Not really, but I'm pretty bored and I'm trying.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something.

So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief.

Sure. YAY! Everyone has faith about everything and every-NON-thing ever! It requires belief to actually believe that you don't believe that I'm an alien from another galaxy. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them?

It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere.

I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief.

Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example.

I don't think anyone will dispute that fact if you want to use 'faith' that way. I'm pretty sure when I type the 'X' key on my keyboard, then an 'X' will appear on my monitor. I know it might not happen. If you want to call that 'faith', have at it.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus ....

Nonsense. When one says 'faith in God', everyone one has a pretty good idea what their talking about. Yes, it could be Allah, the Christian god, Jehovah and different believers believe different things about God, but its usually some sort of self aware, supernatural entity that created the universe and has effect on everyday life.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

<SNIP>
You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes.

If you mean my own experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes, sure.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural.

Absolutely not. I have much greater faith in my own memories than the claims of others. To put equal weight on both would be ridiculous. We are all bias towards our selves.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

How can you prove they are lying?

I don't have to prove they are lying. I only have to weigh what they are claiming against what I know about reality and make an informed decision.

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level.

Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx

If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries

But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual

I do appreciate the effort and thought you have put into this exchange. It would be better over some beers, but I still enjoy it.

I believe there is nothing supernatural in our world. If you want to accept that statement as truth, I would be glad to discuss my rationale and hear any opposing views.

I Am The Scum · 15th December 2010, 09:13 AM

Trent, I'd love to correct your myriad of errors, but there's only so many hours in the day. Just a few quick questions:

You seem to be saying that it is possible for one to feel like they believe something, even if they actually don't. Let's suppose that Bob believes he is suffering from a headache at the moment. Are you saying that Bob might actually not be suffering from a headache? How do you believe this is possible?

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe.

What evidence could one provide, even hypothetically, that they are not a brain in a vat?

Marduk · 15th December 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

You seem to be saying that it is possible for one to feel like they believe something, even if they actually don't.

thats actually quite normal, if it wasn't "confirmation bias" would be a meaningless phrase

sadhatter · 15th December 2010, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

Can someone here please explain to me why atheism is just not another religion?

Believing that there is no God seems as pointless as believing that there is one.

So this is what GWAR was talking about when they wrote the horror of Yig. It makes so much more sense now.

Gawdzilla · 15th December 2010, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

So this is what GWAR was talking about when they wrote the horror of Yig. It makes so much more sense now.

Yig Soggoth lives.

As for the OP, he could be right. Why bother talking about the Great Sky Fairy at all. It's pointless.

catsmate1 · 15th December 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Alas! The 154 fallacy.

Yig, meet 154. 154, meet Yig.

It's quite common amongst xians and others suffering from religion; they are simply unable (or unwilling) to accept that others do not share their delusions. Thus they believe that atheists really do believe in a god but deny it.
It's an interesting part of their illness.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

And I hear that they've found real dragons on the island of Komodo. I wonder if they fly and breath fire?

Enough resources, a few decades and a mad geneticist and they might just do that...........

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I suspect he's done enough to get his merit badge and gone back to Biblethumper College.

Yep. A pity they're so unwilling to actually think for themselves.

Trent Wray · 15th December 2010, 03:22 PM

Lots of thoughts to respond to .... so forgive me if I miss one or two ....

Originally Posted by Marduk

You know you can't spell Atheist without spelling an anagram of "A She Tit"

Its an alien acronym for
Genetic
Operations
Director

I have faith she tit's exist

Originally Posted by Garrette

Still can't say I agree with your thought process, and the highlighted portion is the major reason why.

Me saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god" does not equate to "I have something for nothing."

In some ways I still think it does .... would "I have nothing for nothing" be closer?

Quote:

And saying "I am an atheist" is simply shorthand for saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god."

From your comments I see that this is really just an academic exercise for you, but you have not shown what you claim to have shown, i.e., that atheism is faith-based. Everything you have shown is old hat and hinges on theism being faith-based which is not in dispute, except by the occasional DOC-like or edge-like poster.

Well yes, the whole thing was an academic exercise. I'm not even sure what I ultimately think about my own words .... but I decided to pick a side and stick with it to see where it lead. That's often how I explore things .... by trying to believe them and then tossing it out the window if it doesn't wash. I'm still on the fence about this ...

BUT ... I never claimed atheism was faith based. I've said over and over again that it isn't ... what I have said, is that for an atheist to claim they are an atheist is faith based ... IOW, the claim they are making about themselves. And the reason being is that you can't really prove belief. And the same goes for a believer. What you can do is hint at belief, or provide a good argument ..... but to prove 100% what you believe or don't believe is like trying to prove 100% what you love or don't love. All you can do is hope you are actually being loving. All you can do is hope you are actually believing or not believing.

People are self-deluded psychologically all the time ... and while rationally you might not recognize a belief in something, perhaps philosophically you do without realizing it. It's hard for a person to "know thyself" 100% with no errors

So I'm not saying atheism is a faith based concept .... to the contrary. It's based on evidence. But the ATHEIST is faith based when they claim they lack COMPLETE AND TOTAL BELIEF in something ... because how can they know with absolute certainty they lack 100% belief? 100%? Not 99.9 .... but 100. See my point? It's that sliver of doubt that makes belief in your own claim about the lack of belief ... a sort of faith based belief.

Originally Posted by SumDood

I really don't see where you're going with this and what it brings to this discussion.

I definitely think we need to separate proving WHAT one believes from proving THAT one believes something. I don't remember exactly how we got on the subject of proof. I thought we were talking about atheism being faith based or not. I can't prove gods don't exists any more than anyone can prove they do.

AGain ... it's not about atheism being faith based or not. I don't think it is. It's evidence based. But that's mostly irrelevant to a person's belief about their absolute lack of belief.

Consider a person who claims they believe in a god without a doubt. That's not possible to prove ... because how can they prove they believe in a god 100%? Perhaps they believe in god 98% of the time, but in reality ... there is a 2% of their psyche that actually lacks belief. Or they have a threshold and when their entire family gets wiped out by a hurricane, they will stop believing. See my point? It takes faith in oneself and ability to believe to make that claim.

Likewise, it takes faith in one's own ability to NOT believe. How do you know all your belief thresholds? How do you know that one day you won't simply change your mind due to some erroneous feeling or thought ... and forgo the path of evidence for the path of woo? So what I'm saying, is that atheism is describing a sort of absolute .... a complete and total lack of belief.

And sure .... using the lack of belief in unicorns is another example. It's a ridiculous one, but it still applies ... because perhaps your lack of belief in unicorns is 99.9 percent. Perhaps your lack of belief in a fake moon landing is 89%. There are thresholds that, given the right circumstances, might cause you to think otherwise for even a moment and consider the alternatives. Perhaps there are gods if ______ happens. Perhaps that was a unicorn that was discovered in Uganda. Perhaps there is a global conspiracy if we now know that ______ is happening in a section of the government. See? You can't know 100% of what your response will always be .... so to claim you have a complete lack of belief, at all times .... requires faith in your own claim and ability to maintain that lack of belief now and forever so to speak.

Quote:

Again, what does this bring to the conversation? I can't prove to you that I believe something. I can't prove to myself that I truly believe something. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't prove we're not in the Matrix

This is exactly my point. And what it brings to the conversation is exactly what I was saying ... that you can't prove you are a "true atheist" 100%. All you can do is tell me, and show me with your actions ... and on some level I will have to have faith you are what you say you are. It's a faith we all take for granted .... and you could substitue the word faith with belief or even trust if you like. But regardless, we mostly have no evidence we are all brains in vats .... but still, there is a sliver of possibility ... yes? Albeit a small one.

So here you are actually pointing out what I am pointing out. And the reason I was pointing it out should be obvious ..... a skeptical thinker who takes pride in their own skepticism makes a claim which involves an absolute .... "I have a complete lack of belief in ________" ... and that claim about themselves is based on anecdotes, thoughts, feelings .... subjective "evidence" and not objective evidence. Their stance is based on evidence .... their claim about that stance is not. It's a small difference I'm pointing out ....

Quote:

(bolding mine)
I think I'm going to have to disagree with the bolded line. Do I choose to not believe in unicorns? Do I choose to believe 911 wasn't an inside job? Do I choose to believe I'm not a brain in a vat? One weights the facts and makes an informed decision. I suppose that is 'choosing' to believe something, but I don't see how it can be classified as 'faith'.

Yes it is choosing to believe in something .... and I'm classifying it as faith because you are hoping you are correct when there is a chance you are not, regardless of how small that chance is.

And the thing is .... even if there is absolutely no way whatsoever you are a brain in a vat ... so long as that idea is in your head, you cannot prove that you believe or disbelieve it 100%. You can say you don't believe it, and live like you don't believe it .... but there is no concrete absolute objective way to prove 100% that there isn't a single part of you that doesn't or won't believe it given the right circumstance.

Quote:

(bolding mine)
If it is based on fact with evidence, it ceases to be faith. And of course we can have a discussion on what constitutes 'evidence'.

If we're going to get anywhere with this, we need to decide what we're talking about. "Faith" as in "when I sit down I have faith that this chair will support my weight" is one thing. When you add discussions about having "faith" that we're not brains in vats or "You have to take everything everyone says on faith because you don't know if their lying", it just muddies the water. Can we agree to leave the solipsism and the like out of this discussion?

It does muddy the water and it isn't practical to have the solipsistic monkey on your shoulder in a discussion. So we can leave it out ... however, it is part of the backbone of the "rabbit hole" that is leading to my conclusion that a person claiming a personal trait is absolute within themselves ("I have a complete lack of belief or faith in god(s)") is not a 100% knowable thing. Because it's not backed by objective evidence ... and it's a claim that is akin to a solipsistic claim, for example. So we can leave it out, because it's not practical .... and it's not really practical to question an atheist and say, "well ... in a sort of philosophical reality, your own belief about yourself is faith based ...." because it's easier to take for granted that the person is being intellectually honest. But realisitcally .... you just can't know 100% for certain. And that's why ultimately, believing a person is an atheist, or a believer, or a god, or whatever sort of absolute thing they claim about themself ... involves a certain level of faith. NOT THE STANCE ITSELF, but the belief that you have that stance without any room for error.

And honestly what started this whole line of thought, was the discussion as to whether or not atheism is a philosophical stance or not. I think it is, obviously lol. It is because it's link to so much subjective "proof" .... basically one's own words about one's thoughts.

Quote:

Please, lets start this exchange over with the caveat that I believe what you say and I believe that you believe what you say and vice versa and reality exists.

We could, and I've been somewhat a devil's advocate ..... but it's to make yet another point:

When a believer and a skeptic engage in discussion on this board, often times the skeptic will simply discredit the believers claims even about themselves simply because the skeptic is already believing in bits and pieces of what is assumed by the skeptic to be illusional realities and fantasies. So ... the believer is often corned with their choices of words, and even their thoughts and feelings about themselves are discredited and tossed out becasue they aren't "Evidence".

Yet what you are asking here, is essentially what many believers want .... to be taken at their word on certain things. "I'll believer what you say, you believe what I say .... let's assume we are both trying to be honest people."

See what I'm saying? IT's a double standard that the skeptic often hides behind .... cornering and trapping woos by their words, but expecting the freedom to speak your mind as you wish and not be cornered for your own thoughts and feelings on matters.

Believing you are an atheist is so only because you think and feel it about yourself, and others take you at your word.

