Justify Atheism

[Seras]

Kay, I enjoyed your post, it is kind of late but I will reply anyway. 
Also you are correct, I had my exams last month I get my results in 10 days and it was my final year. Strangely enough it suddenly gets a lot more interesting when you dont have to study it any more...

Science vs Philosophy. Scientific method states that you must test things empiricly to verify them. That you form hypotheses and test from empiricly observable and verifiable data. I ask you, what verifiable data do you have pertaining to God? I argue that the scientific method is not equipped to tackle such a question. It goes against its very nature. The philosophies of Hume that I quoted in my original post argue similarly.

Jabberwockies, of course I need to now try and solve this problem. If you have to justify disbelief in everything then how much brainpower will we waste debunking all these things we imagine. I have two ideas, firstly we know these things to be imagined. The Jabberwocky for example is from a poem called "Jabberwocky" (I think..). We know it does not exist because it came from the imagination. You can see this in reality, people do not question their beliefs regarding these things. Santa, imaginary, easter bunny, imaginary and so on. I am suggesting perhaps self evidence, we just know they are imaginary(in fact disbelief is often the default state concerning these things). However the idea of God/s, this is different.  People(some at least) instinctively treat it differently and put faith in the idea. They have done for thousands of years. Is this really analagous to your(short lived, non-pervasive) suggestions, have they ever been seriously considered as existing by rational human beings en masse? Secondly because of this prevalence of the idea of God/s I do not think it is comparable to the 3,000 improbable things Vexing mentioned. The idea of God/s is a fairly concrete one, it is well established and the question has been adressed throughout history. Unlike the existence of a 7 foot chicken or some odd variety of swan, it is in my opinion a question worth considering. A question I should imagine is necessary to adress in order to call oneself an atheist.

As for living by philosophy and the supposition that you would achieve nothing, though a common sterotype(and not one I can be accused of failing to live up to) I have to disagree. Without philosophy the scientific method would not exist. Science would not exist, it all stemmed from philosophy. Even today philosophy plays a role, for example I studied cognitive science last year. There are a lot of theories on brain function and we still do not know enough to escape philosophical speculation. Philosophy will always play a role in answering difficult questions and in establishing the criteria for knowledge. There is and always will be a new frontier however far we progress in knowledge and on that frontier speculation rules.

---
Fun 

I like those arguments though, they are definitely pulling the right strings. After all it would be ridiculous to question the existence of everything, including imaginary things. Also critisizing philosophy is a good way to go when the cold truth is that for most things the philosophical criteria for existence are far too stringent for everyday life. However when considering the problem philosophically(that is an attempt at establishing knowledge regarding the existence of a thing) which other method of thought are you to use?

---

PS Arch and Vexing, I have not said once that you ought have any basis for believing in God/s because of my arguments. I am argueing skepticism. You know, the method of the philosophical coward who refuses to get off the fence. So when you say that they do not provide a basis for belief or give you any reason to belive. You know what? I agree.

PPS I never once claimed to be new or profound. I am just here for fun, if you don't like it don't indulge me. Socrates is like my hero

Good night.

[spacial]

I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

I cannot prove to you or anyone that I love my wfe. I cannot prove that love even exists. It's a matter of experience.

There also is the question as to what you think is there. If you seek evidence of a man in the sky then, no, I can't demonstrate that and don't know anyone who can.

If you choose to cite the claims of some who make definitive pronouncements then I can't demonstrate these either. They don't make a lot of sense to me.

But what there is is more transendental than physical experience. My own feeling is that it is more complex than right or wrong.

So you don't think there is such a thing as a nihilist?  Someone who holds no belifes?  If there is such a thing as a nihilist, is that person an agnostic or an atheist?

That isn't what I said at all.

But a nihilist is something different and altogether much more complicated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist

I cited these definations as a point of reference incidently. Some earlier posts seemed to ge getting off track a bit.

[Dryad]

But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

To be honest, I don't think there is evidence, as of yet, but that also depends on your definition of a god. If your definition is: 'A personified symbol of the universe', then there's simply no way around that. If it is, however, 'a cognitive all-powerful being,' then evidence does come into play, and experience becomes worthless in a debate. After all; there are plenty of people who experience faeries, for a multitude of reasons. If the your-average monotheist does not believe in faeries, regardless of 'evidence' in experience from other people, then the same would apply to other people not believing in deities.

