Hello,
I'm an agnostic right now but would like nice strong arguments for either side. The atheist position seems a little more likely to provide these.
There are no arguments for atheism, only arguments against theism. The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them. It's ridiculous that you even have to say it, but that's how normal religion has become; that nobody ever has to mention that they don't believe in dragons, but that people ask for evidence to prove that there is no god, even though it's more reasonable to believe dragons exist than gods, because at least they make sense.
Ah well.
Welcome to the forums :)
Science is great. But can it be used to argue the atheist position?
Theists just say religion and science answers different questions. That there is no contradiction.
Quote from: "Plu"Welcome to the forums :)
Thanks!
Quote from: "Plu"There are no arguments for atheism, only arguments against theism. The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them. It's ridiculous that you even have to say it, but that's how normal religion has become; that nobody ever has to mention that they don't believe in dragons, but that people ask for evidence to prove that there is no god, even though it's more reasonable to believe dragons exist than gods, because at least they make sense.
Ah. Is that the weak athesist position? You should not have to provide evidence.
But a strong position should produce evidence, right?
Logic can be used to argue against the theist position. All gods are either logically inconsistent, or irrelevant and powerless. You cannot "argue for atheism". That doesn't even make any sense. You can only show that gods and religions makes no sense, and then all you can do is fall back into the atheist position. All atheism means is "I don't believe gods are real".
Atheism isn't really an end-point either. If anyone ever shows conclusive evidence that some gods exist, atheists will immediately start believing in those gods. (And we'll stop calling them gods pretty quickly and come up with a new term, because we're now talking about something that's real and has properties, and the word "god" is too vague and meaningless to describe something that exists.)
As for answering different questions; two points:
A) Religion tries to answer questions. They intentionally don't pick questions that can have a definitive answer, so they can't be proven wrong. (In the past they did, and everytime they did, they were proven wrong. Most religious characters have stopped trying.)
B) In all situations where religion and science both say something on the same topic, trust science, because it's verifiable and religion is not. Something that you can try for yourself always beats something you have to take on faith.
--
Can I ask you, what does the word "god" mean to you, anyway? There's more meanings to the word than there are people, and they all mean something completely different.
Quote from: "Plu"The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them.
What about things that are hard to explain? Like consciousness. Science does not fully understand it. Religions say they do. No position can provide the type of evidence that the scientific model requires.
QuoteBut a strong position should produce evidence, right?
Yes, if you say "I
know that god does not exist" you need to produce evidence. But before you even do that, you need to pick a definition for "god" that you're going to disprove. There's so many definitions, that it's really pointless. Not a lot of people are strong atheists, and those that are generally are about as irrational as knowing theists.
There have been thousands of gods throughout out human history with extremely wide variance in traits and personality. None of them make sense, many can be proven not to exist, but there's a number that's specifically defined to be unprovable anyway, so why bother? Something that cannot be proven to exist or not exist, by definition, can not have an impact on the real world.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Plu"The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them.
What about things that are hard to explain? Like consciousness. Science does not fully understand it. Religions say they do. No position can provide the type of evidence that the scientific model requires.
Simple. You say "I don't know, but lets find out." And then you do research, and you learn more and more.
If you take the religious path and say "god did it and that's final", you'll never figure out the real answer. And the real answer has never in the history of the world been "god did it", and has
always provided new insights that made life more interesting. So there's no real reason to skip on looking for the answers.
Religious folks will try to say that not knowing something is a horror and that science doesn't have all the answers and they do. The problem is that a wrong answer, or a vague answer, is a
lot worse than no answer at all. It's better to approach these situations where our knowledge is lacking with curiosity to find the
correct answer than it is to just make shit up and pretend that you know, and never study the topic again.
Nice answer!
Quote from: "Plu"Can I ask you, what does the word "god" mean to you, anyway? There's more meanings to the word than there are people, and they all mean something completely different.
As agnostic the term may mean anything that is plausible. Hard to rule out something that can't be proven wrong.
E.g. what is the "Life Force"? The force that seems to drive conscious beings. What happens to it at death? One second the body was alive, the next dead. What is the physical difference? This "life force" could be god. Not saying or proving, but it's a theory.
I'll throw in an example building on the subject of consciousness.
Science, in the past few decades of research, has shown us that thoughts arise from electric currents in the brain, that hormone levels influence our actions, how the electric signal travels through the body to the muscle, how we store information, which parts of the brain are responsible for which parts of our consciousness, and lots more.
In doing so, they figured out how to detect and fix various personality disorders, set the first steps into reading someone's mind, and steps towards building more powerful computation machines using the biological model, as well as countless other things that I don't even know came from this kind of research.
Religion, in the past few thousand years of its existance, has claimed that consciousness is from god. Nothing has happened since.
It's really not hard to see why one approach to reality is superior to the other.
You are well versed!
Can you help me point out the error in this "proof" which bothers me. Get's me stuck.
1. If humans have free will, it's origin is either physical or non-physical.
2. All humans experience the freedom of choice and that they can think freely. Nothing suggests that their will should not be free. One who contradicts this, having the will not being free, must provide evidence for it and also solve the problem of what happens with ethics and moral in society if nobody did anything out of free will.
3. A will with physical origin (e.g. brain chemistry) can not be free because a strict physical explanation requires determinism, which means that the wills of humans are just a consequence of physical processes. (Randomness is not the same as choice.)
4. Since free will cannot have physical origin and the fact that it exists makes us conclude that the origin of free will is non-physical.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"What about things that are hard to explain? Like consciousness. Science does not fully understand it. Religions say they do.
Religions say a lot of things. But when it comes to actually finding stuff out about the world, it's science we turn to every time.