I think many more discussions would go farther and things would actually be accomplished after pages of threads if both sides generally agreed to do what you just asked

Originally Posted by SumDood

Really? You honestly think when asked "is there a God?" someone would answer "my boss is God"? And I don't mean a joke like "my boss is God of the Jerks".

Yes ..... and a perfect example is the group one of my ex wives .... (ahum) ..... attended in her church for several years. One of their common topics was "who is really your god" .... and often times people would confess that money was their god, or their own self image, or their view on authorities, etc and so forth. The goal of those believers was to eliminate the "false worship" of material gods and refocus it on the supernatural entity.

So yes ... I think some might say, "my boss is my god" if they believe that about themselves. It might sound ridiculous to a non believer, but to a believer who is trying so hard to not sin, etc and so forth .... they want to eliminate the obstacles that are standing in their way of haivng a more "perfect faith".

And besides ..... there are some decent psychological points being made in those concepts. Consider a servent who never stands up to their oppressive "master" or something along those lines. Like an oppressed wife, or an emotionally abused child. It is almost like empowering a tyrant or a god like figure, and identifying that oppressive aspect as such might be a therapeutic step to break free from living under a type of fear of the oppressor, etc and so forth. So philosphically and psychologically, it's possible that people live as though they have a "god" when they don't even believe in god(s). It's subjective since we can't all agree on what a "god" is.

Quote:

Why on earth would anyone need or want to prove whether or not they believe something?

Seriously?

To earn trust, command respect, self-assurance, etc and so forth. Just to name a few.

The average voter wants to know what their candidates believe ... and they want to see proof.

I believe it's fairly important to skeptics and believers who believes what ... and they are always looking at each other for proof. I think this question you just asked is self evident by the existence of this forum ....

Quote:

Sure. YAY! Everyone has faith about everything and every-NON-thing ever! It requires belief to actually believe that you don't believe that I'm an alien from another galaxy.

Once confronted with the choice, yes it does ... no matter how ridiculous the choice is. Isn't this simply how we process information? We make a choice, hoping it is correct ... and overtime, that choice get's reinforced. Hopefully, again, in a beneficial way based on reality and fact. Some stay in delusion in certain areas while others venture into more fact based and reliable areas.

Quote:

I don't think anyone will dispute that fact if you want to use 'faith' that way. I'm pretty sure when I type the 'X' key on my keyboard, then an 'X' will appear on my monitor. I know it might not happen. If you want to call that 'faith', have at it.

Perfect example. Yes ... it's faith to a small degree.

Quote:

Nonsense. When one says 'faith in God', everyone one has a pretty good idea what their talking about. Yes, it could be Allah, the Christian god, Jehovah and different believers believe different things about God, but its usually some sort of self aware, supernatural entity that created the universe and has effect on everyday life.

Yeah everyone pretty much knows what they are talking about when they talk about faith in god. That's obvious. History shows that to be the case.

I'm being facetious.

Quote:

Absolutely not. I have much greater faith in my own memories than the claims of others. To put equal weight on both would be ridiculous. We are all bias towards our selves.

An excellent point that supports what I'm saying.

Quote:

I don't have to prove they are lying. I only have to weigh what they are claiming against what I know about reality and make an informed decision.

Exactly what I'm saying as well.

Quote:

I do appreciate the effort and thought you have put into this exchange. It would be better over some beers, but I still enjoy it.

You weren't already drinking? You did it wrong then from the start

No I've appreciated it as well actually .... it was a decent thought I think that I had initially, and I'm glad so many decided to tear into it because that's the way I like things examined ... from multiple angles and opposing views. It reveals the meat of an idea much better that way ...

Quote:

I believe there is nothing supernatural in our world. If you want to accept that statement as truth, I would be glad to discuss my rationale and hear any opposing views.

I have faith you beleive that lol

Garrette · 15th December 2010, 04:01 PM

Trent Wray,

Even with all the verbiage above you have still not demonstrated your point that claiming to be an atheist is faith-based except in a matter that means nothing.

If (a big if) you have demonstrated it, it is only because you have demonstrated that claiming anything is faith-based. Hence, claiming to be an atheist is exactly the same as claiming to be or know anything.

So as SumDood says, it brings nothing to the table. Even if true, we gain exactly zero by acting as if it's true except adding one more layer to every discussion--a layer that adds no clarity or explanatory power.

If we act is if it is not true, we reach the same conclusions without the separate layer.

Trent Wray · 15th December 2010, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Trent Wray,

Even with all the verbiage above you have still not demonstrated your point that claiming to be an atheist is faith-based except in a matter that means nothing.

If (a big if) you have demonstrated it, it is only because you have demonstrated that claiming anything is faith-based. Hence, claiming to be an atheist is exactly the same as claiming to be or know anything.

So as SumDood says, it brings nothing to the table. Even if true, we gain exactly zero by acting as if it's true except adding one more layer to every discussion--a layer that adds no clarity or explanatory power.

If we act is if it is not true, we reach the same conclusions without the separate layer.

A couple of things:

* In another thread which delves into this same discussion, it's mentioned that it's really not possible to prove what is "in the mind" of another individual except for possibly that individual themselves. Because we just can't look into someone's mind and see for ourselves. And this really touches the bottom line of my argument ..... we can't see what is going on in each other's minds with 100% accuracy definitively.

Now, we are more able to monitor and examine certain aspects of brain function to determine what is actually going on in the mind, and what part controls what ... even to the degree that sometimes we can predict when a person is going to answer a question incorrectly on a test. Or we can somewhat accurately gauge whether a person is lying. And with psychological skills, we can manipulate and expose motives within a person that can be documented and held up to scrutiny by examining data collections, etc and so forth. However, we cannot just run a blood test and see if the "belief hormone" is produced when a person is asked whether or not they believe in god.

So when we have actual objective proof that a person either lacks belief or has belief, then that question will be answered definitively I imagine .... despite what a person claims or thinks about themselves.

* Now, you make a good point that my argument brings nothing to the table, even if it follows and is philosophically "sound" so to speak. However, it might not bring anything to your table. It might bring something to someone elses table. It's relevance is dependent upon the questions being asked and the one asking the questions.

For someone who views belief as philosophically based, my argument might be extremely relevent. For someone who is considering solpsism ... it might be relevant. For someone who views faith upon evidence only, it will most likely have little to no relevance except to add upon a pile of subjective fluff which is already a mile high.

But consider this ..... one of the biggest questions our culture asks right now concerns the nature of homosexuality. Is it a preference? Is it genetic? Is it a moral issue? Is it morally irrelevant? Is it an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage? What are the philosophical implications of practicing it? Is it something that is even "practiced"? What is it and why is it there? Etc and so forth.

Personally, it is not one of those topics I ever think about at length, because I'm not a homosexual, I'm not homophobic, and so I have an opinion on it about as strongly as I have an opinion on whether or not to buy Lucky Charms or Trix. BUT .... one of the reasons we have so many opinions on it, is because we don't have definitive objective proof of it's "origins". The "gay gene" if you will. Essentially, we rely upon the testimony of homo and hetero sexuals with their thoughts, opinions, and personal anecdotes.

So whilst trying to decide whether or not one's own claims about oneself are faith based or fact based, it can be an extremely relevant question depending on the circumstance and/or the one asking the question. It can bring a great deal of clarity and explanatory power depending on your POV at the time and/or the audience. On the JREF, the idea a skeptic utilizes anything other than fact based thinking will raise the alarm bells. There is a non-impartial aspect here of course, due to the majority and what causes a skeptic to get defensive or alert their prejudice muscle. It's the same anywhere a group of people feel so strongly about something.

Talking at length about whether God likes Texas Hold Em and concubines or not won't be very relevant here. It will stir up pages and pages of conversation in certain other places however ...

So thanx again for your participation. Good stuff to think about. It's been relevent to me and brought something to my table .... perhaps my word on that will be good enough as evidence? lol

Yig · 15th December 2010, 10:54 PM

My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none.

The response to this question was "Atheism is not believing that God does not exist, it's a lack of believing". The question then became "Why do you lack belief?" The response was that this is the default position since there is "no evidence" of God and the justification was Occam's razor.

For the purposes of this discussion I choose to define God as an intelligent designer and to make things more clear lets refer to a belief in something as a theory that the given something exists.

My question now is, "What is evidence without a theory?"

Here's what I'm saying. What I'm allowed to theorize when it comes to non-verifiable claims is pretty much whatever I want, given that it is consistent with facts I already have. Now, I want to theorize that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. What is stopping me from doing this? No evidence? I'm sorry, but lack of evidence of an intelligent designer does not instantly disprove the theory. Occam's razor then? Occam's razor can only be applied in situations where one is trying to explain something, since it states that when one is selecting among competing hypotheses, one should pick the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It seems to me that any theory or hypothesis about something like the origin of the universe or the existence of an intelligent designer is making the same amount of assumptions. I mean, saying that the universe spontaneously came into existence makes the same amount of assumptions as saying that it was intelligently designed. Then again, I guess I could take the same common road you all do which is to not theorize about anything and just wait for the answer in the form of the "indisputable evidence" that I keep being asked for, because to you people theorizing about something and asserting that it exists are the same thing. So this brings me to my original point, why atheism? Why choose a position that makes no attempt to explain god or the origin of the universe when there is nothing to be lost by making that attempt? Why should one "lack belief"?

I can think of one answer to this question. It is:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. "

This is a scientific response. It pertains only to verifiable scientific theories. So does this mean that we cannot have beliefs? What if we applied the tools of logic and reason to those beliefs? Is it not interesting to see where such a process would take us? Is this not what philosophy is? The question of an intelligent designer is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one and as such is not subject to the same scrutiny. For those of you believe that atheism is at the core the same idea as that expressed in the above quote, I ask you this, What is the point of of calling yourself an atheist? Why not just call yourself an scientist? What do you get out of atheism?

I'll start you off by giving my answer to this question. I think that it's strictly emotional. I think that some of you gain a sense of belonging, a sense of security in knowing that there are like minded people out there who think the same things that you do. I think that some of you even get a feeling of superiority, a feeling that you somehow "know something" that others do not and a sense that you are fighting the good fight against the ignorance of "them". Sound familiar?

This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions.

nvidiot · 15th December 2010, 10:58 PM

Can I ask why you abandoned the other thread?

And what would you refer to yourself as? Agnostic? Theist? Deist?

Marquis de Carabas · 15th December 2010, 11:01 PM

All right, you got me. I need the validation of lots of people agreeing with me. That is why I'm not a Christian.

Achán hiNidráne · 15th December 2010, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions.

When ever I hear the atheism-is-just-as-bad-as-religion fallacy, the following xkcd comic comes to mine.

Could you provide some examples of this "group mentality," please? I mean, other than the bald-faced assertions you've just pulled out of your rectal orifice.

The only qualification you need to be an atheist is a disbelief in a deity. Otherwise an atheist can range for left-wing to right-wing, capitalist to socialist, loud "New Atheist" to hide-under-your-bed "Accommodationists," Coke or Pepsi, Elvis or Beatles, gay or straight, etc.

Dunstan · 15th December 2010, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none

Gee, I'm sorry I missed your previous thread. I would have asked why I should bother calling myself a Holocaust-believer, since the universe yields the same effects either way.

Quote:

This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions.

Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree?

Drachasor · 15th December 2010, 11:12 PM

Intellectual integrity.

