Why I'm not an Atheist

[Shorts]

@NickelbackR0cks

Your name, is Ironic. Is cute :3

 

[Nujabes]

if not all, things can be explain by pure scientific method.

Inductive reasoning cannot do that.....
Deductive reasoning can(math and some formal logic)
Sadly math is based off itself


To me being agnostic is the only logical place to sit because you can neither prove nor disprove any side.. (very very very short and to the point post)

 

[Dre89]

Science certainly doesn't explain everything. Science assumes certain philosophical principles.

It assumes logical and mathematical truths, and doesn't deal with ethical or metaphysical truths.

In fact the belief that only scientific/empirical evidence can conclude truths is in fact a philosophy, known as logical positvism or scientism.

That certainly doesn't mean religion is the answer though.

As for agnosticism, that and atheism aren't as empirically committed as theism, particularly religious theism, but I think they're as equally metaphysically committed as theism. However I'm an outlier in that regard and that sentiment doesn't reflect contemporary philosophy of religion.

I'm expecting someone who doesn't understand the difference between empirical and metaphysical commitment to insult my intelligence by saying 'atheism/agnosticism is a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence', as if I've never heard that before and don't have an answer to it.

 

[Deleted member]

aside from some really basic axioms, what else does an agnostic believe in then?

 

[Dre89]

It's hard to explain, but I'll try.

Firstly, you need to understand that rational belief is made up of two components, the empirical and the necessary.

No one believes in unicorns because we have no experience of them, and they're not necessary for anything. It fails on both components, so it is an irrational belief.

I've never met your parents, but I know by conditional necessity that you must have had parents that existed at some point prior to you. In this case, I have no experience of your parents, but I believe they existed at some point prior to you due to necessity.

Athiesm and agnostic are empirically negative, so there's no burden of proof (BoP) on that account.

However, if you say 'I'm not sure if God exists or not, I'd require strong empirical evidence to believe he exists' (which is what most negative atheists and agnostics believe) then you have made a positive claim on necessity. Basically, you've said God isn't metaphysically necessary.

Someone wouldn't need empirical evidence if they believed God is metaphysically necessary. The fact that the agnostic requires empirical evidence for belief means that they assume that God isn't metaphysically necessary, which is a positive metaphysical assumption.

Remeber, that's different to saying that God doesn't exist. Saying God is not necessary simply means that you believe that it is conceivable that the world could exist without God.

The agnostic makes positive metaphysical claims if they require empirical evidence for God. Metaphysical propositions are different to empirical ones because it is possible to make an negative empirical proposition, but it is impossible to make a negative metaphysical proposition.

To go back to the unicorn, if I say 'I won't believe in them until I get empirical evidence' then I'm actually making a positive claim about necessity, namely that they aren't necessary. This isn't an issue with the unicorn because no one would dispute that claim. The necessity of God however is far more contentious.

I'll admit that technically, you can be an agnostic and not have a BoP, but I think no one is like that. Not only would you have to be 50/50 on whether God exists, but also 50/50 on whether God is necessary or not, meaning you couldn't even say 'I'll believe in him when I get empirical evidence'. Most agnostics say that though.

 

[Oasis_S]

Making philosophical arguments as evidence for gods sounds to me like a vegetarian giving bacon-flavored tofu to a normal person and telling them "It's pretty much the same thing."

 

[Dre89]

Hey everyone, let's all stop debating this topic, this guy thinks philosophical arguments are bogus.

I really don't care what a person uneducated in the topic thinks about it.

It's the same thing as a Young Earth Creationist who knows nothing about science saying that science is bogus.

No one cares what people who know nothing about the topic think. Their opinions are invalid for a reason.

 

[Oasis_S]

Since philosophy is always up its own bum, and gods can only be found with philosophical arguments, LOGICALLY God can be found inside one's butt, correct?

 

[Orboknown]

@NickelbackR0cks

Your name, is Ironic. Is cute :3

this name ie disappearing in roughly ten days soo yea.

Since philosophy is always up its own bum, and gods can only be found with philosophical arguments, LOGICALLY God can be found inside one's butt, correct?

wow you irk me.