Science is wrong some of the time.
Religion is wrong all of the time.
Quote from: "Jason78"Religion is wrong all of the time.
Problem is we can't know that right? Religions say consciousness comes from a spirit soul. You say this is wrong. Must you not have evidence for saying that?
Well, the basic failure is lack of a really strong definition of "free will" and what that means. There is no real conscensus on what free will is.
The real problem with the proof as given is in point 2).
There is no way to distuinguish between a person who says he experiences free will but does not have it, and a person who says he experiences free will and does have it. Both would act exactly the same. Just because people think they have free will doesn't automatically mean they have it.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Religion is wrong all of the time.
Problem is we can't know that right? Religions say consciousness comes from a spirit soul. You say this is wrong. Must you not have evidence for saying that?
Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
But when books like the Bible start suggesting that decisions are made in the heart, or that emotions are dictated by the kidneys, then we have solid scientific evidence that invalidates both those claims.
Usually religous claims are one of the following:
A) baseless. "Your consciousness comes from the spirit-soul". What does that even mean? How does it impact anything? How do you show this? The answer is: it means nothing, it impacts nothing, and you can't show it. These statements can be completely ignored with no detriment to anything or anyone.
B) wrong. See examples in the post above. These can be completely ignored, but worse, if they are followed, they will cause bad things to happen to people. Which means they're detrimental.
C) correct. Sometimes religion accidentally gets it right. When something is true, it's true regardless of source. That means these things are true independant of religion, and you can simply pull them out and use them. (Most of these truths have also been around much longer than the religion that incorperated them, and most have far better explanations for why they are true than religion gives them.)
Many people sum this up as "religion is always wrong", and it's fairly accurate. But if you want the full breakdown of their claims, this is it.
Quote from: "Plu"Well, the basic failure is lack of a really strong definition of "free will" and what that means. There is no real conscensus on what free will is.
Is that really a problem? If it is, can't we just settle on a definition an go on?
Quote from: "Plu"There is no way to distuinguish between a person who says he experiences free will but does not have it, and a person who says he experiences free will and does have it. Both would act exactly the same. Just because people think they have free will doesn't automatically mean they have it.
Too me that is not so satisfying. That the pro-physical explanation stops when encountering a non-distinguishability like this.
What if we follow both paths?
1. A person experiences free will and doesn't have it.
This would be saying free will does not exist. How do we prove that?
2. A person experience free will and has it.
This is the original premise.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"All humans experience the freedom of choice and that they can think freely. Nothing suggests that their will should not be free. One who contradicts this, having the will not being free, must provide evidence for it and also solve the problem of what happens with ethics and moral in society if nobody did anything out of free will.
If we have no free will, we can not choose to be ethical or moral or not, and neither can society.
Also: Welcome.
Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
Many atheists acknowledges that the full theory of consciousness is yet to be presented. Is it then scientific at this stage to rule out the possibility of a spirit soul providing it? One can be determined that science will one day prove consciousness to be a purely physical product, but until we know, the scientific position must be as always, have all doors open. What do we gain to throw rubbish at each other?
My agnostic position remains in the question of consciousness, since no side can provide strong arguments.
What's a 'spirit soul'?
QuoteIs that really a problem?
A very big one. You cannot make a good scientific proof if one of your terms isn't properly defined, because you cannot follow the logic. It's like replacing one of the words in your proof with random gibberish; it removes any validity of the proof. Imagine someone going "This sheet of paper is red because SDLFKJH.". It makes no sense. But if you define "SDLFKJH" to mean "emitting light waves in the 720nm spectrum", suddenly the proof is completely functional. Definitions are what makes a proof work.
QuoteIf it is, can't we just settle on a definition an go on?
Certainly. But you know why there isn't one given with the proof? Because there isn't one that makes sense. These kind of proofs are intentionally vague and rely on people filling in the gaps themselves to have the proof make sense. They don't prove anything on a scientific level, and they cannot. Once you start really defining "free will", you'll run into countless issues.
QuoteToo me that is not so satisfying. That the pro-physical explanation stops when encountering a non-distinguishability like this.
Remember that my goal is not to prove for or against free will. It is very common for the religious to try and push for that, but this is not how science works. If a proof is incorrect, then a scientist points out that it is incorrect. The end result is
not that the hypothesis (free will exists) is wrong. The end result is that the hypothesis
remains unproven, meaning there is no conclusive answer to whether or not free will exists yet.
The goal of the proof is to prove that free will exists. But here we run into the problem that, in order to complete point 2) of the proof, we already need to assume that the proof is valid. This is a cyclical reasoning problem, which renders the proof invalid. We cannot rely on the existance of free will to make a proof about free will, as this proof tries to do silently by saying that thinking you have free will means you have free will, which is not neccesarily the case.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"If we have no free will, we can not choose to be ethical or moral or not, and neither can society.
Nice!
But isn't there a problem that if we so to speak know there is no free will, now one can be held responsible for anything. If a person steals your car, should you have it back and he get punished? No, because this was coming, nothing conscious could stop it, the person could not choose not to steal the car.
Plu: Nice explainations. I like.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
Many atheists acknowledges that the full theory of consciousness is yet to be presented. Is it then scientific at this stage to rule out the possibility of a spirit soul providing it? One can be determined that science will one day prove consciousness to be a purely physical product, but until we know, the scientific position must be as always, have all doors open. What do we gain to throw rubbish at each other?
My agnostic position remains in the question of consciousness, since no side can provide strong arguments.
