Why Atheism is Irrational Continued

[Vlerchan]

At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
This is profoundly unscientific.

There are numerous theories of physics that we are a long way off empirically testing--some might remain impossible to test--but this at no point suggests that these theories are incorrect. This includes the theories you highlighted as being capable of replacing the requirement that god created the universe.

At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
You are free to outline what this difference is, as opposed to insisting it exists.

By your own words though, a lack of belief implies active denial.

At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.
I'm not sure what this means, but I am just going to take it as you don't understand what I was saying.

Though, to be honest, if you haven't covered the basic mechanics of logic proofs before and don't seem to be getting that previous explanation, we will probably have a difficult time bridging this gap. Nevertheless, I will persist.

The point of a proof is to demonstrate that a certain set of conditions--previously derived statements--necessitates a certain result. In what I have been suggesting we start with an axiom.

1: If I have a migraine, I must have a throbbing headache.

We then state the first line of our argument:

2: I do not have a throbbing headache.

Given condition 1, this implies our result:

3: Therefore, I do not have a migraine.

The result is necessitated by a pre-established set of conditions, 1 and 2. It's a rather simple proof, and that's where I think your problem lies. You can disagree with the premises, but the argument remains logically consistent and, conditional on premise 1 and 2 holding true, demonstrate a negative.

To be honest, it likely will come across like I am repeating myself because I'm referring to the most basic of proofs, and all I can hope for is that by re-arranging it in a different wording it might eventually click with you. Though, I can't be sure of that.

If you want, I can go through a number of more complicated ones in an economic context. For example, for an agent who lacks complete, transitive or reflexive preferences, a utility function--i.e. a systematic ranking of preferences--cannot exist. By showing one of the three to be false, you can demonstrate the negative (and it's rather simple).

Why would it be impossible? We have tigers, we haven't driven them to extinction yet. And even then we would still have bones and other physical evidence of their existence like we have with other extinct species.
It's a thought experiment, though perhaps I should contextualise it.

For an uncountable number of generations, Bronze Age Irish people, restricted to their island, had no evidence that tigers existed.That these people possessed no evidence of tiger's existence, even if it was the case for thousands or tens of thousands of years, does not suggest that tigers do not exist.

In the same sense, having no evidence that god exists does not suggest that god doesn't exist. Like with the tigers, it suggested one of two outcomes: (1) god doesn't exist, or (2) we simply haven't found the evidence yet.

You can suggest that we have waited long enough for this evidence, but to reject god on this basis would be, as I suggested, profoundly unscientific.

*lack of evidence
You want to use a framework designed for deciding the course of law to determine truths and untruths, despite the framework you're relying on being explicit about it's incapacity to construct truths or untruths (hence the language of non-guilty v innocent, etc.).

It's irrational, and you shouldn't do it.

[HeyCameron]

I think I understand what you're saying, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But is it irrational to acknowledge that truth, but still be an atheist? I.e. still lean toward thinking that there probably isn't a God, while acknowledging that you don't or can't know for sure?

[West Coast Sheriff]

As an agnostic I don't know. I personally think it is impossible to know. Last September, I remember speaking to an expert catholic teacher I know. When I was in high school I was a die hard catholic, one of the best students in our class and I was always debating the atheists and agnostics in our class. But after becoming an atheist last year and wanting to debate him, my lack of evidence and his lack of evidence ultimately lead to the discussion faith and the choice to believe or not. It was interesting because we both honestly admitted neither of us were sure. There is no way. The uncertainty of it all is kind of what it's about. There is no proof to support or deny the existence of God. How does one live their life? As if there is God or as if there is not?
Scientifically, I thought that chemistry and biochemistry both supported a lack of existence of God but, for me, going deeper and looking at physics, I think it's like this oh shit moment where I was like "this is how He works". The bible and the Quran are just ways of expressing God in a way that common people can understand. Because the complexity of God's nature is so advanced. The smartest man to ever live, Isaac Newton, I think nailed and broke down Christianity better than just about anyone.

[ShineintheDark]

I'll admit I haven't read any of the previous discussion on the last thread and have done my best to digest the arguments above but I just wanna answer the premise independently.