Sun Countess · 15th December 2010, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none.

Ummmm, no. I don't spend my free time and thoughts the same way that a theist does. Neither of our beliefs will influence objective reality, but our beliefs inform our own lives and choices.

<snipped word salad>

Quote:

So this brings me to my original point, why atheism? Why choose a position that makes no attempt to explain god or the origin of the universe when there is nothing to be lost by making that attempt? Why should one "lack belief"?

Why woud I choose a position that attempts to explain gods, when there's no evidence that they exist? There's all the evidence in the world that god beliefs are created by men to exercise control over others and to answer questions that science could not yet answer. I'm not going to posit a magical explanation when there's no reason to. Does your theory of the origins of the universe involve turtles or chocolate or bedroom slippers? At least those things are real. You think atheists should start to explain the universe using magical men with magical powers because.....I have no clue.

The reason I "lack belief" is because there's no basis to adopt those beliefs. Other people believe in magic.....oooh ahhh maybe the magic is real!!!11!

Quote:

I can think of one answer to this question. It is:

This is gonna be good. As an atheist, I'm always so appreciative when a theist tells me why I believe something instead of just asking me and accepting my answer.

Quote:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. "

Okay. I wasn't expecting that. I wouldn't say it because I don't even understand it. The simple answer is: There's no evidence that magical beings are needed to explain the universe, including its origins.

<snipped more salad>

Quote:

, I ask you this, What is the point of of calling yourself an atheist? Why not just call yourself an scientist? What do you get out of atheism?

I'm not a scientist. I was never particularly good at science. I only have to call myself an atheist because other people group themselves theistically. If they ask where I fit in, that answers the question. I don't subscribe to any religious mumbo-jumbo, so I guess that makes me an atheist.

Quote:

I'll start you off by giving my answer to this question. I think that it's strictly emotional. I think that some of you gain a sense of belonging, a sense of security in knowing that there are like minded people out there who think the same things that you do. I think that some of you even get a feeling of superiority, a feeling that you somehow "know something" that others do not and a sense that you are fighting the good fight against the ignorance of "them". Sound familiar?

Not at all. I was raised without religious beliefs. Most of my friends were either Christians of some stripe or Jewish. I know they had beliefs, and I had to stand alone in my atheism. I was never ostracized because of it, but I certainly didn't "belong" anywhere for much of my life. I'm fortunate now to live somewhere that I'm able to meet other atheists. We don't get together and talk about our atheism, or laugh at theists. (Yes, I think that most theistic beliefs are ridiculous, but I don't say that to people I meet as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves.)

Quote:

This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions.

I don't see that at all. I think you're just seeing what you want to see. I'll add that I know people of many religious beliefs and most are just like me, and don't let other people's different religions get in the way of acting civilly and becoming friendly acquaintances. If I lived in a place where fundamentalist christians were trying to force their viewpoints through legislation, I might have to adopt an "us against them" attitude, but I don't have to do that here. It's all live and let live.

Achán hiNidráne · 15th December 2010, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree?

Yeah, and don't forget those cultish mathematicians who stringently insist that 2+2=4. I mean, what a bunch of mind-numbed robots! They've really drank the Addition Kool-Aid!

Madalch · 15th December 2010, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none.

Believing in God and not believing in God would not have the same effect on me. If I believed in God, I would constantly be wondering what His opinion on things would be, and I'd spend a lot of time praying, etc. I can use that time more productively without this belief.

The only alternative to atheism is a religion of some sort. If religions are pointless, then atheism is then the only reasonable position.

Lukraak_Sisser · 15th December 2010, 11:27 PM

There might be atheists who feel that, but the majority I know just are not convinced by any religious evidence and leave it at that. No 'secret knowledge' implied at all. That is more religions province.

As for the intelligent designer bit, you'd be right IF looking at life and nature would indeed make no more assumptions from natural origins than from design. But looking at life and how it functions from a design standpoint shows a large number of bad, cumbersome and outright dumb designs. They make sense in the theory of evolution as that does not assume a direction, merely adaptation. Therefore ID must make the extra assumption that while life was designed by some higher intelligence, this intelligence then decided to put in a large number of extremely stupid design flaws.
If you assume the universe itself was designed and created up to the big bang, you have to assume a designer that then never interfered in his creation.
Both make more assumptions than natural creation, without providing any evidence.

There is also the fact that ID in science is useless as the theory itself has no predictive value at all as it is right now. Someone created all this. We don't know how, we don't know why and he/she/it won't do it again to show us what happens, is not exactly something that drives new inventions.

Yig · 15th December 2010, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Can I ask why you abandoned the other thread?

And what would you refer to yourself as? Agnostic? Theist? Deist?

I got tired of having separate arguments with 12 different people.

Yig · 15th December 2010, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne

When ever I hear the atheism-is-just-as-bad-as-religion fallacy, the following xkcd comic comes to mine.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Could you provide some examples of this "group mentality," please? I mean, other than the bald-faced assertions you've just pulled out of your rectal orifice.

The only qualification you need to be an atheist is a disbelief in a deity. Otherwise an atheist can range for left-wing to right-wing, capitalist to socialist, loud "New Atheist" to hide-under-your-bed "Accommodationists," Coke or Pepsi, Elvis or Beatles, gay or straight, etc.

I know..... It's arrogant of me to question atheism, just like it's arrogant of a mere mortal to question the will of God..... but I do it anyways.

Some examples eh? Well, besides this entire forum, here's a jem from everyone's favorite atheist fanatic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Yig · 15th December 2010, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Gee, I'm sorry I missed your previous thread. I would have asked why I should bother calling myself a Holocaust-believer, since the universe yields the same effects either way.

Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree?

This again? Do you really think the question of an intelligent designer is in the same realm as the question of whether or not the holocaust happened?

Trent Wray · 15th December 2010, 11:52 PM

I think all people are pretty much variations on a theme of each other, regardless of beliefs. In every group you will have cowards and heros, admirals and a-holes. Atheist, theist .... both are humans subject to the same things. Both get angry, sad, happy, depressed, in love, hurt, emotional, intelligent. Both are capable of charity, evil, subjective and objective outcomes. Both defend what they think is worth defending. Blah blah blah. Cultural and social identities will obviously play a role as well. Nothing new worth reporting there.

Where there is a majority, group think will be more likely for that majority. Whatever. Deal with it or change the channel. And as much as people would individually like to be treated with dignity and respect anywhere and everywhere they go by everyone .... we just don't do that for each other. We don't like each other equally, and we never have. Even when we believe the same things, or live in the same household for god's sakes. No laws or rules will change that, whether they come from godless ethics or religious filled morality.

I don't think world peace is possible

Atheist, theist, doesn't matter, etc. And while all sides think they have some insider information to their advantage that the other side doesn't have (so to speak) and that they have got a leg up on the other in certain areas .... when a "woo" or a "skeptic" speaks, I always hear two different languages, but the same voice. The human voice.

Whatever the hell that means ...

Now if you could prove somehow that having different opinions on certain things is actually proof we are different species from each other ... and that not only DNA and other factors define us but also our intellect puts us into further sub-species categories

....... then there might be even more of a reason for all the labels we want everyone to know we have on ourselves. But thats racism and ignorant prejudicial thinking.

And everyone knows that both the skeptic and the theist are above racism or superior and prejudicial thinking

nvidiot · 15th December 2010, 11:53 PM

I did ask another question in that quote, care to address it? It would help to know where you're coming from.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a description of a distinct lack of religion.

Madalch · 15th December 2010, 11:54 PM

Yig- do you sacrifice goats to your deity?

If not, what is the point in not sacrificing goats?

Kid Eager · 15th December 2010, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Yig

I know..... It's arrogant of me to question atheism, just like it's arrogant of a mere mortal to question the will of God..... but I do it anyways.

Some examples eh? Well, besides this entire forum, here's a jem from everyone's favorite atheist fanatic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

What's so arrogant about questioning either an absence of belief in an imaginary friend, or belief in same? I see no arrogance whatsoever.

Constructing a box of your own specification and attempting to cram everybody into it according to your pidgeonholing of them into groups based on your own perceptions, now THAT'S arrogant....

Andrew Wiggin · 15th December 2010, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Madalch

Believing in God and not believing in God would not have the same effect on me. If I believed in God, I would constantly be wondering what His opinion on things would be, and I'd spend a lot of time praying, etc. I can use that time more productively without this belief.

The only alternative to atheism is a religion of some sort. If religions are pointless, then atheism is then the only reasonable position.

This. Following a religion has an opportunity cost. It's not equivalent to not following a religion, because of the time wasted following the rules of whatever religion.

roger · 16th December 2010, 12:00 AM

I call myself an atheist because that is the English word we use for a theism - lacking theism. I don't use "scientist" because that's a job description, and because plenty of scientists are theistic.

14th December 2010, 02:25 PM	#401
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	Hmmmm..... How about this: My words and actions are indistinguishable from someone who has no belief in a god. Therefore, there is no reason to think I have a belief in a god.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

14th December 2010, 06:43 PM	#405
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Because anecdotes aren't evidence. Prove that you are an atheist without any anecdotes or mention of thoughts and feelings. Yes it is .... because how do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in unicorns? Is personal testimony now evidence all of a sudden? For all I know you do believe in unicorns .... Oh good grief. This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever seen in a field of discussion renowned for idiotic arguments. How do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in arguments against a belief in unicorns? ... If you were being facetious, give us a clue.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,707

14th December 2010, 06:46 PM	#406
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Here is another way of looking at it perhaps ..... When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea. So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level. The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist. Non sequitur.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,707

14th December 2010, 07:11 PM	#407
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Let's take the brown hair thing. Your belief about your hair color and my belief about it is irrelevant as to your actual hair color. So your hair being brown or not is going to be a fact based on evidence or it's not. What isn't provable, is what you actually believe. I can only take you at your word. It might be petty, but it's just petty and ridiculous enough that it shows that to take you at your word involves a level of trust and faith in you and your honesty. I was going to say that you've shifted goal posts. Originally it was that I couldn't prove to you that I am an atheist. Now you've changed it to that I can't prove to myself that I am an atheist. That remains true, but becomes less relevant because you wrote this: Originally Posted by Trent Wray Now ..... this might be where I'm conflating. For you to believe even yourself ... what you THINK you believe about your hair, you are trusting your instincts, reasoning, perception, etc. You are having faith in your own ability to reason and be intellectually honest about your hair color. So in a very small sense, you are having faith in your own belief ... that you actually believe what you think you believe. It's taking the concept far .... but it's showing that a level of "hoping I'm correct" is still there. It's independent of the actual hair color. If it is in alignment with it ... great. If not ..... it's not. Both outcomes are still based on faith. So you're simply someone who believes that nothing necessarily is. In that case we have nothing to discuss because you cannot prove we are having this discussion as opposed to me simply dreaming it or you dreaming me dreaming it. In the most trivial of senses you may be accurate, but this stance advances nothing, adds no value, and--semantic arguments aside--detracts from no position, either. Originally Posted by Trent Wray You are a Scotsman because you act like all other Scotsman. Not good enough. Of course it is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence of being Scottish is plenty good enough. Originally Posted by Trent Wray I could say fundamental goodness is indistinguishable from god, therefore fundamental goodness is god. If that is how you define it, but then you have simply defined god away. Have at it.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

14th December 2010, 07:16 PM	#408
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Here is another way of looking at it perhaps ..... When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea. So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level. The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist. So if we could look at the "belief focus" of both an atheist and a believer, how would we tell them apart .... and how could we be 100% certain that we had correctly identified the belief focus in it's entirety? So long as there is room for error, I'm saying it's still a faith based belief in the person's claim on themselves ..... not the actual focus or it's existence. Besides this being completely different from your previous argument, it is absolutely incorrect. The highlighted part is simply wrong. There is no focus for non-belief. Sam Harris was right. "Atheist" shouldn't even be a word. You may as well say I focus on the non-existence of satyrs. Or must we now define which type of atheist I am? Since I was raised Catholic before dropping my belief, am I now a Papist-Atheist? But if I had started as a Muslim I would now be a Mohammeden-Atheist? Heck, since I know about Horus and Vishnu and Odin and a thousand others, am I a Pan-Atheist, far more advanced than someone who hasn't heard of Set?
	__________________ My kids still love me.