Discarding the nonsense argument leads us into not accepting a nonsense explanation, but remaining open to the correct answer. If all the world accepted that the consciousness comes from the spirit-soul, thousands of books on the workings of the brain would have never been written. It's very important to discard non-answers to questions, because all they can do is cloud your judgement and surpress your curiousity into the topic. Both of those are bad things.
And remember: science doesn't "rule out" the possibility of a spirit soul providing it anymore than it rules out the possibility of human beings are puppets controlled by invisible strings that act in a play set up by aliens. Science merely says "give proof or be quiet". Then, when no proof comes, it says "put it over there on the pile of other unproven assumptions where it'll be ignored until proof for it shows up."
The issue lies not in religion saying that consciousness rises from a spirit-soul. The issue lies in religion claiming it's the correct answer without having anything to back it up. You should treat a religious claim like this exactly the same as when a guy comes up to you and says he has a dragon in his garage. Either he shows you convincing proof, or you discard his claim. Since there is no convincing proof for a soul, the religious argument can be safely discarded. (Remember! Not "ruled out as impossible.". Merely "discarded until proof surfaces.")
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"If we have no free will, we can not choose to be ethical or moral or not, and neither can society.
Nice!
But isn't there a problem that if we so to speak know there is no free will, now one can be held responsible for anything. If a person steals your car, should you have it back and he get punished? No, because this was coming, nothing conscious could stop it, the person could not choose not to steal the car.
But nothing conscious could stop us from punishing the guy anyway, either. If you claim that anything leading up to an event could not be stopped because there is no free will, then anything following that event cannot be stopped either.
Otherwise it's a bit like watching a movie and saying "oh, up until now it's been just a regular movie, but I'm really wondering how the hero is going to act
now.". Makes no sense. Either free will influences events, or it doesn't. Whether or not it's "just" to imprison the guy who stole your car becomes irrelevant, because there's nothing to stop us from doing it
anyway.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"If we have no free will, we can not choose to be ethical or moral or not, and neither can society.
Nice!
But isn't there a problem that if we so to speak know there is no free will, now one can be held responsible for anything. If a person steals your car, should you have it back and he get punished? No, because this was coming, nothing conscious could stop it, the person could not choose not to steal the car.
It may feel unjust but society still would not have any choice about holding people responsible (or not). That just happens - just like the car theft does.
Like Plu says: But nothing conscious could stop us from punishing the guy anyway, either. If you claim that anything leading up to an event could not be stopped because there is no free will, then anything following that event cannot be stopped either.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
The nonsense argument doesn't have to be strong. Nonsense has no meaning and explains nothing. No solution has been offered. We're getting somewhere because we are dismissing statements that can not be true.
Unless you can define what a "spirit soul" is and how we can distinguish one, it is a meaningless designation.
You might as well have suggested that consciousness comes from the snap of a jabberwocks jaws.
Quote from: "Plu"There are no arguments for atheism, only arguments against theism. The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them. It's ridiculous that you even have to say it, but that's how normal religion has become; that nobody ever has to mention that they don't believe in dragons, but that people ask for evidence to prove that there is no god, even though it's more reasonable to believe dragons exist than gods, because at least they make sense.
Ah well.
Welcome to the forums :)
=D> =D> =D>
Like NOT stamp collecting = not a hobby.
lol
By the way --- welcome newbie. May your questions be answered and your coffee be hot :wink:
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Science is great. But can it be used to argue the atheist position?
Theists just say religion and science answers different questions. That there is no contradiction.
No.
Atheism = lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Science debunks the claims of theists (with a 100% track record in this regard). This just adds weight to the notion that there are no gods, although as not all gods have been proposed, it's impossible to be certain either way.
Hence why I, and the vast majoirty of us, are agnostic atheists.
Theist's generally claim that religion and science answer different questions when science contradicts their beliefs and/or dogmas (Universe created in 7 days, reduced down to semantic word play as to what a 'day' is). It's a continuing god of the gaps argument that constantly gets smaller as society evolves and advances. You mentioned that "we can't know either way", but then we apply principles of absurdity to the claim when said claim is, by defintion, absurd. "There's teapot orbiting the Earth". Possible? Certainly. Likely, not at all. Same goes for claims of the supernatural. There's a "life force". It's never been observed, tested, or proven. So actively not believing in the claim should be the fault position until evidence is forwarded by the proponent that it is so. This can be exapnded, without exception, to every single supernatural theistic claim ever presented.
Also welcome :)
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Science is great. But can it be used to argue the atheist position?
The majority of atheists don't have a position, only strong atheists who make the claim that there is no god. The majority of atheists are only without a belief. That's not really a position. It's neutral. However, it might be argued that weak atheists take the position that it's unreasonable to have a position that is unfounded.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Theists just say religion and science answers different questions. That there is no contradiction.
Theists say a lot of things. Some of it is true, some of it is just silly. The above is silly, because religion is quick to intrude into science whenever it chooses, and it continually ends up with egg on the face for doing so. Why they can't stop doing this to themselves is a mystery. Science doesn't go out of it's way to address god issues since there is no proof for a god to begin with, but it often does contradict precious Bible myths.
When dealing with potential scientific questions, religion feels especially compelled to answer when an answer is not known. If science has not yet discovered an answer, religion makes one up that always has the common thread behind it that God did it, while science leaves the question unanswered. Sometimes science comes up with the wrong answer, but the trademark of science is to correct it's mistakes when new information becomes available, rather than cling to an answer that can no longer be supported, which is where religion ends up shooting itself in the foot.
Religion tends to come around and accept the undeniable realities of science eventually, but it often takes 500 years for them to do it. But even then, it still accepts reality for the wrong reasons. It's more like they accept it because popular sentiment has come to agree with science and forsaken religion's position. The reason this is wrong is because it's a fallacy of the argument from overwhelming numbers.