The premise stated is completely irrational and baiting for a fight. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God: the key word being 'belief'. To believe does not necessarily have the per-requisite of hard evidence nor unchallenged logic, belief persists no matter what because belief is a feeling and instinct. Therefore, atheism as a belief in a lack of a deity cannot necessarily be 'irrational'. Even the arguments stated above at best deconstruct the idea of Anti-theism ie. believing that theists are wrong. They do not in their own ways prove the existence of God and therefore cannot carry any sort of superiority in the logical debate beyond sitting on the sidelines and criticising. Would it not be best for theists to look for proof of a deity and atheists to look for proof of a lack of a deity and just respect each other's beliefs as opposed to pointless baiting?

[Vlerchan]

But is it irrational to acknowledge that truth, but still be an atheist? I.e. still lean toward thinking that there probably isn't a God, while acknowledging that you don't or can't know for sure?
I don't think this is logically consistent with any true premise so concluding it would be irrational.

Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God: the key word being 'belief'.
Sure. But I'm arguing against the people who suggest this is true or who believe it is a reasonable belief to hold. I don't believe either of those cases are correct.

Therefore, atheism as a belief in a lack of a deity cannot necessarily be 'irrational'.
The fact that the belief is steeped in feeling and instinct and not the consistent application of reason is the basis to it being irrational.

Even the arguments stated above at best deconstruct the idea of Anti-theism ie. believing that theists are wrong.
Anti-theism is an opposition to Theism--Both anti-Theists and Atheists believe that Theists are wrong.

Would it not be best for theists to look for proof of a deity and atheists to look for proof of a lack of a deity and just respect each other's beliefs as opposed to pointless baiting?
This is what I'd prefer of course.

I'm also not baiting. I think most atheists overestimate how strong their arguments are and it's important to address this because it underpins their entire attitude toward a number of social issues--for example religious freedom.

[HeyCameron]

So can the existence (or non-existence) of God be determined through reason?

[Vlerchan]

Potentially. I won't rule it out. But I'm not aware of any satisfactory attempts.

[Uniquemind]

As someone whose parents came from mildly religious (not fanatics) parents (my grandparents), rebelled due to their college education, raised me to be a foreword thinker, and me kind of getting an interest in Christianity and various spiritual topics of my own accord.

It’s interesting to me because I’ve been on both sides of the fence at least environmentally.

But for me I’ve always been, how should I say, sensitive to things; and my mom is too but she kind of denies it. I also remember my infancy pretty well too, better than many of my peers, and the memories are always first person perspectives, never 3rd person.

I also really like reading scientific breakthroughs, and when physics becomes more theoretical and reliant on abstract theoretical mathematics such as issues with quantum entanglement. It really shakes one’s scientific and philosophical understanding of not only how the universe came into existence, but also how it maintains itself, and how it could potentially end.


You also have to remember that even the prophets are using written language as a model to describe future and supernatural (maybe super scientific) beginnings and endings of the universe as shown to them by spiritual angels and demons, at the behest of God Vs Devil (fallen angels, nephilm and demons).

Not only that but in modern day we have weird quagmires of haunted business establishments and homes, that cause people to forsake real profit (and we all know how much society likes profit) and also UFO abductions which also show circumstantial techno-spiritual overlaps in reports consistent with alleged witnesses and abductees over 70+ years.


There is evidence but one has to use a combination of logical induction and deduction to really piece things together.


So one must ask if perhaps evidence is there, and we’re just boxing context and calling them separate contexts when really we should be piecing dots together.

[ShineintheDark]

I think most atheists overestimate how strong their arguments are and it's important to address this because it underpins their entire attitude toward a number of social issues--for example religious freedom.
I understand your frustration with certain atheistic individuals who have literal to no respect for those who believe differently to them because ultimately neither theists nor atheists have concrete proof that they are correct and therefore have no right to say you're wrong either. If all you wanna do is honestly debate and deconstruct atheist arguments then go right ahead; the only thing that made me uncomfortable is that you chose to attack atheism in the same way you criticise atheists for attacking theism: but outright declaring that no argument that the other side can make can possibly be true because the very belief itself can never be justified. If you're in no way convinced by any of the atheist arguments you've heard, you of course have the right to believe in God and point out logical fallacies so that the entire debate can be more sophisticated. Your titling just betrays that premise.