14th December 2010, 05:31 PM	#402
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla Because the faithers don't want to acknowledge that someone can live without faith. "I can't, so you can't." Originally Posted by SumDood You're using semantics to twist the definition of 'faith based claim'. To me, that means a claim based on faith, with faith being that which is believed without evidence. Whether I or you believe the claim or if the claim is true or not has NOTHING to do with if the claim is based on faith. To simplify, lets leave out the 'I believe' for the claims: "There are no gods." "There are no unicorns." "1+1=2." "1+1=ketchup." "I am not a brain in a vat." Are these faith based claims or not? Yes I am playing a tight game of semantics here .... so let me reitterate what I'm trying to say by using your examples. None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe. Now, if you say that you believe you are a brain in a vat .... THEN that is faith based. Because of what you are choosing to believe ..... and again, this is irregardless of the evidence. So if you say that you believe unicorns don't exist .... and unicorns don't exist .... it just so happens that your belief is in line with what the evidence shows. However, you are still choosing to believe what you believe, even if it's correct. And this is where I'm twisting it even more to include the idea that you might not even believe what you claim to believe. And again ... this has nothing to do with whether or not 1+1=2 or ketchup, or there are gods or not. It only has to do with whether or not ITS TRUE THAT YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. So then I'm asking myself, how can a person prove that they actually believe something? Because even if your actions are in line with what the majority thinks you should be doing based on your belief ..... it's almost irrelevent. Both a believe and atheist are still just homo sapiens doing what homo sapiens do ..... any and all other labels based on belief are irrelevant I'm thinking. Because beliefs are in our minds, and all our actions are limited to the same sphere of possibility. IOW .... believers and atheists all do the same human sh*t. So just looking at actions doesn't show us what a person truly believes. Dressing up in garb and kneeling down and praying ... anyone can do that. Screaming that you love the Lord or that there are no gods .... anyone can do that. That isn't proof of what is going on in your actual mind. So I'm thinking our semantic issue boils down to how we are defining the term "belief". And since being an atheist involves a person's beliefs ..... I'm saying a person cannot prove they are an atheist anymore than a believer can prove they are a believer ..... because you cannot examine "belief" in it's raw form so to speak. If you say you are a cancer patient .... this we can examine. If you say you are a Brit .... we can find out where you were born. If you say you are born again of the Holy Spirit .... what can we look at? Clothes and actions and falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? If you say you are an atheist ... what do we look at? Clothes and actions and NOT falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? IOW ... we can only guesstimate based on a person's actions and choices and words, but never know for certain what they believe 100%. And I'm further saying that a person cannot fully trust their own understanding 100% without any doubt, because it's obvious that throughout our lives we are too biased to our own psyche to fully discern it objectively and impartially. Plus, we change our minds throughout our lives as our ability to comprehend and understand changes. So this only makes it even more complicated how to "prove a belief". So I'm separating the idea that a person THINKS they believe something ... from what is actually true in the world. 1+1=2 and that's based on evidence, not faith. However .... if you choose to believe it doesn't equal two, that is based on your faith that you are correct. If you choose to believe that it DOES equal two, that is still based on your faith that you are correct ... and the evidence is in line with what you are CLAIMING you believe. But how can I know for sure you actually believe it? I can't examine your belief like it's a thing .... see? Quote: I think the problem might be our definition of 'faith'. You seem to use it as belief in something that cannot be proven. I say it is belief in something for which there is no evidence. Slight difference, but important. I sort of see the difference you are pointing out, but not completely. I wouldn't limit faith to believing in something that cannot be proven ... because you might be believing in something that can be proven AND is backed by evidence. But it's still faith if you have to choose to believe. Now, if you're not choosing to believe something ... but rather, you understand something by default and not with conscious choice, then I don't think that's faith. For example, if your whole life you've believed the world was flat and never heard any different .... EVER .... so this idea was never challenged at all, then you're not choosing to believe it. You believe it by default. It doesn't require faith. It's just knowledge you have .... regardless of whether it's correct or not. Because you haven't been exposed to an alternative, it "just is" in your personal frame of reference. However, if you are given an alternative, and then choose to believe, you are acting on faith. And that faith might be based on fact with evidence .... or perhaps something with no evidence and cannot ever be proven. I think the word "faith" is so anathema to most skeptics and non-believers that when they hear it, they get defensive and equate it immediately with spirituality or religion and then the slippery game of semantics comes into play. When I use the term faith, I'm speaking of it on a basic everyday level ...... for example, when I drive my car I have faith I won't get into an accident. If I believed I truly was going to get into an accident, I wouldn't drive my car that day. Etc and so forth. This is an example of a faith we all utilize and take for granted because we base that faith on the evidence that all the days before this day, I didn't get in an accident ... so I'm not likely to get into one now. Although it's just a calculated risk ..... it's based on a hope and guess as to what is going to happen. It's faith imo. Quote: I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a vat. I certainly don't believe it. I accept the universe to exists as it is presented to me. Does that mean I have 'faith' that I'm not a brain in a vat? By your definition, sure. Can I prove a leprechaun doesn't turn off my refrigerator light when I shut the door? No, but I know that is not the case. I have weighed the evidence and have made an informed decision. And again ..... you claim you have weighed the evidence and made an informed decision. But it doesn't matter. That's an anecdote. How do I know that you have done that? How do I know you really don't believe in leprechauns? Now, it's obviously practical to take you at your word. It's a faith in you I would take for granted. However, it's still faith in your claim ABOUT YOURSELF. It's not about the leprechauns. It's about you. Atheism is about the lack of gods. An atheist is one who believes there is no god. A person claiming to be an atheist is making a claim about THEMSELF and their belief as well as what their view on atheism and gods are. It's that claim about themself that I'm saying cannot be proven. And as such, it unravels the rest to a degree .... making it pointless to claim any stance ultimately. To believe each other has a certain stance, is to believe in each other's intellecual honesty. Which is to say, we are trusting each other's words ... and imo that's a form of faith in each other.

14th December 2010, 05:36 PM	#403
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Garrette SumDood beat me to it, but since it was addressed to me, I'll chime in anyway. You may have to believe me based on faith, but my status as an atheist is not dependent at all upon your belief or lack of it. That's like saying that having brown hair is a matter of faith. It is not. I may, perhaps, be lying to you if I tell you I have brown hair, and you may or may not believe me when I tell you I have brown hair, but the fact is that I either have brown hair or I do not. Such my lack of belief in any gods. I have a complete lack of faith. If you choose not to believe me, or even if you do, it matters exactly zero to the veracity of my claim of having no faith. And then, of course, we can turn this right back on you: You do not believe in Vishnu; that lack of belief is purely a matter of faith. According to your logic, that is. So you admit that your are conflating your belief in my claim with the claim itself. Excellent. We agree. And now you're back to conflating your belief in my claim and the claim itself. Let's take the brown hair thing. Your belief about your hair color and my belief about it is irrelevant as to your actual hair color. So your hair being brown or not is going to be a fact based on evidence or it's not. What isn't provable, is what you actually believe. I can only take you at your word. It might be petty, but it's just petty and ridiculous enough that it shows that to take you at your word involves a level of trust and faith in you and your honesty. Now ..... this might be where I'm conflating. For you to believe even yourself ... what you THINK you believe about your hair, you are trusting your instincts, reasoning, perception, etc. You are having faith in your own ability to reason and be intellectually honest about your hair color. So in a very small sense, you are having faith in your own belief ... that you actually believe what you think you believe. It's taking the concept far .... but it's showing that a level of "hoping I'm correct" is still there. It's independent of the actual hair color. If it is in alignment with it ... great. If not ..... it's not. Both outcomes are still based on faith. Originally Posted by Garrette Hmmmm..... How about this: My words and actions are indistinguishable from someone who has no belief in a god. Therefore, there is no reason to think I have a belief in a god. You are a Scotsman because you act like all other Scotsman. Not good enough. I could say fundamental goodness is indistinguishable from god, therefore fundamental goodness is god.

14th December 2010, 05:52 PM	#404
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Here is another way of looking at it perhaps ..... When a believer says they believe in a god, what are they actually placing their faith in? You can say, "nothing" ... but there is obviously a focus of something. A mental construct, a feeling, an idea, an illusion ... or perhaps a physical object (bible, icon, etc) or an experience. Perhaps they are simply going with the status quo of their culture. But there is a focus. Even if it's just an idea. So when they claim they believe in god, there is an actual focus elsewhere on some social or psychological level. The atheist has a focus on the lack of something. And arguably, that something doesn't exist. So if we could look at the "belief focus" of both an atheist and a believer, how would we tell them apart .... and how could we be 100% certain that we had correctly identified the belief focus in it's entirety? So long as there is room for error, I'm saying it's still a faith based belief in the person's claim on themselves ..... not the actual focus or it's existence.