It should be an argument from evidence, not an argument from popular opinion.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Plu"Well, the basic failure is lack of a really strong definition of "free will" and what that means. There is no real conscensus on what free will is.
Is that really a problem? If it is, can't we just settle on a definition an go on?
Quote from: "Plu"There is no way to distuinguish between a person who says he experiences free will but does not have it, and a person who says he experiences free will and does have it. Both would act exactly the same. Just because people think they have free will doesn't automatically mean they have it.
Too me that is not so satisfying. That the pro-physical explanation stops when encountering a non-distinguishability like this.
What if we follow both paths?
1. A person experiences free will and doesn't have it.
This would be saying free will does not exist. How do we prove that?
2. A person experience free will and has it.
This is the original premise.
The problem with free will is that people don't understand what it means that something is determined. It's not that simple with A causes B, it's more like 10 billion events cause B. An example: When an apple falls, why does it fall? Because the earth has gravity, because the stem withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it etc.
We have evolved, however, as cognitively improvisational tool users, dependent on identifying actions we would take that would lead to immediate payoffs. So our minds evolved to represent situations in a way that highlighted the element in the nexus that we could manipulate to bring about a favored out come.
The brain is a bounded machine, and the world is a confusing place, full of data and distractions. Intelligence is the ability to parse the data so that it makes just a little bit more sense. Like will power, this ability requires the strategic allocation of attention. One final thought: In recent decades, psychology and neuroscience have severely eroded classical notions of free will. The "unconscious" mind, it turns out, is most of the mind. And yet, we can still control the spotlight of attention, focusing on those ideas that will help us succeed. In the end, this may be the only thing we can control.
More on this later, I have to eat breakfast.
QuoteExperiments have shown that a network of high-level control areas of the brain begins to shape upcoming decisions long before they inter awareness. This challenges the whole notion of free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? Is free will an illusion?
While "conscious will" may be an illusion, it can be argued that our material selves do still possess a kind of free will. Every decision we make is the result of very complex calculations made by our conscious and unconscious (body) brains working together. That calculation relies on input from our immediate circumstances and our past experiences.
So the decision is uniquely ours, based on our specific knowledge, experience, and abilities. This seems pretty free to me. While others can influence us, no one has all the data that went into calculations except our unique selves, not even psychologists. Another brain operating according to the same decision algorithms as ours would not necessarily come up with the final decision, since lifetime experiences leading up to that point would be different.
Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"More on this later, I have to eat breakfast. Solitary
Free will says you don't have to. :-D
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Hello,
I'm an agnostic right now but would like nice strong arguments for either side. The atheist position seems a little more likely to provide these.
This is a bit of an open-ended, vague question. Have you done any reading at all on the subject? Any thoughts of your own here?
Don't be intellectually lazy and come empty-handed to an internet forum and expect people to educate you.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
Many atheists acknowledges that the full theory of consciousness is yet to be presented. Is it then scientific at this stage to rule out the possibility of a spirit soul providing it? One can be determined that science will one day prove consciousness to be a purely physical product, but until we know, the scientific position must be as always, have all doors open. What do we gain to throw rubbish at each other?
My agnostic position remains in the question of consciousness, since no side can provide strong arguments.
If a soul provides consciousness and is immaterial and doesn't depend on a body or brain to exist, then how could drugs effect it, or a bump on the head, or brain damage. When a machine is working does it show it has a soul, and when it stops the soul continues? If we had a soul that causes consciousness how could neurologists probing the brain cause emotional responses? How could they control the movement of your body etc. Science already knows consciousness is a physical process. Just common sense shows that to be true. No brain function your dead and not conscious. As far as New Age gurus saying we have a field around us, this is true, but it's the same for a dead person and a rock at the same temperature. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Hello,
I'm an agnostic right now but would like nice strong arguments for either side. The atheist position seems a little more likely to provide these.
:-D Welcome aboard Humble Bee! Seeing how 6,000+ years of recorded history and way things are in the world now show that without a God or gods nothing would be any different in the past or now. Even if there is some kind of God or gods what good are they if they have no effect on the world or us? You are using the very old God of the gaps argument to be an agnostic. Faith is believing without evidence, and atheism is no belief without evidence.
And you are caught right in the middle because you want proof there is no God. If something doesn't exist it can't be proven it doesn't exist, but is that a reasonable position to have when that means anything can exist without evidence. Do you believe in all the Pagan Gods? We believe in one less than you do if you don't for the same reason or reasons you don't believe in the gods. Religion is based on black and white magical Neanderthal thinking that is fallacious. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Science is great. But can it be used to argue the atheist position?
Theists just say religion and science answers different questions. That there is no contradiction.
Theism is a direct contradiction to science because it is based on faith with no reliable evidence. What is the theist position on evolution? How many times in school did everyone get the correct answer to different questions? Where has religion ever agreed with science? They even have different words to convey the meaning different of science to make everything mystical and magical like "soul" that is immortal instead of mind that isn't to support their unsubstantiated dogma with not a thread of evidence to back it up. Science deals with reality, not superstitious nonsense, so no it can't argue the atheist position. If there is no evidence, science assumes it doesn't exist. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Plu"There are no arguments for atheism, only arguments against theism. The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them. It's ridiculous that you even have to say it, but that's how normal religion has become; that nobody ever has to mention that they don't believe in dragons, but that people ask for evidence to prove that there is no god, even though it's more reasonable to believe dragons exist than gods, because at least they make sense.
Ah. Is that the weak athesist position? You should not have to provide evidence.
But a strong position should produce evidence, right?