As for religious freedom, well that's an argument for another thread.

[mattsmith48]

Vlerchan quoting the same post 3 times? A little excessive don't you think?

This is profoundly unscientific.

There are numerous theories of physics that we are a long way off empirically testing--some might remain impossible to test--but this at no point suggests that these theories are incorrect. This includes the theories you highlighted as being capable of replacing the requirement that god created the universe.


You are free to outline what this difference is, as opposed to insisting it exists.

By your own words though, a lack of belief implies active denial.


I'm not sure what this means, but I am just going to take it as you don't understand what I was saying.

Though, to be honest, if you haven't covered the basic mechanics of logic proofs before and don't seem to be getting that previous explanation, we will probably have a difficult time bridging this gap. Nevertheless, I will persist.

The point of a proof is to demonstrate that a certain set of conditions--previously derived statements--necessitates a certain result. In what I have been suggesting we start with an axiom.

1: If I have a migraine, I must have a throbbing headache.

We then state the first line of our argument:

2: I do not have a throbbing headache.

Given condition 1, this implies our result:

3: Therefore, I do not have a migraine.

The result is necessitated by a pre-established set of conditions, 1 and 2. It's a rather simple proof, and that's where I think your problem lies. You can disagree with the premises, but the argument remains logically consistent and, conditional on premise 1 and 2 holding true, demonstrate a negative.

To be honest, it likely will come across like I am repeating myself because I'm referring to the most basic of proofs, and all I can hope for is that by re-arranging it in a different wording it might eventually click with you. Though, I can't be sure of that.

If you want, I can go through a number of more complicated ones in an economic context. For example, for an agent who lacks complete, transitive or reflexive preferences, a utility function--i.e. a systematic ranking of preferences--cannot exist. By showing one of the three to be false, you can demonstrate the negative (and it's rather simple).

It's a thought experiment, though perhaps I should contextualise it.

For an uncountable number of generations, Bronze Age Irish people, restricted to their island, had no evidence that tigers existed.That these people possessed no evidence of tiger's existence, even if it was the case for thousands or tens of thousands of years, does not suggest that tigers do not exist.

In the same sense, having no evidence that god exists does not suggest that god doesn't exist. Like with the tigers, it suggested one of two outcomes: (1) god doesn't exist, or (2) we simply haven't found the evidence yet.

You can suggest that we have waited long enough for this evidence, but to reject god on this basis would be, as I suggested, profoundly unscientific.


You want to use a framework designed for deciding the course of law to determine truths and untruths, despite the framework you're relying on being explicit about it's incapacity to construct truths or untruths (hence the language of non-guilty v innocent, etc.).

It's irrational, and you shouldn't do it.

I keep telling you no matter the example you come up with it is impossible to directly prove a negative. That's why eventually if you keep not getting any evidence to support your claim e.g. There is a God, at some point you have to realize the answer is no, especially when you have other proven theories and better, more realistic hypothesis that could replace the need for a God. There is nothing unscientific or irrational with that.

[Vlerchan]

outright declaring that no argument that the other side can make can possibly be true because the very belief itself can never be justified.
Please note that earlier I said:
Potentially. I won't rule it out [that nonexistence can be demonstrated through reason]. But I'm not aware of any satisfactory attempts.
In other words I'm not claiming the belief itself cannot be justified.

I'm also not a theist.

quoting the same post 3 times? A little excessive don't you think?
I quoted all the points referred to in that thread once and that was in the opening post.

I keep telling you no matter the example you come up with it is impossible to directly prove a negative.
You keep insisting this but have no pointed out logical inconsistencies in the argument I made demonstrating the negative.

That's why eventually if you keep not getting any evidence to support your claim e.g. There is a God, at some point you have to realize the answer is no
It doesn't follow that (1) I can't demonstrate a claim therefore (2) the claim is false.

Truth is independent of my capacities to verify it.

There is nothing unscientific or irrational with that
You abandoning theories because they are difficult to prove is unscientific.

I'm also not claiming you have to recognise any truth value in these theories--just not dismiss them out of hand.

[mattsmith48]

You keep insisting this but have no pointed out logical inconsistencies in the argument I made demonstrating the negative.


