Why I'm not an Atheist

[Holder of the Heel]

Russell's teapot is a very poor example, and has been refuted by several philosophers.

 

[GwJ]

i already talked about santa/FSM/purple dragon/whatever garbage simile you want to come up with. i already talked about epistemology and why atheists don't magically have no burden of proof for anything. i already talked about why god is within the bounds of science.

atheists all say the exact same things, and then wonder why people think they are a dogmatized religion, LOL

it's because you act like one.

Yeah, no.

If I make a claim that I have a talking dragon in a box, you'd probably tell me you don't believe me.

Is it alright for me to say, "Well, disprove it then! Until you do, you can't deny that I have a talking dragon in this box."?

That doesn't work. Sure, there are implications that come with being an atheist, but atheism doesn't claim to have any specific answers to anything. It's simply a rejection of your claim based on the lack of evidence. If you think I have to somehow account for the universe in a 100% natural, scientific way, then it's sort of true. It's true that I think the beginning was purely natural without aid of a deity, but HOW it happened is a question I can't answer with enough justification yet. But, that does not mean I cannot reject your claim.

 

[TeSik]

atheism doesn't claim to have any specific answers to anything. It's simply a rejection of your claim based on the lack of evidence.

false
atheism = there is no god, final answer

 

[GwJ]

Y'know, when you break down a word based on exactly what it means, you don't get a contextual answer on what it actually means.

Atheists reject your claim. Anybody saying they know 100% there is no god is being intellectually honest, but the notion of the christian deity is unfalsifiable. I am telling you what atheism means in regards to modern atheists.

 

[Chuee]

false
atheism = there is no god, final answer

because you and only you get to decide what it means

 

[GwJ]

false
atheism = there is no god, final answer

And for the record, I place the Christian God in the same category as Santa Claus. I think it's a man-made figure.

 

[kataklysm336]

So, John.

If atheists have the burden of proof, do theists?

 

[john!]

It's true that I think the beginning was purely natural without aid of a deity

and you don't think you need evidence for this claim?

why do you think this? what motivation or reasoning do you have?

So, John.

If atheists have the burden of proof, do theists?

nope theism is true by default

Spoiler

jk, yes of course theists also have a burden of proof... only people who are 100% agnostic (i.e. neither theist nor atheist, without making claims about the answer OR the knowability of the god question) don't have a BOP

 

[Chuee]

and you don't think you need evidence for this claim?

why do you think this? what motivation or reasoning do you have?

because modern science tells us that the beginning of our Universe can come about from natural means

 

[GwJ]

and you don't think you need evidence for this claim?

why do you think this? what motivation or reasoning do you have?

Uh, no. Why would I have to have evidence rejecting a claim that has not fulfilled it's burden of proof? I don't know exactly how the universe came to be. However, I will reject your claim with the swiftness of a coursing river if you do not fulfill your burden of proof.

jk, yes of course theists also have a burden of proof... only people who are 100% agnostic (i.e. neither theist nor atheist, without making claims about the answer OR the knowability of the god question) don't have a BOP

I've explained this before, but the intellectually honest atheists already acknowledge that you cannot disprove god. And by the way, there's no such thing as someone who's 100% agnostic and not a theist or atheist. Agnostic isn't a third party in theism category. You're either a theist or atheist. Agnostic is a category of one's strength in their position.

 

[john!]

Uh, no. Why would I have to have evidence rejecting a claim that has not fulfilled it's burden of proof? I don't know exactly how the universe came to be. However, I will reject your claim with the swiftness of a coursing river if you do not fulfill your burden of proof.

okay then, i reject your belief that the beginning of the universe was purely natural because the burden of proof is on you to give me evidence.