Atheism is not a strong position because if there is reliable evidence to believe in God we would. And why doesn't God show Himself to the world if He does indeed exist. Science and atheism are beliefs based on evidence not absolutes like religious faith does. You are comparing apples to oranges a logical fallacy. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Plu"The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them.
What about things that are hard to explain? Like consciousness. Science does not fully understand it. Religions say they do. No position can provide the type of evidence that the scientific model requires.
What? Religion fully understands consciousness without any evidence, and science doesn't with the science of neurology. I'm sure you mean saying we have a soul means consciousness is fully understood. How so? Science can show that consciousness is a physical event from brain activity that can be change by physical events. Religion says a soul is separate from the body with no evidence what-so-ever. All higher life forms are conscious, do they have a soul? Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Nice answer!
Quote from: "Plu"Can I ask you, what does the word "god" mean to you, anyway? There's more meanings to the word than there are people, and they all mean something completely different.
As agnostic the term may mean anything that is plausible. Hard to rule out something that can't be proven wrong.
E.g. what is the "Life Force"? The force that seems to drive conscious beings. What happens to it at death? One second the body was alive, the next dead. What is the physical difference? This "life force" could be god. Not saying or proving, but it's a theory.
Life is provided by energy and this energy cannot be destroyed or created. But this isn't consciousness. The physical difference is that one is functioning and the other isn't. Again, a God of the gaps argument. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"You are well versed!
Can you help me point out the error in this "proof" which bothers me. Get's me stuck.
1. If humans have free will, it's origin is either physical or non-physical.
2. All humans experience the freedom of choice and that they can think freely. Nothing suggests that their will should not be free. One who contradicts this, having the will not being free, must provide evidence for it and also solve the problem of what happens with ethics and moral in society if nobody did anything out of free will.
3. A will with physical origin (e.g. brain chemistry) can not be free because a strict physical explanation requires determinism, which means that the wills of humans are just a consequence of physical processes. (Randomness is not the same as choice.)
4. Since free will cannot have physical origin and the fact that it exists makes us conclude that the origin of free will is non-physical.
First of all you are assuming we have freewill. You are also assuming we make choices based on either or, when there are multiple reasons we make choices. We make choices based on our history, biology, emotions, knowledge and reasoning, not just an on off switch. In that sense we have free will, but it's nothing like what religion says about it. We live in a society and make choices based on the morals we learn of the society we live in. A tiger that kills humans doesn't get to live because it is responsible for the deaths not because it has freewill.
You idea of determinism is that there is just one thing that determines a choice or action when it is determine by a history of events. You are correct that randomness is not the same as choice, but you are assuming choices are based on randomness because of it being a physical process which is not correct because reasoning is taking that randomness into consideration before making a choice. Why can't freewill have a physical origin? We are a physical being not a ghost. Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
Accepting nonsense leads us nowhere. There is a fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, which basically goes 'you don't have an explanation so you should accept my explanation'. Like if I can't account for what happens to hundreds of people who go missing in NYC every year, someone else's theory that many of them are abducted by aliens has to be taken seriously because hey, at least they have an explanation.
It's understandable why primitive peope got the idea their bodies contain an invisible spirit divisible from their physical form. Every night they had experiences where they seemed to be wandering around doing stuff while their bodies were asleep. We have pretty good reason these days to think that's not what is actually happening when we're dreaming. The original mystery a spirit would have been the proposed solution for has been solved.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Religion is wrong all of the time.
Problem is we can't know that right? Religions say consciousness comes from a spirit soul. You say this is wrong. Must you not have evidence for saying that?
Of course we can know that. We have consciousness because we have a brain-body, and anything that effects the body effects the brain and consciousness. How can religion know we have a soul and science can't even though it knows we are conscious and what causes it. Where does soul come into the picture with science? Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"If we have no free will, we can not choose to be ethical or moral or not, and neither can society.
Nice!
But isn't there a problem that if we so to speak know there is no free will, now one can be held responsible for anything. If a person steals your car, should you have it back and he get punished? No, because this was coming, nothing conscious could stop it, the person could not choose not to steal the car.
We can be held responsible because we did do whatever. A tiger or pit bull is responsible for what it does, and even a rock falling and killing someone is responsible for the killing. One is held responsible because they did the deed and, because they are alive and have free will, but to protect society they are put away or executed, not because some religion says they need to be punished.
There is no justice only injustice, and what we call justice is the belief in retribution as taught by religion, or to satisfy our lust for revenge based on our emotions. Of course a person can choose not to steal a car, not because of free will, but because he has reasoned it out and "determined" that it is wrong to do so because he wouldn't want it done to himself or loved ones. Solitary
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Solitary"More on this later, I have to eat breakfast. Solitary
Free will says you don't have to. :-D
He! He! I know, I did it anyway because my unconscious mind told me to. :shock: Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Hello,
I'm an agnostic right now but would like nice strong arguments for either side. The atheist position seems a little more likely to provide these.
The atheist position has no arguments. We simply disbelieve the theist arguments.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Humble Bee"Hello,
I'm an agnostic right now but would like nice strong arguments for either side. The atheist position seems a little more likely to provide these.
The atheist position has no arguments. We simply disbelieve the theist arguments.
This ^^ Like this ^ Well said.
Just so everyone is on the same page, you should read //http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html. Pay particular attention to the definition of 'agnostic'
QuotePositively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
(I assume that the man who invented the word knew what he intended it to mean.) It doesn't mean not knowing whether you believe in a god or not. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with belief or gods.
And atheism has absolutely nothing to do with conclusions.
The two are 'orthogonal' - their meanings don't have anything in common.
MOST atheists are agnostic and many theists are also. ("I'm pretty sure that the god I believe in exists" is an agnostic position. So is "I don't see any evidence of any god".)