It doesn't follow that (1) I can't demonstrate a claim therefore (2) the claim is false.

Truth is independent of my capacities to verify it.


You abandoning theories because they are difficult to prove is unscientific.

I'm also not claiming you have to recognise any truth value in these theories--just not dismiss them out of hand.

I'm not abandoning or dismiss any theories because they are difficult to prove, first because God is not a theory its an hypothesis and I'm saying they are better theories and realistic hypothesis that replace the need for a God that we never had any evidence of their existence since humans first started creating Gods.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not abandoning or dismiss any theories because they are difficult to prove, first because God is not a theory its an hypothesis
Let's call them hypothesis then. Point still stands.

I'm saying they are better theories and realistic hypothesis
I might be wrong but none of them have an ounce of empirical backing. If I am wrong would you mind providing it?

Realistic also sounds like code for confirmation bias but I am prepared to be amazed on this front too.

that we never had any evidence of their existence since humans first started creating Gods
Irrelevant to the truth value of the claim.

[lliam]

I wonder why this thread turned so irrational.

[Uniquemind]

I wonder why this thread turned so irrational.

Because faith topics are inherently irrational.

But it’s not disrespectful nor have any better theories about how the universe and creation of space-time and the laws of quantum and general relativity physics been proven to usurp the concept of a God.

Everything I’ve read too says that we probably have theories at best, and a window into alternative dimensions with Higgs discovery. Once you start bending the laws of observable certainty, everything feels like illusion and that creation and destruction are part of the same coin.

[inactiveguy678]

Because faith topics are inherently irrational.

But it’s not disrespectful nor have any better theories about how the universe and creation of space-time and the laws of quantum and general relativity physics been proven to usurp the concept of a God.

Everything I’ve read too says that we probably have theories at best, and a window into alternative dimensions with Higgs discovery. Once you start bending the laws of observable certainty, everything feels like illusion and that creation and destruction are part of the same coin.

Don't forget how moral relativism is usually used to judge how some theories are better than others here...

[lliam]

I'm not particularly impressed by all these theories. For the reality I experience daily, they have as little significance as the theories of the faithful folks.

To me, rational is, e.g.: You just farming in the most energy-efficient way in order to survive or to live reasonably well.

Anything beyond that is irrational because it isn't important to survival.

[Uniquemind]

Don't forget how moral relativism is usually used to judge how some theories are better than others here...

I think it’s more like do we really ever know moral objectivity in the first place? I am not certain we do, because if we did we’d figure out the grey areas all the time and run into a lot less of them because objectivity is absolute.


Morals derived from a culture model environment seems to be where problems arise due to culture clashes which religion is largely a part of both in homes and in communities or even countries.

But subjectivity is where most people develop opinions, developed by mostly by the 5 senses and the pattern of experiences endured. This is partly why those who deny God can’t make that leap of faith, they expect measurable evidence to comply with the 5 senses, and that’s a bit of a limitation on perception.


Even the prophets of various faiths are limited to vocabulary and metaphors of their era to describe what supposedly is a supernatural testimony of worlds beginning and ending and merging.

To have an infinite plane of existence which is what heaven and hell are, space-time itself and the driving forces behind its existence would have to be looped or warped so infinity would be possible.

[inactiveguy678]

Morals derived from a culture model environment seems to be where problems arise due to culture clashes which religion is largely a part of both in homes and in communities or even countries.



This is what I meant to be honest and its disturbing most people who argue in religious matters don't acknowledge this. Especially if they were atheists or agnostics who grew up in another religion

I think it’s more like do we really ever know moral objectivity in the first place? I am not certain we do, because if we did we’d figure out the grey areas all the time and run into a lot less of them because objectivity is absolute.


But subjectivity is where most people develop opinions, developed by mostly by the 5 senses and the pattern of experiences endured. This is partly why those who deny God can’t make that leap of faith, they expect measurable evidence to comply with the 5 senses, and that’s a bit of a limitation on perception.