I've explained this before, but the intellectually honest atheists already acknowledge that you cannot disprove god. And by the way, there's no such thing as someone who's 100% agnostic and not a theist or atheist. Agnostic isn't a third party in theism category. You're either a theist or atheist. Agnostic is a category of one's strength in their position.

i agree that anyone who has heard about the concept of god cannot be 100% agnostic. but i never said that agnostic was a "third party". the gnostic-agnostic spectrum is just a measure of how sure someone is about their belief in theism/atheism. if it was possible to be completely unsure (which it really isn't because the brain's job is to draw conclusions from evidence) then someone would be neither theist nor atheist.

edit: here's the scale a person would measure their beliefs on

gnostic atheist --------------- agnostic atheist --------------agnostic --------------- agnostic theist ---------------- gnostic theist
100% sure no god -------- somewhat sure no god -- unsure either way ----- somewhat sure of god ------ 100% sure of god

 

[GwJ]

okay then, i reject your belief that the beginning of the universe was purely natural because the burden of proof is on you to give me evidence.

The default stance is that it HAS to be natural, because there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened that's supernatural. As to HOW it happened, scientists agree that there was a singularity in the beginning and that it must have expanded.

i agree that anyone who has heard about the concept of god cannot be 100% agnostic. but i never said that agnostic was a "third party". the gnostic-agnostic spectrum is just a measure of how sure someone is about their belief in theism/atheism. if it was possible to be completely unsure (which it really isn't because the brain's job is to draw conclusions from evidence) then someone would be neither theist nor atheist.

edit: here's the scale a person would measure their beliefs on

gnostic atheist --------------- agnostic atheist --------------agnostic --------------- agnostic theist ---------------- gnostic theist
100% sure no god -------- somewhat sure no god -- unsure either way ----- somewhat sure of god ------ 100% sure of god

Again, you cannot be JUST agnostic in regards to theism unless you've never heard of it. And if that was the case, you wouldn't know to identify as an agnostic.

 

[john!]

The default stance is that it HAS to be natural, because there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened that's supernatural.

there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened which involved energy being spontaneously created. that violated basic physical principles.

Again, you cannot be JUST agnostic in regards to theism unless you've never heard of it. And if that was the case, you wouldn't know to identify as an agnostic.

yeah. you can't be just agnostic in regards to atheism either. i don't see what your point is...

 

[GwJ]

there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened which involved energy being spontaneously created. that violated basic physical principles.

Looks like someone never watched Dr. Lawrence Krauss's video lecture. Better get on that.

yeah. you can't be just agnostic in regards to atheism either. i don't see what your point is...

Which is why agnosticism is stupid. You're either a theist or you're not realistically. There's no point in bringing it up.

 

[john!]

Which is why agnosticism is stupid. You're either a theist or you're not realistically. There's no point in bringing it up.

i thought you were an agnostic atheist?

also i listened to the lecture while browsing, i'll go through it again but i don't think he mentioned anything about that.

 

[GwJ]

I said that because gnostic theism or atheism is intellectually impossible without direct proof or disproof of god. Since people love to bring up gnostic/agnostic, I said all atheists who are intellectually honest MUST be agnostic atheists BECAUSE no intellectually honest atheist CAN be gnostic. I was working with your words to get my point across.

And Dr. Krauss does address it. The lecture is called "A universe from nothing" for a reason.

 

[Dre89]

Krauss is an idiot. I mean he's probably a great physicist, but he's got no idea what he's talking about when it comes to God.

So he's an intelligent person but he becomes an idiot when he talks about God, and behaves like a douche when he does it. If that makes sense.

The default stance is that it HAS to be natural, because there is absolutely nothing that has ever happened that's supernatural. As to HOW it happened, scientists agree that there was a singularity in the beginning and that it must have expanded.

The default stance should be uncertaintity. The position that the universe came about from an entirely natural process assumes that the supernattural isn't necessary, and makes numerous metaphysical assumptions.

It's similar to a caveman who has lived in a cave his entire life and never left it assuming by default that nothing exists outside of his cave. He's assuming without justification that the cave can exist by itself, and doesn't require anything that has different properties to it to cause its existence.

 

[rvkevin]

GwJumpman, you should catch up on your cosmology. First, the singularity is based on General Relativity, but it breaks down when considering quantum mechanics.

The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe...It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.”