Arguments for atheism? It's the default position, the same as the default position for any existential assertion. You claim X exists, I don't accept the claim without evidence that you're correct. Whether it's that you're a billionaire, you've solved Fermat's Last Theorem or that one or another god exists, my response is the same - "show me the evidence". Bill Gates could easily show evidence for the first one, some mathematical genius might work out the second one, but in many thousands of years no one has been able to show the slightest shred of actual evidence for the third claim. So I remain unconvinced - which makes me an atheist.
It has nothing to do with laughing derisively at theists who make ludicrous claims, although that part can be fun.
Howdy Humble Bee!
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Religion is wrong all of the time.
Problem is we can't know that right? Religions say consciousness comes from a spirit soul. You say this is wrong. Must you not have evidence for saying that?
That is a common point made by non- atheists.
Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?
We had a "soul" thread actually...
in terms of "spirit" soul? No evidence of it as far as we can tell.
James Brown had a lot of soul though... but we can't talk to him about that any more be cause he didn't "feel good"
Quote from: "Colanth"(I assume that the man who invented the word knew what he intended it to mean.)
Yes! There are all kinds of uses for the word [agnostic] out there right now, almost enough to say the word has many meanings, but technically it seems most accurate to use it as it was intended. And one reason to use it as intended is that some of the colloquial uses don't even make sense.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Science is great. But can it be used to argue the atheist position?
Theists just say religion and science answers different questions. That there is no contradiction.
Of course there is a contradiction. Science use solid evidence verified by independent means. Religion uses blind faith.
Your problem is that you are battling eons on cultural institutional brainwashing. No logical person would accept anything on faith.
Example. I hand you a box. I say that the box holds the most valuable thing in the world worth more than all other riches combined. Now you take that box to the bank and try and buy a house with it. They would demand you open that box.
Religion has demanded that you accept that box and not only never open it, but never question what is inside. AND it also tells you to accept what anyone of religious authority tells you is in the box. That authority comes in many forms from a book of allagory and folklore to TV evangelist extorting money out of old ladies.
Does that seem logical? Does it even seem rational?
Atheism says, okay lets open the box before we do anything rash.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Plu"The only thing you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in things that have no evidence for them.
What about things that are hard to explain? Like consciousness. Science does not fully understand it. Religions say they do. No position can provide the type of evidence that the scientific model requires.
You can't simply explain anything like consciousness by saying that because science can't explain it it must be a god's doing. We didn't have manmade light until a caveman learn to start a fire. We learned to fly but that didn't happen until man had been around for eons.
The thing is that theist always attribute what isn't fully understood to a higher power. They NEVER actually make a connection of said higher power and the thing that is unexplained. To do so they'd have to prove a higher power existed, and THEN they'd have to show a direct connection.
It's like a murder trial. The burden of proof is on the prosecution (the theist). They make a claim that someone committed a murder, but all the evidence that they have is that there is a murder victim. The prosecution has to not only show means, motive, and opportunity, but they actually have to show conclussively that the defendent actually committed the crime.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "Jason78"Oh we can definitely show religions to be wrong when they make specific claims about the nature of consciousness. Religions say that consciousness comes from a spirit soul according to you? That is a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
The nonsense argument isn't that strong though, is it? Here we have something that is hard to explain and when one party comes up with a solution you throw nonsense at it instead of providing your own theory or disproving the solution. That leads us nowhere, I think.
Many atheists acknowledges that the full theory of consciousness is yet to be presented. Is it then scientific at this stage to rule out the possibility of a spirit soul providing it? One can be determined that science will one day prove consciousness to be a purely physical product, but until we know, the scientific position must be as always, have all doors open. What do we gain to throw rubbish at each other?
My agnostic position remains in the question of consciousness, since no side can provide strong arguments.
Nonsense is a statement that describes what someone has tried to foist on you. Of course it is strong.
If I said every day I fly around the sun, you just can't see me when I do it. I don't expect you to PROVE that I didn't do it just because you said "nonsense". You should expect me to prove what I claimed to be true. In otherwords "nonsense' really means "I don't believe you until you prove it."
Your problem is that someone has convinced you that you have to disprove something. It is the burden of the claiment to prove what they have claimed. They made up their god, so they are responsible for proving their god.
It's not throwing out rubbish by not accepting the possibilty of a god controlling consciousness. It's not adding rubbish to the equation.
If I wanted to prove scientifically that consciousness was a physical/chemical thing, I wouldn't add into my process that maybe a giant purple cow from some far off planet was controlling consciousness. You see, it's not ADDING rubbish by discounting and ignoring an unproven theory!
You have a misconception about morality.
Morality NEVER came from religion. What is moral changes over time. Society dictates what is moral and ethical. It's not a majority thing either. It is purely what a particular society holds as what is right and wrong tha defines morals.
Now for something completely different!
Free will:
If you have free will your future is determined by you and your decissions in relation to your environment and condition.
If there is a god all knowing than you don't have free will. Everything has been predetermined.
In otherwords:
If you have free will there is no need for a god.
If everything for you has been predetermined by a god then there is no need for you.
Since you exist then there is no god.
I think Humble Bee might be gone.
Quote from: "SGOS"I think Humble Bee might be gone.
He, it has been night in Europe :)
Thanks everybody for all your answers! Overwhelming. Very good argumentation.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "SGOS"I think Humble Bee might be gone.
He, it has been night in Europe :)
Thanks everybody for all your answers! Overwhelming. Very good argumentation.
What part of Europe? :)
Quote from: "mykcob4"Free will:
If you have free will your future is determined by you and your decissions in relation to your environment and condition.