Err I agree and disagree. With your criteria it seems very much like most of the arguments here wherein just because one thing cannot be achieved 100% due to human limitations its not possible. I think to use the psychological concept schema would be apt for this. We tend to simply and generalise an idea into a recognisable state because it is something out minds can accept. Its doesn't have to be the most accurate and most representative due to our limited capacity but a high probability or likelihood should be enough for us to make a definition for it.

What I mean is there might not be true moral objectivity but we can try our best to achieve it by removing ourselves from convention and with the aid of proper discussion and DISCOURSE from other people we might further refine this thought process.

This is in contrast to some of the arguments usually presented in these topics where in mostly Christian users would judge certain aspects of other religions, atheism agnosticism and such within their own moral framework and fail to acknowledge the origins of such arguments. The most apt example of this is the Islam Violence thread where it just devolved in judging the Islamic teachings in a Christian context while failing to apply some of the considerations theologians and religious leaders do when analysing certain violent or questionably worded bible passages (most of the arguments can even be said to be cherry picked as most avoided discussing the Old Testament and other minor books in the Bible and only focused on the New Testament).

[Max the Disenchanter]

Gravity is closest thing to an all powerful being.

[nickole999]

So can the existence (or non-existence) of God be determined through reason?

I think no

[nikkimelan]

Atheism is a conclusion not a religion. Religion should be banned. It's evil what it does to people.

[NoLimitGuy]

Atheism is irrational? Dear fella, the life is irrational in general, no matter if you believe in god or not. Your life is based on emotions, like it is with all the other animal species. Emotions are not a rational thing, okay? As for the main idea - the proof of the god's absence is right under your nose. You should simply study history and make some conclusions. But it's only if you want to see facts, if only you are able to see the real truth and you can read between the lines...

[Oscar-V3.0]

Atheism is a conclusion not a religion. Religion should be banned. It's evil what it does to people.

Only to a minority people. Most people who have a religion dont cause harm but we only talk about the few who do :/

[Sevro au Barca]

This is profoundly unscientific.

There are numerous theories of physics that we are a long way off empirically testing--some might remain impossible to test--but this at no point suggests that these theories are incorrect. This includes the theories you highlighted as being capable of replacing the requirement that god created the universe.


You are free to outline what this difference is, as opposed to insisting it exists.

By your own words though, a lack of belief implies active denial.


I'm not sure what this means, but I am just going to take it as you don't understand what I was saying.

Though, to be honest, if you haven't covered the basic mechanics of logic proofs before and don't seem to be getting that previous explanation, we will probably have a difficult time bridging this gap. Nevertheless, I will persist.

The point of a proof is to demonstrate that a certain set of conditions--previously derived statements--necessitates a certain result. In what I have been suggesting we start with an axiom.

1: If I have a migraine, I must have a throbbing headache.

We then state the first line of our argument:

2: I do not have a throbbing headache.

Given condition 1, this implies our result:

3: Therefore, I do not have a migraine.

The result is necessitated by a pre-established set of conditions, 1 and 2. It's a rather simple proof, and that's where I think your problem lies. You can disagree with the premises, but the argument remains logically consistent and, conditional on premise 1 and 2 holding true, demonstrate a negative.

To be honest, it likely will come across like I am repeating myself because I'm referring to the most basic of proofs, and all I can hope for is that by re-arranging it in a different wording it might eventually click with you. Though, I can't be sure of that.

If you want, I can go through a number of more complicated ones in an economic context. For example, for an agent who lacks complete, transitive or reflexive preferences, a utility function--i.e. a systematic ranking of preferences--cannot exist. By showing one of the three to be false, you can demonstrate the negative (and it's rather simple).


It's a thought experiment, though perhaps I should contextualise it.

For an uncountable number of generations, Bronze Age Irish people, restricted to their island, had no evidence that tigers existed.That these people possessed no evidence of tiger's existence, even if it was the case for thousands or tens of thousands of years, does not suggest that tigers do not exist.

In the same sense, having no evidence that god exists does not suggest that god doesn't exist. Like with the tigers, it suggested one of two outcomes: (1) god doesn't exist, or (2) we simply haven't found the evidence yet.

You can suggest that we have waited long enough for this evidence, but to reject god on this basis would be, as I suggested, profoundly unscientific.