14th December 2010, 09:30 PM	#409
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by John Jones Oh good grief. This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever seen in a field of discussion renowned for idiotic arguments. How do I know you aren't lying if you claim to not believe in arguments against a belief in unicorns? ... If you were being facetious, give us a clue. Idiotic huh? So why respond then if it's idiotic .... what do you gain by calling my thoughts idiotic? If you are trying to joke around with me ... I'm not much in the mood. My entire argument is "thinking outloud" and yes, parts of it actually are somewhat facetious but to show a point which I'll make below. So do you actually have something to add other than "what you're saying is stupid" ? If so ... have at it. Otherwise, feel free to not respond Originally Posted by Garrette I was going to say that you've shifted goal posts. Originally it was that I couldn't prove to you that I am an atheist. Now you've changed it to that I can't prove to myself that I am an atheist. So you're simply someone who believes that nothing necessarily is. In that case we have nothing to discuss because you cannot prove we are having this discussion as opposed to me simply dreaming it or you dreaming me dreaming it. In the most trivial of senses you may be accurate, but this stance advances nothing, adds no value, and--semantic arguments aside--detracts from no position, either. Originally Posted by Garrette Besides this being completely different from your previous argument, it is absolutely incorrect. The highlighted part is simply wrong. There is no focus for non-belief. Sam Harris was right. "Atheist" shouldn't even be a word. You may as well say I focus on the non-existence of satyrs. Or must we now define which type of atheist I am? Since I was raised Catholic before dropping my belief, am I now a Papist-Atheist? But if I had started as a Muslim I would now be a Mohammeden-Atheist? Heck, since I know about Horus and Vishnu and Odin and a thousand others, am I a Pan-Atheist, far more advanced than someone who hasn't heard of Set? You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist". And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god". The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective. Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief ... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief? You see what I'm saying? Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something. So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief. Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them? It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere. I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief. Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example. And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus .... therefore it requires a certain amount of faith to even believe in your own definitions. Not even all atheists can agree with each other whether atheism is a philosophical stance or not (and that thread sparked this train of thought I'm having). So not only do believers not agree on who or what god is and isn't, but atheists can't agree completely on the nature of atheism. The wikipedia defition for faith and atheism is one thing ... the practical application and claims of the ones who claim to be faith walkers and atheists is another. And this forum is a fine example of that. So yes ... I'm still saying that it takes a certain amount of faith not just to trust another's personal claims (which skeptics claim isn't evidence anyway ... mere personal claims with no tangible proof of anything) .... but to trust your own claims in regards to your BELIEFS .... especially if you are claiming to lack belief and the other "scotsman" can't all agree on what a true scotsman is anyway. And yes ..... you point out the other ultimate end of my argument ..... the trivial idea that a person could walk around believing that "nothing is" so to speak. "I can't trust anything because every single thing period requires faith to believe in ..... everything." The ultimate end of that is essentialy solipsism. And that is a nonsensical argument which is impossible to prove or disprove. And the solipsistic argument is actually one of the reasons I was being somewhat facetious .... to lead up to it. Because if my reasoning actually stands up on any level, then yes ..... every single aspect of how we relate to each other is based on "faith in what we are experiencing" yada yada, and nothing really is as it seems, and the only thing I can really trust is my own existence. And although I don't believe in solipsism (lol) ...... it's one extreme way to interpret reality. It's one of those extremes that you couldn't prove. Like god .... or the atheist .... because they are somewhat extremes of the same coin. God is not possible to prove 100% because there would have to be a small percentage of faith that god's claims on being god were actually true (since we have no reference point) ... and likewise the atheist claiming they lack complete belief would require faith on the part of the believer in the atheist .... because for someone to lack complete belief in an area and be cognicent of it is unprovable. You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes. And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural. How can you prove they are lying? Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level. Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual

14th December 2010, 09:35 PM	#410
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Trent Wray You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist". You know you can't spell Atheist without spelling an anagram of "A She Tit" Originally Posted by Trent Wray And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god". Its an alien acronym for Genetic Operations Director

15th December 2010, 04:24 AM	#411
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	Originally Posted by Trent Wray You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist". And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god". The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective. Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief ... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief? You see what I'm saying? Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something. So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief. Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them? It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere. I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief. Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example. And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus .... therefore it requires a certain amount of faith to even believe in your own definitions. Not even all atheists can agree with each other whether atheism is a philosophical stance or not (and that thread sparked this train of thought I'm having). So not only do believers not agree on who or what god is and isn't, but atheists can't agree completely on the nature of atheism. The wikipedia defition for faith and atheism is one thing ... the practical application and claims of the ones who claim to be faith walkers and atheists is another. And this forum is a fine example of that. So yes ... I'm still saying that it takes a certain amount of faith not just to trust another's personal claims (which skeptics claim isn't evidence anyway ... mere personal claims with no tangible proof of anything) .... but to trust your own claims in regards to your BELIEFS .... especially if you are claiming to lack belief and the other "scotsman" can't all agree on what a true scotsman is anyway. And yes ..... you point out the other ultimate end of my argument ..... the trivial idea that a person could walk around believing that "nothing is" so to speak. "I can't trust anything because every single thing period requires faith to believe in ..... everything." The ultimate end of that is essentialy solipsism. And that is a nonsensical argument which is impossible to prove or disprove. And the solipsistic argument is actually one of the reasons I was being somewhat facetious .... to lead up to it. Because if my reasoning actually stands up on any level, then yes ..... every single aspect of how we relate to each other is based on "faith in what we are experiencing" yada yada, and nothing really is as it seems, and the only thing I can really trust is my own existence. And although I don't believe in solipsism (lol) ...... it's one extreme way to interpret reality. It's one of those extremes that you couldn't prove. Like god .... or the atheist .... because they are somewhat extremes of the same coin. God is not possible to prove 100% because there would have to be a small percentage of faith that god's claims on being god were actually true (since we have no reference point) ... and likewise the atheist claiming they lack complete belief would require faith on the part of the believer in the atheist .... because for someone to lack complete belief in an area and be cognicent of it is unprovable. You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes. And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural. How can you prove they are lying? Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level. Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual Still can't say I agree with your thought process, and the highlighted portion is the major reason why. Me saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god" does not equate to "I have something for nothing." And saying "I am an atheist" is simply shorthand for saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god." From your comments I see that this is really just an academic exercise for you, but you have not shown what you claim to have shown, i.e., that atheism is faith-based. Everything you have shown is old hat and hinges on theism being faith-based which is not in dispute, except by the occasional DOC-like or edge-like poster.
	__________________ My kids still love me. Last edited by Garrette; 15th December 2010 at 04:25 AM.

15th December 2010, 07:01 AM	#412
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Yes I am playing a tight game of semantics here .... so let me reitterate what I'm trying to say by using your examples. None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe. Now, if you say that you believe you are a brain in a vat .... THEN that is faith based. Because of what you are choosing to believe ..... and again, this is irregardless of the evidence. So if you say that you believe unicorns don't exist .... and unicorns don't exist .... it just so happens that your belief is in line with what the evidence shows. However, you are still choosing to believe what you believe, even if it's correct. And this is where I'm twisting it even more to include the idea that you might not even believe what you claim to believe. And again ... this has nothing to do with whether or not 1+1=2 or ketchup, or there are gods or not. It only has to do with whether or not ITS TRUE THAT YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. I really don't see where you're going with this and what it brings to this discussion. Originally Posted by Trent Wray So then I'm asking myself, how can a person prove that they actually believe something? Because even if your actions are in line with what the majority thinks you should be doing based on your belief ..... it's almost irrelevent. Both a believe and atheist are still just homo sapiens doing what homo sapiens do ..... any and all other labels based on belief are irrelevant I'm thinking. Because beliefs are in our minds, and all our actions are limited to the same sphere of possibility. IOW .... believers and atheists all do the same human sht. So just looking at actions doesn't show us what a person truly believes. Dressing up in garb and kneeling down and praying ... anyone can do that. Screaming that you love the Lord or that there are no gods .... anyone can do that. That isn't proof of what is going on in your actual mind. So I'm thinking our semantic issue boils down to how we are defining the term "belief". And since being an atheist involves a person's beliefs ..... I'm saying a person cannot prove they are an atheist anymore than a believer can prove they are a believer ..... because you cannot examine "belief" in it's raw form so to speak. If you say you are a cancer patient .... this we can examine. If you say you are a Brit .... we can find out where you were born. If you say you are born again of the Holy Spirit .... what can we look at? Clothes and actions and falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? If you say you are an atheist ... what do we look at? Clothes and actions and NOT falling down when Benny Hinn touches your head? IOW ... we can only guesstimate based on a person's actions and choices and words, but never know for certain what they believe 100%. And I'm further saying that a person cannot fully trust their own understanding 100% without any doubt, because it's obvious that throughout our lives we are too biased to our own psyche to fully discern it objectively and impartially. Plus, we change our minds throughout our lives as our ability to comprehend and understand changes. So this only makes it even more complicated how to "prove a belief". I definitely think we need to separate proving WHAT one believes from proving THAT one believes something. I don't remember exactly how we got on the subject of proof. I thought we were talking about atheism being faith based or not. I can't prove gods don't exists any more than anyone can prove they do. Originally Posted by Trent Wray* So I'm separating the idea that a person THINKS they believe something ... from what is actually true in the world. 1+1=2 and that's based on evidence, not faith. However .... if you choose to believe it doesn't equal two, that is based on your faith that you are correct. If you choose to believe that it DOES equal two, that is still based on your faith that you are correct ... and the evidence is in line with what you are CLAIMING you believe. But how can I know for sure you actually believe it? I can't examine your belief like it's a thing .... see? Again, what does this bring to the conversation? I can't prove to you that I believe something. I can't prove to myself that I truly believe something. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't prove we're not in the Matrix Originally Posted by Trent Wray I sort of see the difference you are pointing out, but not completely. I wouldn't limit faith to believing in something that cannot be proven ... because you might be believing in something that can be proven AND is backed by evidence. But it's still faith if you have to choose to believe. (bolding mine) I think I'm going to have to disagree with the bolded line. Do I choose to not believe in unicorns? Do I choose to believe 911 wasn't an inside job? Do I choose to believe I'm not a brain in a vat? One weights the facts and makes an informed decision. I suppose that is 'choosing' to believe something, but I don't see how it can be classified as 'faith'. Originally Posted by Trent Wray Now, if you're not choosing to believe something ... but rather, you understand something by default and not with conscious choice, then I don't think that's faith. For example, if your whole life you've believed the world was flat and never heard any different .... EVER .... so this idea was never challenged at all, then you're not choosing to believe it. You believe it by default. It doesn't require faith. It's just knowledge you have .... regardless of whether it's correct or not. Because you haven't been exposed to an alternative, it "just is" in your personal frame of reference. However, if you are given an alternative, and then choose to believe, you are acting on faith. And that faith might be based on fact with evidence .... or perhaps something with no evidence and cannot ever be proven. (bolding mine) If it is based on fact with evidence, it ceases to be faith. And of course we can have a discussion on what constitutes 'evidence'. Originally Posted by Trent Wray I think the word "faith" is so anathema to most skeptics and non-believers that when they hear it, they get defensive and equate it immediately with spirituality or religion and then the slippery game of semantics comes into play. When I use the term faith, I'm speaking of it on a basic everyday level ...... for example, when I drive my car I have faith I won't get into an accident. If I believed I truly was going to get into an accident, I wouldn't drive my car that day. Etc and so forth. This is an example of a faith we all utilize and take for granted because we base that faith on the evidence that all the days before this day, I didn't get in an accident ... so I'm not likely to get into one now. Although it's just a calculated risk ..... it's based on a hope and guess as to what is going to happen. It's faith imo. And again ..... you claim you have weighed the evidence and made an informed decision. But it doesn't matter. That's an anecdote. How do I know that you have done that? How do I know you really don't believe in leprechauns? If we're going to get anywhere with this, we need to decide what we're talking about. "Faith" as in "when I sit down I have faith that this chair will support my weight" is one thing. When you add discussions about having "faith" that we're not brains in vats or "You have to take everything everyone says on faith because you don't know if their lying", it just muddies the water. Can we agree to leave the solipsism and the like out of this discussion? Originally Posted by Trent Wray Now, it's obviously practical to take you at your word. It's a faith in you I would take for granted. However, it's still faith in your claim ABOUT YOURSELF. It's not about the leprechauns. It's about you. Atheism is about the lack of gods. An atheist is one who believes there is no god. A person claiming to be an atheist is making a claim about THEMSELF and their belief as well as what their view on atheism and gods are. It's that claim about themself that I'm saying cannot be proven. And as such, it unravels the rest to a degree .... making it pointless to claim any stance ultimately. To believe each other has a certain stance, is to believe in each other's intellecual honesty. Which is to say, we are trusting each other's words ... and imo that's a form of faith in each other. Please, lets start this exchange over with the caveat that I believe what you say and I believe that you believe what you say and vice versa and reality exists.