If there is a god all knowing than you don't have free will. Everything has been predetermined.
In otherwords:
If you have free will there is no need for a god.
If everything for you has been predetermined by a god then there is no need for you.
Since you exist then there is no god.
I know theists that claim that free will and god's allknowingness is not a contradiction, though it certainly sounds like it. I think there is a problem that god would know everything I will ever do and yet my will is still free. I will investigate what theists say, I know there is a solution, just don't remember it.
But I don't fully understand that there would be no need for a god if we have free will. Theists say just the opposite, that there is power in the free will, that when we choose god (out of love for the ultimate good or something) and turn away from the material (ego-based, hate, anger), god did not force us to do so. Supposedly we grow as human beings by making loveful choices, and take step by step toward paradise (which could be a metaphor for a very peaceful state of mind where one has very little suffering and very much joy).
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"That is a common point made by non- atheists.
Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?
Sounds a little dangerous that we could never express anything without evidence :)
What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?
QuoteBut I don't fully understand that there would be no need for a god if we have free will. Theists say just the opposite, that there is power in the free will, that when we choose god (out of love for the ultimate good or something) and turn away from the material (ego-based, hate, anger), god did not force us to do so. Supposedly we grow as human beings by making loveful choices, and take step by step toward paradise (which could be a metaphor for a very peaceful state of mind where one has very little suffering and very much joy).
This basically simplifies down to "be nice to people, it'll make you feel better". No god needed.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?
Well, first of all... What?
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"That is a common point made by non- atheists.
Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?
Sounds a little dangerous that we could never express anything without evidence :)
I'm just talking about things existing. Politics is a whole 'nother ball of wax that I don't feel like getting in to.
But no, it isn't dangerous only claiming things with evidence.
I actually think it's a lot worse to claim something without evidence. I don't know about over where you are in Europe, but in the U.S. there are public schools teaching children that Adam and Eve is a plausible beginning of the human race. There is a museum with a section that was based on the thought that dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony. My sister is borderline fundie and she thinks that unicorns may have actually existed.
If the point of education is to eliminate ignorance then why are there schools teaching it?
It's not like I'm saying: "wouldn't it be nice if there was a god that was looking out for everyone?"
That is preference. To all his own. :)
But it's a different story to rewrite findings and discoveries to hold on to something you want to believe.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "PickelledEggs"That is a common point made by non- atheists.
Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?
Sounds a little dangerous that we could never express anything without evidence :)
Why? Name one example where something you have no evidence for should be used as a course for action? I can't see any situations where that would end well.
QuoteWhat evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?
There's plenty. Loads of books on how and why it's supposed to work, as well as many examples of functioning implementations around the world. The main problem with these things is that how good they are depends on what you want from life, but it can't be denied that each of them is good at what it's designed to do.
Quote from: "Humble Bee"What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?
:wtf:
What is your purpose in bringing this up? Are you saying they are analogous to some religious claim that has zero evidence to support it? They are analogous to religions, but no one here is denying the existence of religions. But we are discussing claims made by various religions, not whether the religions exist.
And yes, if capitalism makes a claim that cannot be supported by evidence, it is just as worthless as a religious claim without evidence, and indeed many such social and political philosophies make lots of worthless claims.
But having said that, few philosophies can top religions for making idiotic claims. For example, you don't hear some capitalist say that if you avoid paying taxes, and amass a billion dollars, you will rise from the dead and go to some billionaire heaven, and no one claims Bill Gates can walk on water.
You're reaching to make a point with some pretty bad comparisons.
Have to put this in quotes because saying it came from the internet isn't enough, even though this didn't.
QuoteExperiments have shown that a network of high-level control areas of the brain begins to shape upcoming decisions long before they inter awareness. This challenges the whole notion of free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? Is free will an illusion?
While "conscious will" may be an illusion, it can be argued that our material selves do still possess a kind of free will. Every decision we make is the result of very complex calculations made by our conscious and unconscious (body) brains working together. That calculation relies on input from our immediate circumstances and our past experiences.
So the decision is uniquely ours, based on our specific knowledge, experience, and abilities. This seems pretty free to me. While others can influence us, no one has all the data that went into calculations except our unique selves, not even psychologists. Another brain operating according to the same decision algorithms as ours would not necessarily come up with the final decision, since lifetime experiences leading up to that point would be different.
Solitary
Quote from: "Humble Bee"Quote from: "mykcob4"Free will:
If you have free will your future is determined by you and your decissions in relation to your environment and condition.
If there is a god all knowing than you don't have free will. Everything has been predetermined.
In otherwords:
If you have free will there is no need for a god.
If everything for you has been predetermined by a god then there is no need for you.
Since you exist then there is no god.
I know theists that claim that free will and god's allknowingness is not a contradiction, though it certainly sounds like it. I think there is a problem that god would know everything I will ever do and yet my will is still free. I will investigate what theists say, I know there is a solution, just don't remember it.
But I don't fully understand that there would be no need for a god if we have free will. Theists say just the opposite, that there is power in the free will, that when we choose god (out of love for the ultimate good or something) and turn away from the material (ego-based, hate, anger), god did not force us to do so. Supposedly we grow as human beings by making loveful choices, and take step by step toward paradise (which could be a metaphor for a very peaceful state of mind where one has very little suffering and very much joy).
Nope if theist claim that we have free will but there is an all knowing god, then they are contridicting themselves. You wouldn't construct something that worked adverse to your goal.
This god thing is just a political tool to control the masses. It's only use is to get people to do what a few want them to do and nothing more.