[spacial]

. If it is, however, 'a cognitive all-powerful being,' then evidence does come into play, and experience becomes worthless in a debate.

Please explain.

[Miniar]

couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does? After all the universe is a large place, I am sure there are a great many things that exist yet we have no proof of them. If so then how is the belief that something does not exist because there is no proof, justified? I should imagine there are a great many things in this galaxy, let alone universe, that exist without any proof.

So I imagine you may see how the claim that something does not exist for such reasons, in this case God/s may not be so justified as you think. Then of course you have the idea of God being a metaphysical being which begs the question would we even be able to have proof even if s/he/it/they did exist.

Of course you could claim materialism and that only the physical exists, denying the metaphysical along with anything else. I dislike that however, it feels bleak. Also remember I am no believer, there is no burden on me to show anything, except perhaps that any type of claim about the existence or non-existence of anything should be shown to be rational. I would say the same thing to religious people too, however on this occasion I decided to pick on the atheists 

The thing about the almighty creator god is that belief in it comes with the presupposition that the almighty creator god affects reality.
Even if we would be unable to observe or measure the almighty creator god, we should be able, under this presupposition, to observe and measure the changes inflicted on reality by the almighty creator god.

If something exists, but it and neither anything it does is in any way observable nor measurable, then it's existence is not only entirely unprovable, but it's value is also negligible.

So, even if there is a god, unless there's evidence of there being a god, god is "meaningless".

But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

The thing is, that isn't evidence.

[glendagladwitch]

But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

I cannot prove to you or anyone that I love my wfe. I cannot prove that love even exists. It's a matter of experience.

There also is the question as to what you think is there. If you seek evidence of a man in the sky then, no, I can't demonstrate that and don't know anyone who can.

If you choose to cite the claims of some who make definitive pronouncements then I can't demonstrate these either. They don't make a lot of sense to me.

But what there is is more transendental than physical experience. My own feeling is that it is more complex than right or wrong.





That isn't what I said at all.

But a nihilist is something different and altogether much more complicated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist

I cited these definations as a point of reference incidently. Some earlier posts seemed to ge getting off track a bit.

This is the definition that describes me. 

4.Philosophy.
a.an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of ... the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

But I call myself an atheist, even though I don't know whether or not there is a god or whether or not it is provable one way or another.  I just find it highly credible that belief in god is the product of wishful thinking, and especially the basic need to deny the finality of death and explain our own perceived existences with an assumption of causation that somehow ignores the fact that if everything needs a creator to exist, then who created god, or god's creator, etc.?  And that is why I need more evidence than your personal observation of what is going on in your head that makes you think there is a god.  Do you have anything else?

[spacial]

The thing about the almighty creator god is that belief in it comes with the presupposition that the almighty creator god affects reality.
Even if we would be unable to observe or measure the almighty creator god, we should be able, under this presupposition, to observe and measure the changes inflicted on reality by the almighty creator god.

If something exists, but it and neither anything it does is in any way observable nor measurable, then it's existence is not only entirely unprovable, but it's value is also negligible.

So, even if there is a god, unless there's evidence of there being a god, god is "meaningless".

The thing is, that isn't evidence.

No. Your first assertion is incorrect.

Your second is perspective.

[Dryad]

Please explain.

Simple, really. If your definition of a deity is that the deity is able to think, and all-powerful, then the evidence for its existence should not only be adamant, it should also be measurable and obvious.

As for Miniar's statement: Actually; he is correct. His view on the existence of a god being meaningless without the support of evidence is also correct, in that if there is no evidence whatsoever, then the deity does not, in fact, impact upon reality, and therefore, does not impact on our lives. To us as observers, God becomes meaningless in the grander scheme of things under these circumstances. Shrödinger's God, and we can't open the box. We just have to assume that there is a God in the box. And that is called 'faith,' of 'belief.'

[spacial]

I'm sorry Dryad, but your logic seems to fail.

Love exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existance.

Most of the members here have experienced an absolute need relating to their genders. This cannot be expalined, nor measured, nor demonstrated by anything other than personal experience.

Beauty, goodness, kindness, uglyness, meaness, cruelty.

You are falling into the trap of confusing subjectivity and objectivity.

Like awareness of God, these are subjective notions.

[tekla]

Many people have come to this understanding based on the fact that they have never had a vision, or a visitation, or an unusual occurrence in the desert or any of that.  They don't believe because they have no reason to believe.