Second, Krauss does not say that energy can be spontaneously created. Rather, he says that empty space (i.e. nothing) has energy. This means that empty space can create matter since E=MC^2. Not only is it possible, but it is inevitable given what we know that empty space will create matter. Note: there is some quibble between Krauss and some philosophers over his use of the word 'nothing' but Krauss alleges that their use of the term is content free and that his use of the term would have been consistent with ancient philosophers.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I've always found his use of the worth nothingness flawed. Simply because by his usage, nothingness can have multiple forms, which is contradictory to the definition of nothingness.

Something with no energy or form is lesser in being than something with energy or form, yet Krauss considers the latter nothingness. That means he considers them equal in nothingness, when the former is clearly lesser than the latter.

 

[rvkevin]

Something with no energy or form is lesser in being than something with energy or form, yet Krauss considers the latter nothingness. That means he considers them equal in nothingness, when the former is clearly lesser than the latter.

Something that doesn't have any energy cannot exert any force in the universe. It essentially doesn't exist. You have made up a definition that entails that the object it refers to doesn't exist. This is what it means to be content free. Maybe philosophers think talking about non-existent objects is a valid use of time, but scientists don't (unless there is beer involved). Scientists actually have to go through the trouble of modeling reality, so they have to use precise terminology. What does it mean for something to have 'no form'? If you can't actually describe what 'having no form' is, then it is useless. It would be like asking a biologist "how many 'kinds' of animals are there?" The term is useless, which is why anyone using it is ignored by scientists.

 

[Dre89]

Well if it has energy, then it has a form.

The point is that what Krauss is talking about isn't actually nothingness, because what he's talking about has a form, or some type of existence (in this case energy).

That distinction is important, because you lose the claim that something is coming from nothing.

Krauss calls this nothingness, and simply assumes that there is no step prior to it.

It reminds of how people seem to think quantum physics proves that matter can spontaneously generate from nothingness. It isn't generating from nothingness- it requires space, time, energy, and pretty much anything else required for matter-permitting conditions, just like how life can't exist without their being life-permitting conditions first.

 

[rvkevin]

That distinction is important, because you lose the claim that something is coming from nothing.

The distinction isn't important because no one is positing what philosophers or you call nothing ever 'existed' in the first place.

Again, how is it productive to talk about this? Scientists are concerned with reality, which is why they adapt their terminology to reality. Why should they be concerned with this philosophical definition?

 

[Dre89]

The distinction isn't important because no one is positing what philosophers or you call nothing ever 'existed' in the first place.

Again, how is it productive to talk about this? Scientists are concerned with reality, which is why they adapt their terminology to reality. Why should they be concerned with this philosophical definition?

It is important because it means his phsyics model isn't complete. His universe doesn't actually come from nothing, it just comes from something that already as energy, but just no tangible matter.

He's not explaining how this 'nothingness' with energy or a form came about, or he's just assuming it exists as a brute fact without requiring explanation.

It's the equivalent of me claiming in my paper I justify ever property I ascribe to God, but then don't explain why he has the three omnis. It's an incomplete model, and doesn't achieve what it claims to.

His argument means absolutely nothing to the God debate because the theist can simply ask how empty space with energy came about to exist. It's similar to how multiverse atheists are just simply pushing the question back one step instead of providing an answer.

And if Krauss says 'it just exists' then he's assuming the existence of brute contingencies, and is rejecting the principle of sufficient of reason. He is also what I call in my paper a contingentalist, which means that he beleives the first cause/most ontologically prior reality can be entirely contingent. These are all philosophical propositiobns he assumes without justification.

 

[rvkevin]

His universe doesn't actually come from nothing

So what? Like I said before, no one is positing that it did. As Krauss said in his recent lecture, when he talks to philosophers and theologians about what 'nothing' means and describes a concept in which matter can form from, the response is "well, that's not nothing." From this definition we can then deduce that there was never nothing, for if there was ever nothing, then there wouldn't be something. There is something, therefore there was never nothing. Therefore, any model that proposes that there was ever nothing would be in error. Scientists are not in the business of making failed models, so they ignore those who engage in this useless exercise. You're requiring that something be explained that was never the case, which is illogical.

 

[Chuee]

His argument means absolutely nothing to the God debate because the theist can simply ask how empty space with energy came about to exist. It's similar to how multiverse atheists are just simply pushing the question back one step instead of providing an answer.