15th December 2010, 07:41 AM	#413
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by Trent Wray You actually nailed the point I was building up to ..... and that is that there shouldn't even be a word "atheist". And in a very similar fashion, there shouldn't even be a word "god". The reason being, is because there is no consensus on who or what a god is or would be .... even if god existed. It's one of those terms that doesn't really describe much of anything at all because it encompasses WAY too much. To some a god might be a supernatural being, to others it might be their boss at work. It's a label that is heavily personalized and subjective. Really? You honestly think when asked "is there a God?" someone would answer "my boss is God"? And I don't mean a joke like "my boss is God of the Jerks". Originally Posted by Trent Wray Likewise, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. It's almost like saying, "I don't have something for nothing." THAT is non sequiter. Why even say that? How can you prove you don't have belief Why on earth would anyone need or want to prove whether or not they believe something? Originally Posted by Trent Wray ... especially if you don't have it for something that you don't believe exists? How can you believe that you don't have any belief? Do you believe that unicorns exist? If not, how can you believe that you don't have any belief? Originally Posted by Trent Wray You see what I'm saying? Not really, but I'm pretty bored and I'm trying. Originally Posted by Trent Wray Again ... it's like saying, "I forgot what I remembered to forget," or something. So not only is it pointless to claim it ... it requires belief to actually believe that you have no belief. Sure. YAY! Everyone has faith about everything and every-NON-thing ever! It requires belief to actually believe that you don't believe that I'm an alien from another galaxy. [/quote] Originally Posted by Trent Wray Because if you have no belief ... how would you be able to recognize it? It's like saying you are blind and can see no color .... but you are able to recognize all the different colors of the visible spectrum. How would you know them if you don't see them or even have the capacity to see them? It would require some act of faith that you can differentiate color .... considering that you believe you can't see color because you would recognize it if you saw it. That's partially what the ultimate end of the argument is .... it's a circle that goes nowhere. I think what the average atheist does is stop walking the circle halfway, and they stop at a midpoint somewhere. That's where they can say, "I believe that I have no belief because there is nothing to believe in ..." and somehow that is good enough without further examination. But walk the rest of the circular argument, and perhaps you'll find it's a circle that's not even worth walking in the first place because you can't believe something if you lack belief. Now, what you can say in response, is that "it's not that an atheist lacks belief in EVERYTHING .... they simply do not believe in one thing .... god(s)." Yet so many here vehemently take their clothes off and throw tantrums at even the thought that they operate by faith in any other area of their lives ... be it trusting a spouse, the pilot of an airplane, or the slot machine they are dropping their money into, or some statistic they have calculated, for example. I don't think anyone will dispute that fact if you want to use 'faith' that way. I'm pretty sure when I type the 'X' key on my keyboard, then an 'X' will appear on my monitor. I know it might not happen. If you want to call that 'faith', have at it. Originally Posted by Trent Wray And my point, is that the definitions of god(s) and faith/belief are so subjective and there isn't a general practical consensus .... Nonsense. When one says 'faith in God', everyone one has a pretty good idea what their talking about. Yes, it could be Allah, the Christian god, Jehovah and different believers believe different things about God, but its usually some sort of self aware, supernatural entity that created the universe and has effect on everyday life. Originally Posted by Trent Wray <SNIP> You have to place faith in experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes. If you mean my own experiences and thoughts and feelings and anecdotes, sure. Originally Posted by Trent Wray And if those become admissable ... then so does all of life, the universe, morality, bible stories, and anything else the believer in woo wants to claim is "of god" or the supernatural. Absolutely not. I have much greater faith in my own memories than the claims of others. To put equal weight on both would be ridiculous. We are all bias towards our selves. Originally Posted by Trent Wray How can you prove they are lying? I don't have to prove they are lying. I only have to weigh what they are claiming against what I know about reality and make an informed decision. Originally Posted by Trent Wray Esp if the defition of god changes to suit the person? And since belief is so subjective .... I'm simply applying the concept that it requries faith to believe in even in your own opinions on matters which are focussed already on things which are extreme and unknowable for 100% certainty. And the solpsistic angle is the end of yet another extreme linked to the entire argument of faith and belief or the lack of belief .... because it rests on the trusting of our own ability to perceive reality on any and every level. Anyway .... I'm starting to get tired of talking about this now because my attention span is wretched and I typically bounce from one thing to the next anyway .... so for the few who might have actually taken an interest in the convo don't be offended if I start to trail off ..... You all have made some decent points for the most part ... thanx If no one wants to respond from here on out ... no worries But I can already tell I'm not thinking about this as deeply as I was initially ..... so I'm starting to babble more than usual I do appreciate the effort and thought you have put into this exchange. It would be better over some beers, but I still enjoy it. I believe there is nothing supernatural in our world. If you want to accept that statement as truth, I would be glad to discuss my rationale and hear any opposing views.

15th December 2010, 09:13 AM	#414
I Am The Scum Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,549	Trent, I'd love to correct your myriad of errors, but there's only so many hours in the day. Just a few quick questions: You seem to be saying that it is possible for one to feel like they believe something, even if they actually don't. Let's suppose that Bob believes he is suffering from a headache at the moment. Are you saying that Bob might actually not be suffering from a headache? How do you believe this is possible? Originally Posted by Trent Wray None of those claims are based on faith .... they are based on evidence. And the evidence will show that you are either a brain in a vat, unicorns and gods exist, and what exactly 1+1 equals. The evidence is what those claims are based on, and is independent of what you believe. What evidence could one provide, even hypothetically, that they are not a brain in a vat?

15th December 2010, 12:01 PM	#415
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum You seem to be saying that it is possible for one to feel like they believe something, even if they actually don't. thats actually quite normal, if it wasn't "confirmation bias" would be a meaningless phrase

15th December 2010, 01:19 PM	#416
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Yig Can someone here please explain to me why atheism is just not another religion? Believing that there is no God seems as pointless as believing that there is one. So this is what GWAR was talking about when they wrote the horror of Yig. It makes so much more sense now.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

15th December 2010, 01:20 PM	#417
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,367	Originally Posted by sadhatter So this is what GWAR was talking about when they wrote the horror of Yig. It makes so much more sense now. Yig Soggoth lives. As for the OP, he could be right. Why bother talking about the Great Sky Fairy at all. It's pointless.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

15th December 2010, 01:30 PM	#418
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,101	Originally Posted by John Jones Alas! The 154 fallacy. Yig, meet 154. 154, meet Yig. It's quite common amongst xians and others suffering from religion; they are simply unable (or unwilling) to accept that others do not share their delusions. Thus they believe that atheists really do believe in a god but deny it. It's an interesting part of their illness. Originally Posted by Foster Zygote And I hear that they've found real dragons on the island of Komodo. I wonder if they fly and breath fire? Enough resources, a few decades and a mad geneticist and they might just do that........... Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge I suspect he's done enough to get his merit badge and gone back to Biblethumper College. Yep. A pity they're so unwilling to actually think for themselves.