[Dryad]

Like awareness of God, these are subjective notions.

Exactly. Religion is subjective. Perception of deities is personal. I never claimed the existence of a deity must be proven. All I'm saying is: If, for any reason, anything the like múst be proven, it is not the ones without a claim.

As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

[Pica Pica]

As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

Surely to describe love as 'chemicals' is not to describe love at all. The subjective experience of love is an integral part of love .

[spacial]

Exactly. Religion is subjective. Perception of deities is personal. I never claimed the existence of a deity must be proven. All I'm saying is: If, for any reason, anything the like múst be proven, it is not the ones without a claim.

As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

So, for the first part we are in agreement. That's nice.   

As for your second point, no. There are metabolic changes associated with many emotions. There is a whole body of diseases associated with emotions. These are called the psychosomatic disorders. They include most disorders of the skin, the gastrointestinal tract and many cancers.

But the emotions are subjective.

[Dryad]

I'd say love is a very important biological function, and in my view, that does nothing to diminish its value or miraculousness. (Emotions themselves consist of chemicals and electrical signals.)
It's been observed by many behavioural biologists, and in many social species. Love is what keeps us sheltered and alive.
But that is a different discussion altogether.

[spacial]

False. Evidence is not 'experienced', evidence is tested and observed.

No, that is not true at all.

Evidence is information and experience that leads to conclusions.

[glendagladwitch]

Love exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existance.

Love is all in your head.  So is god.

[spacial]

Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

[Pica Pica]

Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

Though it was never meant to

[glendagladwitch]

Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

By its very nature, science deals only with that which is objectively observable.  That's what makes it credible.  The rest is psychology.

[Miniar]

Love exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existence.

The experience of feeling love is not measurable, however we can observe and measure the effects of love.
We can observe and measure changes in behaviour.
We can observe and measure changes in the chemical balance of the brain.
We can observe and measure changes in heart-rate and breathing.
Etc, etc, etc,..
Meaning that even if we can't observe and measure "love" we can observe and measure it's effect.

This means that we can gather evidence that Love, the emotion, exists.

This is the "more important" part of the equation I set up before.
Even if god itself is not an observable nor measurable entity, it's changes on physical reality should be observable and measurable.
If we can not observe nor measure any changes made by that entity, then it's unlikely that entity has made any changes.
If that entity has not made any changes, then it's existence is moot. It holds no relevance. It doesn't matter whether there's a god or not.

And the experiences of individuals who have faith are not evidence of god, they are evidence of faith. They give us the ability to observe and measure the effect of belief in a deity. They don't give us any evidence on the deity itself.

Evidence is information and experience that leads to conclusions.

Experiences can be held as evidence, if they are documented in some way.
The problem is, they rarely are.
Experiences are relevant to one person only, the person who experiences it. To everyone else, they are anecdotal.
Anecdotes are not evidence.

The main problem with relying on experience as evidence is the bias involved.
I see this a lot in otherkin circles.

It works like this.
A person believes they are a reincarnated dragon (no specific person, this is a generic example to explain what I mean by bias). This person watches a movie in which there is a dragon. The person is moved by the movie and feels kinship with the dragon in the movie. This emotional experience is taken as evidence that their belief that they are a reincarnated dragon is correct.
The same person then has a dream, after watching the movie, in which they dream that they are a dragon. This dream is taken as further evidence that they are a reincarnated dragon.

Now, in reality, their belief may have caused them to feel the kinship. The movie may have been very moving regardless of belief, and the dream might just be the mind working out the thoughts caused by the movie. None of the experiences involved have to have anything to do with the person's beliefs.
But, because the person has faith, that faith causes a bias, causing experiences to be taken as evidence without seeking alternative explanations first.

The same happens with people who believe very firmly that their house is haunted.
They don't seek to explain why there are noises, bumps in the night or cold spots, cause they "know" that the house is haunted and these things "prove" that.
You can even logically explain away every bump in the night, every noise, every cold spot, but that won't stop them from re-telling the stories of the haunting, including bumps in the night, noises and cold spots as if you'd never explained them. Their anecdotal "evidence" being false, but submitted just the same.

Belief skews.
Experiences "can" be evidence, but only to the person who experiences it, and, in my opinion, should only be accepted as evidence, even then, after ruling out every other logical explanation first.

But, people with faith, rarely try to disprove the experience at all..