Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm 139 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  Essan:

  Let me restate my definitions:

  Athest1: "I know with 100% abselute certainty there is no God"

  Atheist2: "I believe there is no God" in the sence of: "I believe the probability there is a God is very, very low"

  You wrote: I can't accept your new definition for atheist until you have justified it, which you haven't as yet, IMO

  Do i really need to justify a definition i make to describe what myself and many other think? Isnt it enough its well-defined and it describe many people? It allows you to claim that all those "atheists 1's" you'd like to disenfranchise aren't really saying what they are blatantly saying when they say it and mean it, Not at all! I make it very clear i believe the two statements are quite different, and i agree quite strongly with those who belong to the first category. If they really fit category 1, let them stay with that delusion for all i care! I want to add that I might be the only one in category 2, but i dont really think i have met anyone who is in category1 on this forum. and even to project that magic spell back in time so whenever an"Atheist" is quoted as saying "I believe there is no God" you can say, "Ah well, you see, he doesn't really mean it. It's scientific code."LOL. Again you seem to put words into my mouth. First off, i describe a common usage of a word which can be found in ordinary textbooks. You might want to reflect upon that before you call it "code" and "magic spell". Secondly, i do not try to put words into the mouths of other, i try to point out that you may be doing that by ignoring a second meaning of the word "believe". The most fair thing to do is to read what these people have written on the subject in contex, or simply ask them. For example, lets take Dawkins - the chapter where he describe his belief in "The God Delusion" has the title: "Why there is allmost certainly no God" - Look! He does not imply certainty! Personally, i havent met more hardline atheist than Dawkins, but he is far to softline to fall into the "atheist1" category. Do you agree that Dawkins, by making the statement above, would not fit the atheist1-category and seem to be an atheist2? Doublespeak. But I understand the concept, so I'll go with it. Very strong accusation. Please point out where i make doublespeak. I think i am doing all i can to make my definitions very clear. Now, i make the argument that "belive" can have the meaning in science that one think a statement is true with very high probability. You bring this up as an example:

  Something to note is that if such scientists ever said, as they frequently do, something like "I believe X to highly probable" then this pretty much destroys your theory, because it would be a tautology

  You miss the point, saying: "I believe in X", "I believe X is highly probable", "I believe the probability that X is true is high" is pretty much the same statement repeated in different ways; perhaps there is a small nuance that the first statement implies more certainty.

  I really fail to see how arguing "believe" can be used in different ways invalidate my argument "believe" can be used in different ways. A better way would be to look at the way believe is actually used by scientists, which is what i do.

  Your conclusion does not seem to follow:

  If it doesn't even consistently have that meaning in a scientific context then there is no possible way it can have that meaning when used by ordinary atheists.

  What? If a word has two meanings when used by scientists, it cannot have two meanings when used by other people? Thats just silly!

  You first seem to argue my usage is wrong. Then you seem to backtrack on that and say, "...and even if you are right, you are still wrong because other people would not use it like that!" But you are totally missing that scientists who are atheists, who might write books on atheism, might know both meanings. Can you come up with a scientist who happends to be an atheist who write books on atheism?

  I think the backtracking is due to the fact you realize I can actually quote scientists who use the word like that. You write:

  You are making a huge leap there. The fact that some scientists, sometimes, might use the word "believe" in the way you describe in scientific textbooks doesn't mean all "atheists", from all different backgrounds do, generally, in life do. You haven't proven that "atheists" use "believe" as part of a special scientific vocabulary - you haven't even proven that all Scientists do.

  Look,

  Saying i imply all atheists use it that way is a strawman; i never made that statement or anything to that effect. I say that most people who call themselves atheists - those i call atheist2 - generally mean something to that effect. And whats up with all scientists? I quote Janes - he is not an everyday idiot, he is pretty much the driving force behind introducing information theory into statistical mechanics - is he not good enough for you? If you want other references, just google "bayesian inference" and read.
• 

  bohm

  Essan (continued due to formattting problem)

  More to the point, What is your basis for claiming my usage of the word "belief" is obscure? I happends to study the subject, and i have run into it many, many times.