 

[Dre89]

Since philosophy is always up its own bum, and gods can only be found with philosophical arguments, LOGICALLY God can be found inside one's butt, correct?

God arguments are found in religion and science too.

Philosophy isn't always up its own bum. What philosophy have you read to get this impression? It'd help if you listed the works you've read.

Also, you probably shouldn't use philosophical arguments to try to show that philosophy is bad. It's kind of circular.

Then again, any criticism of philosophy is actually a philosophy, so by your logic you're up your own bum too?

But really, the most important thing is that you let me know what philosophy you've actually read, so I can get an idea of your perspective.

 

[Deleted member]

It's hard to explain, but I'll try.

...

I'll admit that technically, you can be an agnostic and not have a BoP, but I think no one is like that. Not only would you have to be 50/50 on whether God exists, but also 50/50 on whether God is necessary or not, meaning you couldn't even say 'I'll believe in him when I get empirical evidence'. Most agnostics say that though.

thanks, that was actually a really good explanation. I am kind of 50/50 of whether exists or not (I assume you're referring to a deity in general, not the christian god), and tbh I dont even have a good clue as to what it means for god to be necessary ("the universe would not exist" is a bit too vague), but right now I'm not really interested in discussing the necessity of a god.

 

[Oasis_S]

God arguments are found in religion and science too.

Philosophy isn't always up its own bum. What philosophy have you read to get this impression? It'd help if you listed the works you've read.

Also, you probably shouldn't use philosophical arguments to try to show that philosophy is bad. It's kind of circular.

Then again, any criticism of philosophy is actually a philosophy, so by your logic you're up your own bum too?

But really, the most important thing is that you let me know what philosophy you've actually read, so I can get an idea of your perspective.

I apologize that I wasn't able to respond earlier (due to classes), but I find this site points out many of the problems with modern philosophy.

 

[Pluvia]

The problem with philosophy is it thinks it has the answer to everything, when in reality it has the answers to nothing.

 

[Deleted member]

The problem with philosophy is it thinks it has the answer to everything, when in reality it has the answers to nothing.

way to not contribute yourself

 

[Dre89]

The problem with philosophy is it thinks it has the answer to everything, when in reality it has the answers to nothing.

This statement is pointless unless you tell us what philosophy you've read.

I've personally never read a particular philosophy that attempts to answer every single question there is to answer.

Also, if philosophy is invalid, then so is science and any ethical position, because they assume philosophical principles.

People don't seem to realise that they use philosophical arguments to discredit philosophy.

That's why educated people don't bother with these criticisms because they realise philosophy is axiomatic.

It's also funny that the rejection of philosophy and a science purism is itself a philosophy.

But seriously Pluvia, tell me what you've read.

Everytime a person criticises philisophy, I ask them what they've read, and they never answer the question, probably because they haven't actually read anything. Maybe you can be the one to break the streak.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The problem with RELIGION is it thinks it has the answer to everything, when in reality it has the answers to nothing.

Fixed that for ya, free of charge. :D

Philosophy is actually all about questions, that is why it is generally represented by people who are sitting and pondering. They're thinkers. Religion is typically the force that which already answers what the universe is, how to act, and why things are the way they are. A quote I remember reading once goes as follows: ""Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion provides answers that may never be questioned."

 

[Oasis_S]

A recent scientific study has shown that 72% of people that carry themselves as philosophers tend to have flatter hands than the rest of the population. This has been attributed to the amount of time they spend sitting on their hands doing nothing.

 

[Dre89]

Hardly anyone educated in philosophy believes logical positvism (what people like Pluvia are) because it was disproven by the logical positivists themselves in the mid 20th century.

That's why metaphysics has been revived in the last couple of decades, because its antithesis was disproved.

Nowadays the only LPs are scientific minded people not educated in philosophy who have trouble accepting the philosophical method because it wasn't what they were taught.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You sir, have hands as round as pumpkins.

 

[Dre89]

Just ignore him.

He's on the level of a YE Creationist, they're lost causes.

 

[Pluvia]

way to not contribute yourself

Thanks.

This statement is pointless unless you tell us what philosophy you've read.