I would love to own a business that has slaves that willingly and gladly work for me, because they think that in the end(after they are dead) there is an undescribed wealth. That everytime they got out of line I could not only threaten them with not receive said riches, but also threaten them with an unknown eternal torture.(BTW, I personnally wound't want such a company) That is all that religion is. Faith is belieing that story without any evidence of it being true. The bible is just a book of folklore and allagory that reinforces that lie with propaganda.
Anytime you face an arguement when one proposes a god, or attributes things to a god, demand proof. It will never materialise. The burden is theirs to prove their claim. And don't be so neive that any proof is valid, because it's not.
I don't know how many times I have asked someone to prove there is a god, and they have responded with "I know there is a god because he talks to me."
I could say Elvis whispers in my ear but that doesn't make it true.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "Humble Bee"What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?
Well, first of all... What?
The point with my question was in contrast to the statement that nothing should be claimed without evidence. I think that is too broad. I don't have much evidence to support that my favorite color is green.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"I'm just talking about things existing. Politics is a whole 'nother ball of wax that I don't feel like getting in to.
But no, it isn't dangerous only claiming things with evidence.
I actually think it's a lot worse to claim something without evidence. I don't know about over where you are in Europe, but in the U.S. there are public schools teaching children that Adam and Eve is a plausible beginning of the human race. There is a museum with a section that was based on the thought that dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony. My sister is borderline fundie and she thinks that unicorns may have actually existed.
If the point of education is to eliminate ignorance then why are there schools teaching it?
I agree. Schools must be evidence based. We don't have the same problems as you describe in our schools luckily.
Quote from: "Plu"Why? Name one example where something you have no evidence for should be used as a course for action? I can't see any situations where that would end well.
In making the choice between going to a movie or a concert a saturday night. I have no evidence for which road to take.
Quote from: "Plu"There's plenty. Loads of books on how and why it's supposed to work, as well as many examples of functioning implementations around the world. The main problem with these things is that how good they are depends on what you want from life, but it can't be denied that each of them is good at what it's designed to do.
Yeah, well of course all of them try to justify their positions with arguments. But if there would be hard core evidence there would be no debate over which system is better. Evidence would tell us.
But I think maybe that I put too much into the word evidence here. I thought of it in the science way, but evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.
Hi ALL,
I really appreciate you for participating in this thread!
I never expected this amount of replies and I simply haven't got the time to answer it all.
I've got many nice replies and much food for thought.
Thank you!
QuoteIn making the choice between going to a movie or a concert a saturday night. I have no evidence for which road to take.
This isn't a claim, though. You don't need evidence if you don't make claims. (Of course, you can rewrite it into a claim by saying "I think I will enjoy going to the movies more than listening to a concert". Then, you just need to convince yourself. And your mind will weigh pieces of evidence (like how much fun the movie sounds vs how much you'd like to see the band) and you will end up deciding based on your expectations, with your expectations being based on whatever evidence you have at hand.)
QuoteYeah, well of course all of them try to justify their positions with arguments. But if there would be hard core evidence there would be no debate over which system is better. Evidence would tell us.
The problem here is that before you can end the debate, you need to define a definition of "better". The reason we have all these systems is because we don't have one. There's plenty of evidence to show that each of these systems meet the goals they claim they meet. And as such, that implementing them will generate the kind of results the system claims it will generate.
But you can't determine which of two systems is "better" unless you can define what it means for such a system to be "best", and such rules don't exist. As such, you can only have evidence that they do what they say they do, and then you have to figure out what you want, and then find the system that best gets you to where you want to go.
It's kinda like how you can't end the debate on which color is the best. But you can have good evidence to support that a certain color is better at a certain thing than another color. For example, hot pink makes really bad camouflage, and you can easily find evidence to show it. On the other hand, green is good for both doctor's outfits and camouflage, and you can find evidence for that as well. But that still doesn't give you a blanket definition of "best" by which you could measure colors.
So there's a big difference between "socialism is best" (which is undefendable because there is no definition for "best", remember what I said about needing definitions to build a proof?) and saying "socialism is best at ensuring the poor and sick in a nation aren't left to starve on the streets", which is a claim with a bunch of working definitions that you can gather evidence for.
Religion is the existentially positive assertion that a particular god, usually with very particular properties and characteristics, exists. That's all we're asking for evidence of - that this god, with these properties and characteristics, actually exists.
We're not asking for evidence that people believe - we know that they do, and they should be free to believe anything they want to believe. (Unless it harms someone else - like the young diabetic girl who died because her parents believed that praying was better then taking her to a doctor.)
We have no problem with belief, except that it's a stupid waste of time, what we have a problem with is the effects of that belief, which are usually bad at best. The Holocaust, the Inquisitions, Bosnia, the Middle East ...
Quote from: "Colanth"We're not asking for evidence that people believe - we know that they do, and they should be free to believe anything they want to believe. (Unless it harms someone else - like the young diabetic girl who died because her parents believed that praying was better then taking her to a doctor.)
Word!
Quotebut evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.
Correct, so where is the evidence to support the hypothesis there is God, or any other god that is imaginary? Atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief. Not every claim demands an opposite claim. Evolution is a theory and not an hypothesis, but Creationism is a hypothesis, for example, so evolution would have to have a better theory to dismiss it. If religion has no need for evidence, then any thing that refutes it doesn't either. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Quotebut evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.
Correct, so where is the evidence to support the hypothesis there is God, or any other god that is imaginary? Atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief. Not every claim demands an opposite claim. Evolution is a theory and not an hypothesis, but Creationism is a hypothesis
No, sorry - Creationism is an assertion. An hypothesis is based on observations, and unless I missed the memo, no one has ever observed God. (Or anything that would lead a scientist to conclude that God exists.)