  By your theory, when a scientist says "I believe the earth is flat" they actually only mean "I think it highly probable that the earth is flat"? I think we both know that can't be true. If a scientist said something like that it would show that they use "believe", at least sometimes, to mean "I am sure that...". For example they might say "I believe God does not exist", and mean: "I am sure God does not exist". And so we are back to square one, with believe meaning exactly what it does to everyone else, including Theists.

  No we dont both know that because it just aint true! This is completely central to theory formation in science. Its completely basic bayesian material. Really, how should scientists come to the conclusion some particular idea is 100% true? When should that happend?

  What i find so puzzling by that statement is that you contradict yourself. You wrote later:

  Actually even denying Santa and the Easter bunny takes some degree of faith. LOL If this were still a classically physical world such heresy might be forgivable, but in a world of quantum weirdness and of 'many worlds' and possibly 'many minds', the denial of any possibility, no matter how seemingly unlikely, now requires a conscious act of faith on the part of any informed mind .

  So let me get this straight: It takes a leap of faith to deny Santa, but we both know the earth is abselutely 100% not flat?

  How can it be that when you talk to me, denying the earth of flat is something we both know everyone do. But when you talk to others, it suddenly take a leap of faith!

  Last question:

  If we cannot deny any possibility, no matter how unlikely, cant we at best say that some possibility we find contradictory evidence for is very, very improbable?
• 

  Essan

  Bohm, I just wrote a long reply but it didn't post and I lost it.

  I don't have anymore time right now, but what I will say is that most of the answers to your objections are actually in the previous posts. I seem to find myself typing the same things over and over again in responses (not just to you) because the points were not comprehended the first time.

  For instance, your last post. Try reading the statements of mine you quoted again regarding a "flat earth" more carefully and note the context. What am I saying "can't be true"? That the earth can't be flat? Or must I be saying that your theory can't be true because nobody would reasonably conclude that when a scientist says "I believe the earth is not flat" that they doing so with any degree of uncertainty. They would generally be conveying absolute unreserved certainty and I think we all know it. I am not the subject of that sentence, the hypothetical scientist is. I may think that ultimately strict agnosticism is the wisest stance, but it's a rare scientist to who feels the same.

  I think you'd struggle to find a scientist who wasn't 100% certain when he made the statement "I believe the earth is not flat". Do you think if we gave Dawkins a call now and mused on the possibility of a flat earth that we'd receive anything but contempt and absolute insistence of the roundness of the earth?

  So there is no contradiction between these statements. If you go back and read more carefully you'll find the vast majority of your objections, as here, are already answered in previous posts, you just didn't see it.

  As for the rest, I'll be back. :)
• 

  Essan

  Hi Caedes,

  Only a brief rsponse to your right now also.

  "You said: Err no, everyone does not agree. Interesting that you should presume to speak for 'everyone', how egotistical."

  First of all, do you think we can keep this civil? I could do without the personal attacks from yet another poster. Let's just deal with the issues. If you think my statements are flawed then just disprove them. We don't need to start causticly launching negative judgments right from the first sentence. Fair enough?

  What I said was that everyone acknowledges the need for a 'First Cause". I didn't say that cause was God. If there are people who feel the universe doesn't require any cause at all, then, as bizarre as that sounds to me and as much as it is news to me, then yes, it would be inaccurate to say that everyone acknowledges the necessity of a cause. You quoted Hawking "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.". But you make a switch here, I feel. I said everyone acknowledges a need for a first cause. Hawking doesn't say the Universe doesn't need a first cause, as far as I can see, he just claims that cause isn't God. So this doesn't disprove what I said. For Hawking the "First Cause" is perhaps the Big Bang - but he still has a First Cause.

  My point was that seeing as almost everyone (acceptable?) as far as I am aware acknowledges the need for a first cause, and because the Universe apparently displays complex "design", it is reasonable for some to assign that to an Intelligent First Cause - which came to be known as God. It is a reasonable position. My point is that it is not the ridiculous fantasy you insist it is by comparing it to Santa and the Easter Bunny. I think that is a very unreasonable comparison.

  There is a staggering amount of empirical evidence for this position - the entire Universe. But as with most evidence it can be interpreted various ways. Remember, I'm not arguing that Theism is correct, just not the laughable fairy tale you claim. Despite my clearly stating that I am not a Theist you and several other posters seem to want to cast me in that role.