The multiverse answer would be used in response to the fine-tuning argument and the improbability of life argument. With this the universe is no longer fine tuned, and if life is possible it's to be expected to be here.

 

[GwJ]

The default belief is to suspend judgement until proper evidence is provided. Given that god is not intrisincly obvious and true, the default stance is disbelief.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

To change the topic into something perhaps a bit more interesting, early I recall Vermy saying that people who don't have a good understanding (or at least not a shallow understanding) of the bible aren't actually Christians, and I'm not sure if I spoke about that as much as I could have at the time.

What classifies as a Christian? In other words, at what point in understanding are your considered Christian. And in what way must you understand the Bible with all the ways to interpret it? It must not be one who has the intention to understand the Bible, for someone can have the intention of being a Christian or knowing the Bible and still not understand it, as desire =/= fulfillment. So what makes a person a Christian as opposed to a psuedo-Christian? When is a grain of wheat pile considered a heap?

 

[GwJ]

I always thought all being Christian requires is believing that Yahweh exists and the Jesus Christ of the bible is the son of Yahweh.

 

[Chuee]

So what makes a person a Christian as opposed to a psuedo-Christian? When is a grain of wheat pile considered a heap?

I'd say someone who reads the bible/has read all of it and actually study their beliefs instead of simply going to church.

 

[crawlshots]

As a Christian (who wishes to have partaken in the debating of the last few pages) I'll say that Jumpman's definition is the closest so far. The "instead of simply going to church" part from Chuee is good too.

The God of Christianity and the Bible is all about the heart. It does not matter how much you've studied the scriptures, how much you know, etc. That's good news. Richard Dawkins seems to have studied the Bible, but he's not a Christian at all. That is obvious of course but I wanted to add it anyway.

The most basic of understanding makes someone a Christian, namely: "I understand that Jesus Christ is God, that as a man he lovingly died the death I deserved because of my evil nature, making a way for me to dwell with God forever, and I want to devote my life to knowing God as a response to his love for me."

According to the Bible, if someone legitly believes this, and sets their hearts on knowing God, living a life of sanctification (which is what the act of baptism represents), and pursuing humility (these three naturally go hand-in-hand... and I could have included more along the same lines), then they are a Christian. And saying the cute little introductory prayer (while it often helps) and going on with your life as it was does not count for anything.

You might be thinking this, so I'll say it outright: according to this definition not only are most people in the world not "going to heaven", but in my opinion most people who frequently go to church on sundays aren't either. It pains me inexpressibly but I do think it's true.

So, being a Christian is not based on what you do but on what you believe, and then you do stuff based on what you believe. I unashamedly say that's awesome, because it means that a homeless man in India has just as much value to Jesus as an American pastor who preaches to 10,000 people every week. It's so simple, but it takes something special to admit that you need God. He's willing to help us out to no end, but he gave us a free will, so we have to choose. He wants voluntary followers/servants/lovers, and that can be anyone, even someone who has done every imaginable terrible thing.

That's the Christianity of the Bible.

 

[Dre89]

Chuee- That's true, but what I was saying is that the multiverse theory simply pushes the question back a step (the question of improbability of life, the other stuff you stated etc.). Krauss' model may not have the same issue, but I'm saying that as an anti-God argument, it's guilty of the same fallacy in that it still pushes a different question a step back.

So what? Like I said before, no one is positing that it did. As Krauss said in his recent lecture, when he talks to philosophers and theologians about what 'nothing' means and describes a concept in which matter can form from, the response is "well, that's not nothing." From this definition we can then deduce that there was never nothing, for if there was ever nothing, then there wouldn't be something. There is something, therefore there was never nothing. Therefore, any model that proposes that there was ever nothing would be in error. Scientists are not in the business of making failed models, so they ignore those who engage in this useless exercise. You're requiring that something be explained that was never the case, which is illogical.

That's not technically true. Physical nothingness (as in nothing physical existing) is possible, but it would mean that something non-physical would have to cause being, not something physical. Now I'm not saying that nothing physical existed at some point, therefore something non physical existed to actuate being. I'm just saying that the assumption that there necessarily always had to be a physical existence is false. It's possible that it's the case, but it's not a matter of deduction or conditional necessity.