I've personally never read a particular philosophy that attempts to answer every single question there is to answer.

Also, if philosophy is invalid, then so is science and any ethical position, because they assume philosophical principles.

People don't seem to realise that they use philosophical arguments to discredit philosophy.

That's why educated people don't bother with these criticisms because they realise philosophy is axiomatic.

It's also funny that the rejection of philosophy and a science purism is itself a philosophy.

But seriously Pluvia, tell me what you've read.

Everytime a person criticises philisophy, I ask them what they've read, and they never answer the question, probably because they haven't actually read anything. Maybe you can be the one to break the streak.

Translation:

Nonsense. 9 sentences of nonsense that basically can be boiled down to "If you don't read philosophy you can't argue about it" despite the fact there's nothing to argue and philosophy is just full of long winded nonsense that never goes anywhere. Honestly I'll be surprised if your reply to this is anything other than "I read philosophy so therefore I'm more right than you, despite not actually saying anything worth while".

Fixed that for ya, free of charge. :D

Philosophy is actually all about questions, that is why it is generally represented by people who are sitting and pondering. They're thinkers. Religion is typically the force that which already answers what the universe is, how to act, and why things are the way they are. A quote I remember reading once goes as follows: ""Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion provides answers that may never be questioned."

Now here's a good reply. What you said was fantastic.

The problem with asking questions that may never be answered though is it's pointless unless you do something to try and answer it. This is great if it's like "Can a man walk on the moon?" but if it's something like "Does X supernatural deity exist?" then it's completely pointless. Sure you can study, write books on it, and spend years gathering information but no matter how much you try you're not going to find an answer.

So there's no point wasting your time philosophising on something that will never have an answer, because you're just going to end in the exact same position you started in, and that is nowhere.

 

[Dre89]

Just as I expected, you didn't list what philosophy you've read because you probably haven't read any.

How much authority would you give a person's opinion on science if they weren't educated in science at all?

My answers aren't 'I'm educated therefore I'm right' they're 'educated people have moved past this since they realise philosophy is axiomatic and the refutation of it requires a philosophical argument'.

Your argument against philosophy is philosophical. Your position is a philosophy. That alone pretty much invalidates what you've said because it's pretty much a formal fallacy.

This why no educated person believes this anymore, because it's so elementary.

 

[Pluvia]

"I read philosophy so therefore I'm more right than you, despite not actually saying anything worth while".

Looks like I was spot on.

 

[Dre89]

I don't say 'educated people believe in God' or 'educated people believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason' because there are educated people who don't.

But what you believe is no longer believed by educated people, because the educated people who did believe it disproved it themselves when the tried to implement it.

 

[Dre89]

How have I not said anything worthwhile?

I've shown that your argument against philosophy is philosophical itself.

I also showed that your position was disproved by its advocates.

What on Earth have you shown? You didn't present a single argument, you just said it was pointless without explaining why.

 

[Oasis_S]

Just ignore him.

He's on the level of a YE Creationist, they're lost causes.

Speaking of which, any ideas how to get Flat Earth theory taught in Geology classes? Children should be exposed to more alternative viewpoints. Oh, also Holocaust Hoax theory in history classes.

 

[Dre89]

Speaking of which, any ideas how to get Flat Earth theory taught in Geology classes? Children should be exposed to more alternative viewpoints. Oh, also Holocaust Hoax theory in history classes.

I know you're trolling but I don't even get the joke. It's not like I advocated those things.

 

[Oasis_S]

Who knows. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed a vegetarian didn't say anything about me calling them not normal.

Wanted to tell them they were born an atheistic omnivore.

 

[Orboknown]

How have I not said anything worthwhile?

I've shown that your argument against philosophy is philosophical itself.

I also showed that your position was disproved by its advocates.

What on Earth have you shown? You didn't present a single argument, you just said it was pointless without explaining why.

Just don't bother with it Dre, he'll just keep saying the same thing without believing he can be wrong in this case.

 

[Pluvia]

Speaking of the science analogy you made earlier, why do you try and compare philosophy to it? The thing with science is if you're more educated you can easily prove someone wrong. The person doesn't have to believe said facts, but what they believe is irrelevant.