15th December 2010, 03:22 PM	#419
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Lots of thoughts to respond to .... so forgive me if I miss one or two .... Originally Posted by Marduk You know you can't spell Atheist without spelling an anagram of "A She Tit" Its an alien acronym for Genetic Operations Director I have faith she tit's exist Originally Posted by Garrette Still can't say I agree with your thought process, and the highlighted portion is the major reason why. Me saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god" does not equate to "I have something for nothing." In some ways I still think it does .... would "I have nothing for nothing" be closer? Quote: And saying "I am an atheist" is simply shorthand for saying "I do not believe in your undefined god or any other god." From your comments I see that this is really just an academic exercise for you, but you have not shown what you claim to have shown, i.e., that atheism is faith-based. Everything you have shown is old hat and hinges on theism being faith-based which is not in dispute, except by the occasional DOC-like or edge-like poster. Well yes, the whole thing was an academic exercise. I'm not even sure what I ultimately think about my own words .... but I decided to pick a side and stick with it to see where it lead. That's often how I explore things .... by trying to believe them and then tossing it out the window if it doesn't wash. I'm still on the fence about this ... BUT ... I never claimed atheism was faith based. I've said over and over again that it isn't ... what I have said, is that for an atheist to claim they are an atheist is faith based ... IOW, the claim they are making about themselves. And the reason being is that you can't really prove belief. And the same goes for a believer. What you can do is hint at belief, or provide a good argument ..... but to prove 100% what you believe or don't believe is like trying to prove 100% what you love or don't love. All you can do is hope you are actually being loving. All you can do is hope you are actually believing or not believing. People are self-deluded psychologically all the time ... and while rationally you might not recognize a belief in something, perhaps philosophically you do without realizing it. It's hard for a person to "know thyself" 100% with no errors So I'm not saying atheism is a faith based concept .... to the contrary. It's based on evidence. But the ATHEIST is faith based when they claim they lack COMPLETE AND TOTAL BELIEF in something ... because how can they know with absolute certainty they lack 100% belief? 100%? Not 99.9 .... but 100. See my point? It's that sliver of doubt that makes belief in your own claim about the lack of belief ... a sort of faith based belief. Originally Posted by SumDood I really don't see where you're going with this and what it brings to this discussion. I definitely think we need to separate proving WHAT one believes from proving THAT one believes something. I don't remember exactly how we got on the subject of proof. I thought we were talking about atheism being faith based or not. I can't prove gods don't exists any more than anyone can prove they do. AGain ... it's not about atheism being faith based or not. I don't think it is. It's evidence based. But that's mostly irrelevant to a person's belief about their absolute lack of belief. Consider a person who claims they believe in a god without a doubt. That's not possible to prove ... because how can they prove they believe in a god 100%? Perhaps they believe in god 98% of the time, but in reality ... there is a 2% of their psyche that actually lacks belief. Or they have a threshold and when their entire family gets wiped out by a hurricane, they will stop believing. See my point? It takes faith in oneself and ability to believe to make that claim. Likewise, it takes faith in one's own ability to NOT believe. How do you know all your belief thresholds? How do you know that one day you won't simply change your mind due to some erroneous feeling or thought ... and forgo the path of evidence for the path of woo? So what I'm saying, is that atheism is describing a sort of absolute .... a complete and total lack of belief. And sure .... using the lack of belief in unicorns is another example. It's a ridiculous one, but it still applies ... because perhaps your lack of belief in unicorns is 99.9 percent. Perhaps your lack of belief in a fake moon landing is 89%. There are thresholds that, given the right circumstances, might cause you to think otherwise for even a moment and consider the alternatives. Perhaps there are gods if ______ happens. Perhaps that was a unicorn that was discovered in Uganda. Perhaps there is a global conspiracy if we now know that ______ is happening in a section of the government. See? You can't know 100% of what your response will always be .... so to claim you have a complete lack of belief, at all times .... requires faith in your own claim and ability to maintain that lack of belief now and forever so to speak. Quote: Again, what does this bring to the conversation? I can't prove to you that I believe something. I can't prove to myself that I truly believe something. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't prove we're not in the Matrix This is exactly my point. And what it brings to the conversation is exactly what I was saying ... that you can't prove you are a "true atheist" 100%. All you can do is tell me, and show me with your actions ... and on some level I will have to have faith you are what you say you are. It's a faith we all take for granted .... and you could substitue the word faith with belief or even trust if you like. But regardless, we mostly have no evidence we are all brains in vats .... but still, there is a sliver of possibility ... yes? Albeit a small one. So here you are actually pointing out what I am pointing out. And the reason I was pointing it out should be obvious ..... a skeptical thinker who takes pride in their own skepticism makes a claim which involves an absolute .... "I have a complete lack of belief in ________" ... and that claim about themselves is based on anecdotes, thoughts, feelings .... subjective "evidence" and not objective evidence. Their stance is based on evidence .... their claim about that stance is not. It's a small difference I'm pointing out .... Quote: (bolding mine) I think I'm going to have to disagree with the bolded line. Do I choose to not believe in unicorns? Do I choose to believe 911 wasn't an inside job? Do I choose to believe I'm not a brain in a vat? One weights the facts and makes an informed decision. I suppose that is 'choosing' to believe something, but I don't see how it can be classified as 'faith'. Yes it is choosing to believe in something .... and I'm classifying it as faith because you are hoping you are correct when there is a chance you are not, regardless of how small that chance is. And the thing is .... even if there is absolutely no way whatsoever you are a brain in a vat ... so long as that idea is in your head, you cannot prove that you believe or disbelieve it 100%. You can say you don't believe it, and live like you don't believe it .... but there is no concrete absolute objective way to prove 100% that there isn't a single part of you that doesn't or won't believe it given the right circumstance. Quote: (bolding mine) If it is based on fact with evidence, it ceases to be faith. And of course we can have a discussion on what constitutes 'evidence'. If we're going to get anywhere with this, we need to decide what we're talking about. "Faith" as in "when I sit down I have faith that this chair will support my weight" is one thing. When you add discussions about having "faith" that we're not brains in vats or "You have to take everything everyone says on faith because you don't know if their lying", it just muddies the water. Can we agree to leave the solipsism and the like out of this discussion? It does muddy the water and it isn't practical to have the solipsistic monkey on your shoulder in a discussion. So we can leave it out ... however, it is part of the backbone of the "rabbit hole" that is leading to my conclusion that a person claiming a personal trait is absolute within themselves ("I have a complete lack of belief or faith in god(s)") is not a 100% knowable thing. Because it's not backed by objective evidence ... and it's a claim that is akin to a solipsistic claim, for example. So we can leave it out, because it's not practical .... and it's not really practical to question an atheist and say, "well ... in a sort of philosophical reality, your own belief about yourself is faith based ...." because it's easier to take for granted that the person is being intellectually honest. But realisitcally .... you just can't know 100% for certain. And that's why ultimately, believing a person is an atheist, or a believer, or a god, or whatever sort of absolute thing they claim about themself ... involves a certain level of faith. NOT THE STANCE ITSELF, but the belief that you have that stance without any room for error. And honestly what started this whole line of thought, was the discussion as to whether or not atheism is a philosophical stance or not. I think it is, obviously lol. It is because it's link to so much subjective "proof" .... basically one's own words about one's thoughts. Quote: Please, lets start this exchange over with the caveat that I believe what you say and I believe that you believe what you say and vice versa and reality exists. We could, and I've been somewhat a devil's advocate ..... but it's to make yet another point: When a believer and a skeptic engage in discussion on this board, often times the skeptic will simply discredit the believers claims even about themselves simply because the skeptic is already believing in bits and pieces of what is assumed by the skeptic to be illusional realities and fantasies. So ... the believer is often corned with their choices of words, and even their thoughts and feelings about themselves are discredited and tossed out becasue they aren't "Evidence". Yet what you are asking here, is essentially what many believers want .... to be taken at their word on certain things. "I'll believer what you say, you believe what I say .... let's assume we are both trying to be honest people." See what I'm saying? IT's a double standard that the skeptic often hides behind .... cornering and trapping woos by their words, but expecting the freedom to speak your mind as you wish and not be cornered for your own thoughts and feelings on matters. Believing you are an atheist is so only because you think and feel it about yourself, and others take you at your word. I think many more discussions would go farther and things would actually be accomplished after pages of threads if both sides generally agreed to do what you just asked Originally Posted by SumDood Really? You honestly think when asked "is there a God?" someone would answer "my boss is God"? And I don't mean a joke like "my boss is God of the Jerks". Yes ..... and a perfect example is the group one of my ex wives .... (ahum) ..... attended in her church for several years. One of their common topics was "who is really your god" .... and often times people would confess that money was their god, or their own self image, or their view on authorities, etc and so forth. The goal of those believers was to eliminate the "false worship" of material gods and refocus it on the supernatural entity. So yes ... I think some might say, "my boss is my god" if they believe that about themselves. It might sound ridiculous to a non believer, but to a believer who is trying so hard to not sin, etc and so forth .... they want to eliminate the obstacles that are standing in their way of haivng a more "perfect faith". And besides ..... there are some decent psychological points being made in those concepts. Consider a servent who never stands up to their oppressive "master" or something along those lines. Like an oppressed wife, or an emotionally abused child. It is almost like empowering a tyrant or a god like figure, and identifying that oppressive aspect as such might be a therapeutic step to break free from living under a type of fear of the oppressor, etc and so forth. So philosphically and psychologically, it's possible that people live as though they have a "god" when they don't even believe in god(s). It's subjective since we can't all agree on what a "god" is. Quote: Why on earth would anyone need or want to prove whether or not they believe something? Seriously? To earn trust, command respect, self-assurance, etc and so forth. Just to name a few. The average voter wants to know what their candidates believe ... and they want to see proof. I believe it's fairly important to skeptics and believers who believes what ... and they are always looking at each other for proof. I think this question you just asked is self evident by the existence of this forum .... Quote: Sure. YAY! Everyone has faith about everything and every-NON-thing ever! It requires belief to actually believe that you don't believe that I'm an alien from another galaxy. Once confronted with the choice, yes it does ... no matter how ridiculous the choice is. Isn't this simply how we process information? We make a choice, hoping it is correct ... and overtime, that choice get's reinforced. Hopefully, again, in a beneficial way based on reality and fact. Some stay in delusion in certain areas while others venture into more fact based and reliable areas. Quote: I don't think anyone will dispute that fact if you want to use 'faith' that way. I'm pretty sure when I type the 'X' key on my keyboard, then an 'X' will appear on my monitor. I know it might not happen. If you want to call that 'faith', have at it. Perfect example. Yes ... it's faith to a small degree. Quote: Nonsense. When one says 'faith in God', everyone one has a pretty good idea what their talking about. Yes, it could be Allah, the Christian god, Jehovah and different believers believe different things about God, but its usually some sort of self aware, supernatural entity that created the universe and has effect on everyday life. Yeah everyone pretty much knows what they are talking about when they talk about faith in god. That's obvious. History shows that to be the case. I'm being facetious. Quote: Absolutely not. I have much greater faith in my own memories than the claims of others. To put equal weight on both would be ridiculous. We are all bias towards our selves. An excellent point that supports what I'm saying. Quote: I don't have to prove they are lying. I only have to weigh what they are claiming against what I know about reality and make an informed decision. Exactly what I'm saying as well. Quote: I do appreciate the effort and thought you have put into this exchange. It would be better over some beers, but I still enjoy it. You weren't already drinking? You did it wrong then from the start No I've appreciated it as well actually .... it was a decent thought I think that I had initially, and I'm glad so many decided to tear into it because that's the way I like things examined ... from multiple angles and opposing views. It reveals the meat of an idea much better that way ... Quote: I believe there is nothing supernatural in our world. If you want to accept that statement as truth, I would be glad to discuss my rationale and hear any opposing views. I have faith you beleive that lol

15th December 2010, 04:01 PM	#420
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,540	Trent Wray, Even with all the verbiage above you have still not demonstrated your point that claiming to be an atheist is faith-based except in a matter that means nothing. If (a big if) you have demonstrated it, it is only because you have demonstrated that claiming anything is faith-based. Hence, claiming to be an atheist is exactly the same as claiming to be or know anything. So as SumDood says, it brings nothing to the table. Even if true, we gain exactly zero by acting as if it's true except adding one more layer to every discussion--a layer that adds no clarity or explanatory power. If we act is if it is not true, we reach the same conclusions without the separate layer.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

15th December 2010, 09:00 PM	#421
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Garrette Trent Wray, Even with all the verbiage above you have still not demonstrated your point that claiming to be an atheist is faith-based except in a matter that means nothing. If (a big if) you have demonstrated it, it is only because you have demonstrated that claiming anything is faith-based. Hence, claiming to be an atheist is exactly the same as claiming to be or know anything. So as SumDood says, it brings nothing to the table. Even if true, we gain exactly zero by acting as if it's true except adding one more layer to every discussion--a layer that adds no clarity or explanatory power. If we act is if it is not true, we reach the same conclusions without the separate layer. A couple of things: * In another thread which delves into this same discussion, it's mentioned that it's really not possible to prove what is "in the mind" of another individual except for possibly that individual themselves. Because we just can't look into someone's mind and see for ourselves. And this really touches the bottom line of my argument ..... we can't see what is going on in each other's minds with 100% accuracy definitively. Now, we are more able to monitor and examine certain aspects of brain function to determine what is actually going on in the mind, and what part controls what ... even to the degree that sometimes we can predict when a person is going to answer a question incorrectly on a test. Or we can somewhat accurately gauge whether a person is lying. And with psychological skills, we can manipulate and expose motives within a person that can be documented and held up to scrutiny by examining data collections, etc and so forth. However, we cannot just run a blood test and see if the "belief hormone" is produced when a person is asked whether or not they believe in god. So when we have actual objective proof that a person either lacks belief or has belief, then that question will be answered definitively I imagine .... despite what a person claims or thinks about themselves. * Now, you make a good point that my argument brings nothing to the table, even if it follows and is philosophically "sound" so to speak. However, it might not bring anything to your table. It might bring something to someone elses table. It's relevance is dependent upon the questions being asked and the one asking the questions. For someone who views belief as philosophically based, my argument might be extremely relevent. For someone who is considering solpsism ... it might be relevant. For someone who views faith upon evidence only, it will most likely have little to no relevance except to add upon a pile of subjective fluff which is already a mile high. But consider this ..... one of the biggest questions our culture asks right now concerns the nature of homosexuality. Is it a preference? Is it genetic? Is it a moral issue? Is it morally irrelevant? Is it an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage? What are the philosophical implications of practicing it? Is it something that is even "practiced"? What is it and why is it there? Etc and so forth. Personally, it is not one of those topics I ever think about at length, because I'm not a homosexual, I'm not homophobic, and so I have an opinion on it about as strongly as I have an opinion on whether or not to buy Lucky Charms or Trix. BUT .... one of the reasons we have so many opinions on it, is because we don't have definitive objective proof of it's "origins". The "gay gene" if you will. Essentially, we rely upon the testimony of homo and hetero sexuals with their thoughts, opinions, and personal anecdotes. So whilst trying to decide whether or not one's own claims about oneself are faith based or fact based, it can be an extremely relevant question depending on the circumstance and/or the one asking the question. It can bring a great deal of clarity and explanatory power depending on your POV at the time and/or the audience. On the JREF, the idea a skeptic utilizes anything other than fact based thinking will raise the alarm bells. There is a non-impartial aspect here of course, due to the majority and what causes a skeptic to get defensive or alert their prejudice muscle. It's the same anywhere a group of people feel so strongly about something. Talking at length about whether God likes Texas Hold Em and concubines or not won't be very relevant here. It will stir up pages and pages of conversation in certain other places however ... So thanx again for your participation. Good stuff to think about. It's been relevent to me and brought something to my table .... perhaps my word on that will be good enough as evidence? lol