Look, as a physics model, I don't have any objection to Krauss' model. The problem is Krauss thinks his model removes the need for God, he considers it an anti-God argument. This is where it becomes metaphysical because he has to assume multiple metaphysical propositions.

As a physics model, it may be amazing, but as an anti-God argument it's abysmal, unless he can justify the assumption that the first cause/most ontologically prior reality could have been entirely contingent, as well as the other metaphysical assumptions he makes.

In terms of the God debate, the only thing models like his can do is refute arguments for God which are based on other specific physics models.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Is this the blog with the most posts ever? Because it is starting to look like it.

 

[Deleted member]

not even close. it's 9th and the highest has like 1100 posts

 

[rvkevin]

Physical nothingness (as in nothing physical existing) is possible, but it would mean that something non-physical would have to cause being, not something physical.

Exactly, this is what Krauss proposed. You seem to have some misconceptions on what physical bodies are. Something physical is “a body with mass, not only energy, is three dimensional (extended in 3-dimensions of space), has a trajectory of position and orientation in space, and is lasting for some duration of time.” This is what Krauss is stating, that space has energy, not mass (meaning that it is non-physical) and that objects with mass can then form out of this space because of relativity. Voila, you have something non-physical causing something physical. What exactly is your objection?

Also, as a model, it does remove the need for God to create matter (i.e. something). If you have seen any debate on God, this is routinely brought up, “why is there something rather than nothing?” By any reasonable definition of both terms, Krauss’s model satisfies this question. It’s only when you propose inane restrictions on the term 'nothing' that it doesn’t.

 

[GwJ]

All Krauss's explanation did in terms of religion was remove the need for a first "cause".

 

[kataklysm336]

and you don't think you need evidence for this claim?

why do you think this? what motivation or reasoning do you have?

The evidence for my claim is that you lack evidence for your claim.
Theism makes the claim: There is a God.
But this lacks proper evidence to show it is the case, indeed there is no evidence you could use to show it is the case. You could attempt to show that it has to be the case because all other cases are logically impossible, but no one has ever done this and no one ever will.
Atheism makes the claim: Since theism proposed there is a deity, and sufficient evidence was not provided, there is no reason for me to believe there is a deity.

You see someone making a claim, and someone rejecting that claim on lack of evidence can't both have the burden of proving their proposition. That would be to say the atheist should provide evidence that the theist has not provided proper evidence.

He's not explaining how this 'nothingness' with energy or a form came about, or he's just assuming it exists as a brute fact without requiring explanation.

Sounds pretty much like God. The causal chain HAS not stop somewhere, it seems we all agree on this. However, there is no reason to posit it was God, and not the energy in space. He isn't asserting it as a brute fact, he can show that empty space exerts energy, and by E=Mc2 he can show how that energy became matter.

His argument means absolutely nothing to the God debate because the theist can simply ask how empty space with energy came about to exist.

And how did God come into existence? Come on Dre, you should have seen that coming.

 

[GwJ]

inb4 atheism makes the assertion "there is no god" and requires a burden of proof

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll respond to a few points. Your first mistake is assuming that there is an explanation for the origin of things ripe for the understanding. It's there, right? You just have to search for it. This is probably true, but also somewhat misleading; there is an answer, because there has to be an answer, but whether or not it is possible for you to understand it, or even find it, is another matter.

Humans and in fact all animals on Earth are finite and limited. We are small, a drop of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen floating in an endless black sea of something that is so beyond our understanding at this point in time that we build gigantic machines in Europe to help us identify it.

The fallacy of religion is that we have a right to understand everything that happens or is in the universe. We don't. That doesn't mean we can't, it just means that we don't. Religion, and in fact this very blog post, revolve around the idea that humans (and in many cases, humans alone) are somehow gifted with the right of understanding, when in fact the only way to gain that understanding is to earn it.

The simple reality is that we were born in an era of human history that lacks the knowledge you seek and so you have adopted the explanation that seems most likely to you. Many religious people do. Atheists simply know what they don't know, and accept it, eagerly awaiting the day that they might, but also knowing that they will probably die before there's an answer.