Another question, if you don't think anyone is as well versed in philosophy as you, then why don't you layman your posts down? You spend your time thinking yet you never took the time to think that maybe it's pointless you try and argue with people that don't follow you? The science analogy comes in good here, rocket science, a lot of us know how rockets continue to travel upwards. Why? Because educated people laymaned it down for us to understand, we're not rocket scientists by a long shot, but we understand to an extent. Everywhere you go in life you'll have to layman things down, I spend time doing it in real life and on the Internet, but why don't you for this one subject?

To answer that for you, it's because you know that what you are saying it's complete and utter nonsense. You aren't saying anything. You're writing a lot but nothing has any substance. Once you break it down to the bare minimum you'll see what you're saying, the drivel it is, is just as good as saying nothing at all.

 

[Deleted member]

if you're more educated you can easily prove someone wrong.

ROFL
I am going to put this quote up at campus for people to laugh at.

 

[Pluvia]

ROFL
I am going to put this quote up at campus for people to laugh at.

Funnily enough you've already posted what I was going to say:

way to not contribute yourself

 

[MuraRengan]

Fixed that for ya, free of charge. :D

Philosophy is actually all about questions, that is why it is generally represented by people who are sitting and pondering. They're thinkers. Religion is typically the force that which already answers what the universe is, how to act, and why things are the way they are. A quote I remember reading once goes as follows: ""Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion provides answers that may never be questioned."

To generalize religion in such a way does a major disservice to the religion/s that actually do have thinkers, namely Catholic Christianity. During the times of the middle ages, the ONLY thinkers in the world were Christian monks because:

1. They had nothing else to do.
2. Peasants couldn't afford education.
3. They were the group of people who had access to all written knowledge.
4. They didn't need to work because there needs were provided by the church and government.

Most all intellectual thought stems from that time period, and a TON philosophical and scientific discoveries were made by laymen or theists. The Big Bang theory itself was developed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Religion doesn't hinder free thought, people who cling to their religions irrationally do. But from its very inception, Christianity was founded under the premise of deep, and intense thought and understanding.

 

[Deleted member]

Most all intellectual thought stems from that time period

you mean "almost all intellectual thought from that time stems from christian [monks]" right?

and are you implying jesus founded an intellectual cult rather than a religious one?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The problem with asking questions that may never be answered though is it's pointless unless you do something to try and answer it. This is great if it's like "Can a man walk on the moon?" but if it's something like "Does X supernatural deity exist?" then it's completely pointless. Sure you can study, write books on it, and spend years gathering information but no matter how much you try you're not going to find an answer.

So there's no point wasting your time philosophising on something that will never have an answer, because you're just going to end in the exact same position you started in, and that is nowhere.

The thing is, we generally do not know what questions can or cannot be answered. We can find that some are, and then with some philosophizing we can find that they aren't; in fact, it is only religion that generally makes such absolute statements such as "This has no answer", or "This has an answer". Also, it isn't necessarily about the catch, you see, that is what I meant about what I said. Religion is about the catch. Philosophy is more so about what is derived from the chase. It is a process, it teaches you to examine critically, it teaches you many things while chasing all sorts of answers, be it impossible to obtain or not.

To generalize religion in such a way does a major disservice to the religion/s that actually do have thinkers, namely Catholic Christianity. During the times of the middle ages, the ONLY thinkers in the world were Christian monks because:

1. They had nothing else to do.
2. Peasants couldn't afford education.
3. They were the group of people who had access to all written knowledge.
4. They didn't need to work because there needs were provided by the church and government.

They didn't even consider themselves philosophers. And those were not the reasons why the majority of thinkers were as such, it was as such because it was a very Christian time period.

Most all intellectual thought stems from that time period, and a TON philosophical and scientific discoveries were made by laymen or theists. The Big Bang theory itself was developed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

From that time period, the thinkers were applying things the Greeks have written about, so no they didn't come up with very much.

The "Big Bang theory itself" was not founded from philosophical or theological principles.

Religion doesn't hinder free thought, people who cling to their religions irrationally do. But from its very inception, Christianity was founded under the premise of deep, and intense thought and understanding.