15th December 2010, 10:54 PM	#422
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136	Atheism: Still pointless? My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none. The response to this question was "Atheism is not believing that God does not exist, it's a lack of believing". The question then became "Why do you lack belief?" The response was that this is the default position since there is "no evidence" of God and the justification was Occam's razor. For the purposes of this discussion I choose to define God as an intelligent designer and to make things more clear lets refer to a belief in something as a theory that the given something exists. My question now is, "What is evidence without a theory?" Here's what I'm saying. What I'm allowed to theorize when it comes to non-verifiable claims is pretty much whatever I want, given that it is consistent with facts I already have. Now, I want to theorize that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. What is stopping me from doing this? No evidence? I'm sorry, but lack of evidence of an intelligent designer does not instantly disprove the theory. Occam's razor then? Occam's razor can only be applied in situations where one is trying to explain something, since it states that when one is selecting among competing hypotheses, one should pick the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It seems to me that any theory or hypothesis about something like the origin of the universe or the existence of an intelligent designer is making the same amount of assumptions. I mean, saying that the universe spontaneously came into existence makes the same amount of assumptions as saying that it was intelligently designed. Then again, I guess I could take the same common road you all do which is to not theorize about anything and just wait for the answer in the form of the "indisputable evidence" that I keep being asked for, because to you people theorizing about something and asserting that it exists are the same thing. So this brings me to my original point, why atheism? Why choose a position that makes no attempt to explain god or the origin of the universe when there is nothing to be lost by making that attempt? Why should one "lack belief"? I can think of one answer to this question. It is: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. " This is a scientific response. It pertains only to verifiable scientific theories. So does this mean that we cannot have beliefs? What if we applied the tools of logic and reason to those beliefs? Is it not interesting to see where such a process would take us? Is this not what philosophy is? The question of an intelligent designer is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one and as such is not subject to the same scrutiny. For those of you believe that atheism is at the core the same idea as that expressed in the above quote, I ask you this, What is the point of of calling yourself an atheist? Why not just call yourself an scientist? What do you get out of atheism? I'll start you off by giving my answer to this question. I think that it's strictly emotional. I think that some of you gain a sense of belonging, a sense of security in knowing that there are like minded people out there who think the same things that you do. I think that some of you even get a feeling of superiority, a feeling that you somehow "know something" that others do not and a sense that you are fighting the good fight against the ignorance of "them". Sound familiar? This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions.
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136

15th December 2010, 10:58 PM	#423
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Can I ask why you abandoned the other thread? And what would you refer to yourself as? Agnostic? Theist? Deist?
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793

15th December 2010, 11:01 PM	#424
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	All right, you got me. I need the validation of lots of people agreeing with me. That is why I'm not a Christian.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

15th December 2010, 11:09 PM	#425
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Yig This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions. When ever I hear the atheism-is-just-as-bad-as-religion fallacy, the following xkcd comic comes to mine. Could you provide some examples of this "group mentality," please? I mean, other than the bald-faced assertions you've just pulled out of your rectal orifice. The only qualification you need to be an atheist is a disbelief in a deity. Otherwise an atheist can range for left-wing to right-wing, capitalist to socialist, loud "New Atheist" to hide-under-your-bed "Accommodationists," Coke or Pepsi, Elvis or Beatles, gay or straight, etc.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" Last edited by Achán hiNidráne; 15th December 2010 at 11:16 PM.

15th December 2010, 11:12 PM	#426
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by Yig My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none Gee, I'm sorry I missed your previous thread. I would have asked why I should bother calling myself a Holocaust-believer, since the universe yields the same effects either way. Quote: This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions. Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree?

15th December 2010, 11:12 PM	#427
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Intellectual integrity.

15th December 2010, 11:16 PM	#428
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Yig My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none. Ummmm, no. I don't spend my free time and thoughts the same way that a theist does. Neither of our beliefs will influence objective reality, but our beliefs inform our own lives and choices. <snipped word salad> Quote: So this brings me to my original point, why atheism? Why choose a position that makes no attempt to explain god or the origin of the universe when there is nothing to be lost by making that attempt? Why should one "lack belief"? Why woud I choose a position that attempts to explain gods, when there's no evidence that they exist? There's all the evidence in the world that god beliefs are created by men to exercise control over others and to answer questions that science could not yet answer. I'm not going to posit a magical explanation when there's no reason to. Does your theory of the origins of the universe involve turtles or chocolate or bedroom slippers? At least those things are real. You think atheists should start to explain the universe using magical men with magical powers because.....I have no clue. The reason I "lack belief" is because there's no basis to adopt those beliefs. Other people believe in magic.....oooh ahhh maybe the magic is real!!!11! Quote: I can think of one answer to this question. It is: This is gonna be good. As an atheist, I'm always so appreciative when a theist tells me why I believe something instead of just asking me and accepting my answer. Quote: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. " Okay. I wasn't expecting that. I wouldn't say it because I don't even understand it. The simple answer is: There's no evidence that magical beings are needed to explain the universe, including its origins. <snipped more salad> Quote: , I ask you this, What is the point of of calling yourself an atheist? Why not just call yourself an scientist? What do you get out of atheism? I'm not a scientist. I was never particularly good at science. I only have to call myself an atheist because other people group themselves theistically. If they ask where I fit in, that answers the question. I don't subscribe to any religious mumbo-jumbo, so I guess that makes me an atheist. Quote: I'll start you off by giving my answer to this question. I think that it's strictly emotional. I think that some of you gain a sense of belonging, a sense of security in knowing that there are like minded people out there who think the same things that you do. I think that some of you even get a feeling of superiority, a feeling that you somehow "know something" that others do not and a sense that you are fighting the good fight against the ignorance of "them". Sound familiar? Not at all. I was raised without religious beliefs. Most of my friends were either Christians of some stripe or Jewish. I know they had beliefs, and I had to stand alone in my atheism. I was never ostracized because of it, but I certainly didn't "belong" anywhere for much of my life. I'm fortunate now to live somewhere that I'm able to meet other atheists. We don't get together and talk about our atheism, or laugh at theists. (Yes, I think that most theistic beliefs are ridiculous, but I don't say that to people I meet as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves.) Quote: This is my problem with atheism. I see the same kind of group think mentality that I see in most religions. I don't see that at all. I think you're just seeing what you want to see. I'll add that I know people of many religious beliefs and most are just like me, and don't let other people's different religions get in the way of acting civilly and becoming friendly acquaintances. If I lived in a place where fundamentalist christians were trying to force their viewpoints through legislation, I might have to adopt an "us against them" attitude, but I don't have to do that here. It's all live and let live.
	Last edited by Sun Countess; 15th December 2010 at 11:19 PM.

15th December 2010, 11:20 PM	#429
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Dunstan Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree? Yeah, and don't forget those cultish mathematicians who stringently insist that 2+2=4. I mean, what a bunch of mind-numbed robots! They've really drank the Addition Kool-Aid!
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

15th December 2010, 11:26 PM	#430
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,698	Originally Posted by Yig My question was, in a previous thread; Why bother calling yourself an atheist, since believing in God and not believing in God yields the same effect...none. Believing in God and not believing in God would not have the same effect on me. If I believed in God, I would constantly be wondering what His opinion on things would be, and I'd spend a lot of time praying, etc. I can use that time more productively without this belief. The only alternative to atheism is a religion of some sort. If religions are pointless, then atheism is then the only reasonable position.
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

15th December 2010, 11:27 PM	#431
Lukraak_Sisser Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,618	There might be atheists who feel that, but the majority I know just are not convinced by any religious evidence and leave it at that. No 'secret knowledge' implied at all. That is more religions province. As for the intelligent designer bit, you'd be right IF looking at life and nature would indeed make no more assumptions from natural origins than from design. But looking at life and how it functions from a design standpoint shows a large number of bad, cumbersome and outright dumb designs. They make sense in the theory of evolution as that does not assume a direction, merely adaptation. Therefore ID must make the extra assumption that while life was designed by some higher intelligence, this intelligence then decided to put in a large number of extremely stupid design flaws. If you assume the universe itself was designed and created up to the big bang, you have to assume a designer that then never interfered in his creation. Both make more assumptions than natural creation, without providing any evidence. There is also the fact that ID in science is useless as the theory itself has no predictive value at all as it is right now. Someone created all this. We don't know how, we don't know why and he/she/it won't do it again to show us what happens, is not exactly something that drives new inventions.

15th December 2010, 11:36 PM	#432
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136	Originally Posted by nvidiot Can I ask why you abandoned the other thread? And what would you refer to yourself as? Agnostic? Theist? Deist? I got tired of having separate arguments with 12 different people.
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136

15th December 2010, 11:46 PM	#433
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136	Originally Posted by Achán hiNidráne When ever I hear the atheism-is-just-as-bad-as-religion fallacy, the following xkcd comic comes to mine. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png Could you provide some examples of this "group mentality," please? I mean, other than the bald-faced assertions you've just pulled out of your rectal orifice. The only qualification you need to be an atheist is a disbelief in a deity. Otherwise an atheist can range for left-wing to right-wing, capitalist to socialist, loud "New Atheist" to hide-under-your-bed "Accommodationists," Coke or Pepsi, Elvis or Beatles, gay or straight, etc. I know..... It's arrogant of me to question atheism, just like it's arrogant of a mere mortal to question the will of God..... but I do it anyways. Some examples eh? Well, besides this entire forum, here's a jem from everyone's favorite atheist fanatic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136

15th December 2010, 11:51 PM	#434
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136	Originally Posted by Dunstan Gee, I'm sorry I missed your previous thread. I would have asked why I should bother calling myself a Holocaust-believer, since the universe yields the same effects either way. Yeah, that's the same problem I have with people who believe that the Holocaust happened. They all agree on that. It's so group-thinky. They should be free spirits like me, don't you agree? This again? Do you really think the question of an intelligent designer is in the same realm as the question of whether or not the holocaust happened?
Yig Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 136

15th December 2010, 11:52 PM	#435
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	I think all people are pretty much variations on a theme of each other, regardless of beliefs. In every group you will have cowards and heros, admirals and a-holes. Atheist, theist .... both are humans subject to the same things. Both get angry, sad, happy, depressed, in love, hurt, emotional, intelligent. Both are capable of charity, evil, subjective and objective outcomes. Both defend what they think is worth defending. Blah blah blah. Cultural and social identities will obviously play a role as well. Nothing new worth reporting there. Where there is a majority, group think will be more likely for that majority. Whatever. Deal with it or change the channel. And as much as people would individually like to be treated with dignity and respect anywhere and everywhere they go by everyone .... we just don't do that for each other. We don't like each other equally, and we never have. Even when we believe the same things, or live in the same household for god's sakes. No laws or rules will change that, whether they come from godless ethics or religious filled morality. I don't think world peace is possible Atheist, theist, doesn't matter, etc. And while all sides think they have some insider information to their advantage that the other side doesn't have (so to speak) and that they have got a leg up on the other in certain areas .... when a "woo" or a "skeptic" speaks, I always hear two different languages, but the same voice. The human voice. Whatever the hell that means ... Now if you could prove somehow that having different opinions on certain things is actually proof we are different species from each other ... and that not only DNA and other factors define us but also our intellect puts us into further sub-species categories ....... then there might be even more of a reason for all the labels we want everyone to know we have on ourselves. But thats racism and ignorant prejudicial thinking. And everyone knows that both the skeptic and the theist are above racism or superior and prejudicial thinking