And so, your first mistake is the assumption that atheism bases itself squarely in the realm of science. This is a mistake a lot of religious folks make, and is simply incorrect. Science and atheism align frequently simply because both science and atheism know what they don't know, and are more or less content not guessing before we know.

There is a huge fallacy in asserting that a god must have placed us here simply because there's no other explanation for us. Unfortunately, we simply can't know at this point in time, and you'll be happier accepting that or going into the business of helping to search for that answer, productively. The biggest fault of religion is that it's simply unproductive; it guesses, prays, and asks for favors, but physically does nothing when at the end of the day we live in a very physical universe.

 

[kataklysm336]

That's not technically true. Physical nothingness (as in nothing physical existing) is possible, but it would mean that something non-physical would have to cause being, not something physical. Now I'm not saying that nothing physical existed at some point, therefore something non physical existed to actuate being. I'm just saying that the assumption that there necessarily always had to be a physical existence is false. It's possible that it's the case, but it's not a matter of deduction or conditional necessity.

Invisible pink elephants floating through the vacuum of space ****ting themselves and causing quantum fluctuations that led to the creation of the universe is also possible, but it would require the existence of something WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE EXISTS.

It would be totally possible that there was absolutely nothing and that God, who exists outside of this nothingness (I don't even agree with that but I am willing to give you that much), created the universe. The problem isn't that it's not possible, it's that it doesn't fit with essentially everything else we know about the universe.

It IS deductive
1. All physical things come from other physical things
2. Physical things cannot come from nothing
3. Physical things exist
4. Therefore, there has always been something physical

You could say "but ahh, physical things can come from nothing, God could have done it" but now you are multiplying entities beyond necessity (Ockham's Razor)

Look, as a physics model, I don't have any objection to Krauss' model. The problem is Krauss thinks his model removes the need for God, he considers it an anti-God argument. This is where it becomes metaphysical because he has to assume multiple metaphysical propositions.

What metaphysical propositions is he assuming without proper evidence?

As a physics model, it may be amazing, but as an anti-God argument it's abysmal, unless he can justify the assumption that the first cause/most ontologically prior reality could have been entirely contingent, as well as the other metaphysical assumptions he makes.

Wouldn't any argument for or against god be abysmal then, since you can't justify that assumption?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

As a Christian (who wishes to have partaken in the debating of the last few pages) I'll say that Jumpman's definition is the closest so far. The "instead of simply going to church" part from Chuee is good too.

The God of Christianity and the Bible is all about the heart. It does not matter how much you've studied the scriptures, how much you know, etc. That's good news. Richard Dawkins seems to have studied the Bible, but he's not a Christian at all. That is obvious of course but I wanted to add it anyway.

The most basic of understanding makes someone a Christian, namely: "I understand that Jesus Christ is God, that as a man he lovingly died the death I deserved because of my evil nature, making a way for me to dwell with God forever, and I want to devote my life to knowing God as a response to his love for me."

According to the Bible, if someone legitly believes this, and sets their hearts on knowing God, living a life of sanctification (which is what the act of baptism represents), and pursuing humility (these three naturally go hand-in-hand... and I could have included more along the same lines), then they are a Christian. And saying the cute little introductory prayer (while it often helps) and going on with your life as it was does not count for anything.

You might be thinking this, so I'll say it outright: according to this definition not only are most people in the world not "going to heaven", but in my opinion most people who frequently go to church on sundays aren't either. It pains me inexpressibly but I do think it's true.

So, being a Christian is not based on what you do but on what you believe, and then you do stuff based on what you believe. I unashamedly say that's awesome, because it means that a homeless man in India has just as much value to Jesus as an American pastor who preaches to 10,000 people every week. It's so simple, but it takes something special to admit that you need God. He's willing to help us out to no end, but he gave us a free will, so we have to choose. He wants voluntary followers/servants/lovers, and that can be anyone, even someone who has done every imaginable terrible thing.

That's the Christianity of the Bible.

So the prerequisites for being Christian are 1) having been baptized, 2) knowing God, and 3) living a humble life. But when does one know God, and when is one living a humble life?