You want to use a framework designed for deciding the course of law to determine truths and untruths, despite the framework you're relying on being explicit about it's incapacity to construct truths or untruths (hence the language of non-guilty v innocent, etc.).

It's irrational, and you shouldn't do it.

I'm... curious as to what, exactly, you're arguing here. While you have provided relatively sound evidence suggesting that there is no conclusive proof to suggest that there is no god, you have neglected to provide any evidence to suggest that one, in fact, exists. At most, your argument seems to be a promotion of pure agnosticism. Being an agnostic myself, I have no objection to that, but you seem awfully vehement to not be going anywhere concrete with this.

Sure, one could argue that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no god, but if one adheres to the same standard of proof for both sides of the argument, there is an equal lack of evidence to suggest that there is a god. Barring a few claims of unverifiable miracles, the only reason anyone believes in god(s) is that

1). They have been told that there is one one by others, following a chain of belief back to the nebulous origins of their religion.
2). They have been told that religious texts such as the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran are incontrovertibly true and therefore they should be believed.
2a). These texts claim that the religion is true and therefore god is real.

Lovely bit of circular logic there, eh?

I'm saying this not to contradict your point, I genuinely would like to have to say, either in hopes that one of us will convert the other, or, barring that, have a bit of fun with verbal sparring and entertain the masses. That said, if you cite Pascal's Wager as evidence, I'm going to puke.

[liberal raj]

So can the existence (or non-existence) of God be determined through reason?

space and time are confined in the universe.Everything exists within space and time.The creator of universe must be beyond the universe. But nothing exists beyond space and time. So god is non-existence.
I didn't say god is non-existent. Rather I used a noun.
But I can tell that the god as in the religious scriptures is not real.

[GamingDoc]

Let me put this through. What exactly is your definition of God?

[Uniquemind]

space and time are confined in the universe.Everything exists within space and time.The creator of universe must be beyond the universe. But nothing exists beyond space and time. So god is non-existence.
I didn't say god is non-existent. Rather I used a noun.
But I can tell that the god as in the religious scriptures is not real.


Or it just means what we think of as the universe, has a barrier of nothingness, But beyond that there are other closed universes who exist in completely different space-time than ours.


In some ways I read scriptures and wonder if that’s what heaven and hell are. Closed realms with their own spacetime where infinities are possible given both are described as eternal realms everlasting.

[Spooky_Eli]

In some ways I read scriptures and wonder if that’s what heaven and hell are. Closed realms with their own spacetime where infinities are possible given both are described as eternal realms everlasting.
I belive spritualists have a similer hypothisis regarding there so called "4th dimention" where it exists as a closed realm, only crossed by those who somehow posses the power to do so,
But i could be wrong on this idk

[liberal raj]

Or it just means what we think of as the universe, has a barrier of nothingness, But beyond that there are other closed universes who exist in completely different space-time than ours.


In some ways I read scriptures and wonder if that’s what heaven and hell are. Closed realms with their own spacetime where infinities are possible given both are described as eternal realms everlasting.
multiverse and closed realms are hypothetical concepts.They can not be proved to be true.
now heaven and hell are places where you get reward or retribution for your actions in your life:heaven for good deeds and hell for evil. But what's good and evil. We define good and evil on our perspective. There is no universal definition of virtue and sin. So there is no universal code of conduct or vigilance or judgement.So there can't be a heaven or hell.

[liberal raj]

I belive spritualists have a similer hypothisis regarding there so called "4th dimention" where it exists as a closed realm, only crossed by those who somehow posses the power to do so,
But i could be wrong on this idk

power or energy or potential are physical quantities. They are too bound in space-time continuum. No one can transcend that i.e. go to a closed realm from another( if they exist)

[Spooky_Eli]

power or energy or potential are physical quantities. They are too bound in space-time continuum. No one can transcend that i.e. go to a closed realm from another( if they exist)
and who says thats how the space time continum works?

[nikkimelan]

I think it is God's responsibility to come and talk to us. But he never does. Kinda lame for such a powerful thing.

[liberal raj]

and who says thats how the space time continuum works?
you wanna know how space time continuum works,Start from General Relativity. And remember it is theoretically as well as empirically proven. Kip Thorn got a Noble prize for proving the existence of Gravitational wave(an outcome of space time continuum)