Yes, deep understanding of the law of God that is already handed before you. You are indeed hindered, this is most obvious, or else you don't understand what religion is. Atheists have complete free roam or though, but even to think of philosophy in a religious mindset sets some parameters around what you can allow before it contradicts the word of God. The Augustinian principle about the synthesis between faith and reason puts this quite nicely: first you must believe, then you must understand. Therefore, you ARE limited, you are limited upon that which you must strive to understand; as an atheist, I am significantly less obligated to believe things and then explain them. Like mentioned above, the period you mentioned is mostly filled up with people applying what the Greeks have come up with to address theological problems.

 

[Deleted member]

Atheists have complete free roam

the belief that empirical evidence can result in truths does kind of hinder don't you think?

 

[MuraRengan]

you mean "almost all intellectual thought from that time stems from christian [monks]" right?

and are you implying jesus founded an intellectual cult rather than a religious one?

I mean what I said.

And I didn't imply anything other than what I said. Simply because the Church was religious doesn't mean it wasn't intellectual. Both are true.

 

[Deleted member]

Christianity was founded under the premise of deep, and intense thought and understanding.

then please elaborate on what you mean here

 

[MuraRengan]

then please elaborate on what you mean here

Christ himself was an intellectual, and free thinker. In his time, the Jewish religious laws were absolute, yet he set out to change them. In so far as he was God he was also man, and he interpreted things in thought. That's why he, unlike any one else of his time, had the intellectual capability to understand and interpret ancient scriptures differently. The reason his changes to the understanding of faith (such as the Beatitudes, the two greatest commandments, the nature of divorce, etc.) were accepted is because they had intellectual grounding. The parables he taught (I.E. the parable of the sower) taught lessons about the nature of faith that only someone who thought meticulously about it could've come up with. And even if you reject the existence of Christ, the fact that somebody wrote these things shows that somebody was thinking.

It's not the exact same kind of philosophical thinking that we would do, but it's still philosophy. Christ's teaching required not only faith, but understanding. When questioned, Christ never answered "just have faith" and he never shunned free thought.

 

[MuraRengan]

They didn't even consider themselves philosophers. And those were not the reasons why the majority of thinkers were as such, it was as such because it was a very Christian time period.

Those circumstances I outlined are knowledge as learned from a class I took in church history. I can't prove that those were the exact circumstances, but mine has a lot more circumstantial evidence. Your conclusion is just speculation. Regardless, the point is still made: Christians are capable of being thinkers.

From that time period, the thinkers were applying things the Greeks have written about, so no they didn't come up with very much.

The writings were based on greek schools of thought, and they took it further. There weren't ideas that the Greeks themselves had already thought of. See St. Thomas's Aquinas Summa Theologicae and th e5 Proofs of God, those aren't Greek constructions.

The "Big Bang theory itself" was not founded from philosophical or theological principles.

However, it was founded by a person who believed in theological and philosophical principles. You've been asserting that religious people won't think past what their religion tells them, but this guy kinds squashes that idea.

Yes, deep understanding of the law of God that is already handed before you. You are indeed hindered, this is most obvious, or else you don't understand what religion is. Atheists have complete free roam or though, but even to think of philosophy in a religious mindset sets some parameters around what you can allow before it contradicts the word of God. The Augustinian principle about the synthesis between faith and reason puts this quite nicely: first you must believe, then you must understand. Therefore, you ARE limited, you are limited upon that which you must strive to understand; as an atheist, I am significantly less obligated to believe things and then explain them. Like mentioned above, the period you mentioned is mostly filled up with people applying what the Greeks have come up with to address theological problems.

The evidence defeats your argument. I said earlier in this thread that my own philosophical argument for God was contrived completely independently of my religion. That argument itself was inspired by Thomas Aquinas's 5 Proofs, which are another example of non-religious philosophy from a religious individual. Then there's again the example of Georges Lemaitre. I fail to see where one's thought is limited by religion. I have assessed and continue to assess the virtue of every religious belief I hold or held. Some beliefs I've thrown away, like creationism, and some I still hold to, like Jesus being God.