  You said: "Strangely, I would think that the 'answer' of god is about as unsatisfying as one could get, a first cause exempt from the rules of cause and effect is a child's explanation"

  You speak of a "first cause exempt from the rules of cause and effect" as being childish, but you yourself state "I don't acknowledge that the universe requires a first cause". So something from nothing, something subject to cause, but uncaused is more "adult" a conclusion than something from something else?

  What makes your uncaused Universe any less childish than an uncaused God?

  You said: "The many worlds hypothesis has not been proven"

  True, yet it is taken very seriously by science and credible many scientists believe it, or other theories almost equally as bizarre.

  You continue: "but even if it were, no scientific theory allows for the supernatural. You do understand that science only deals with empirically provable phenomena?"

  This isn't really true. Define "supernatural".. Quantum physics displays many "supernatural" phenomena, but as they come to be discovered and slowly understood they are incorporated into our scientific understanding. And we are only just beginning to understand the quantum world. We have no idea where this investigation with lead. What is supernatural today may be seen as natural tomorrow. We can't rule out what we deem to be "supernatural" now because science may discover it later. Science doesn't only deal with empirically provable phenomena, it takes many theories very seriously and attempts to prove them. The empirical proof comes later.

  Oh, turned out not to be as brief as I'd imagined.

  Now let's stay civil. :)
• 

  bohm

  Essan: I hate it when that happends.

  I may think that ultimately strict agnosticism is the wisest stance, but it's a rare scientist to who feels the same.

  I think you'd struggle to find a scientist who wasn't 100% certain when he made the statement "I believe the earth is not flat"

  So if i get you right, you basically agree with my point - that strictly, technically speaking, in the most anal sence of the words, we cant know for sure if santa exist or not, if the earth is flat or not, etc. - what we can be is very, very sure it is so, ie. with very high probability, that it is so, and we can live our lives under the assumption the earth is round, santa is not there, bacteria exist, etc.

  1) Since you take that position, i will assume you agree with me that this is the most sound position (even though it makes language a bit complicated), right?

  2) You will also agree with me when i tell you this is the basic idea behind bayesian probability theory?

  3) In the light of that, dont you think most scientists would agree with you (and me) on this topic if we ask them?

  What im getting at is that you seem to think scientists are a fairly dense crowd, who dont "get" basic principles in inferrense. I can only say that it is contrary to my experience - what do you base this on?

  Do you think if we gave Dawkins a call now and mused on the possibility of a flat earth that we'd receive anything but contempt and absolute insistence of the roundness of the earth?

  No, ofcourse not! We would deserve it - there is overwhelming evidence that suggest the earth is round. Would you not find it quite silly if someone gave you such a call?

  BUT i do think if we called Dawkins and asked him:

  "Yo D! Techinically speaking, can we know for sure with absolute, 100% certainty that the earth is not flat, or should we rather say we believe the earth is round with extremely high probability?"

  he would say yes.

  4) In the light of the previous, what do you think he would answer to that question?
• 

  bohm

  Essan: I cant help but copy this from your previous post:

  You said: "The many worlds hypothesis has not been proven"

  True, yet it is taken very seriously by science and credible many scientists believe it, or other theories almost equally as bizarre.

  When you say "many scientists believe it", do you then use believe in the sence of:

  1) The absolutely believe it is true, no doubt, 100% certain.

  2) They think it is true with somewhat high probability

  3) They think is the most likely explanation, of those they can think of.

  Contrast this with: "I believe there is no God".

  My point is actually that option 2 and 3 exist and is valid use of the word. If its only option 1 that is a valid use of the word, well, those scientists are pretty dumb.
• 

  Essan

  Bohm, this is no different to Theistic "belief", which often includes a varying percentage of doubt bridged by faith to reach - "Belief".

  Remember what the main debate is, that Atheistic belief is radically different to Theistic belief. I haven't accepted the bait and switch that your posited scientific "belief" (which you have not shown is standard among Scientists) is the same as atheistic "belief" because you have absolutely failed to prove this connection.

  Atheist are not exclusively scientists. They use "believe" as people generally use believe. Atheism as a word or a philosophy did not arise in a lab, nor was it formed from technical scientific language. And in any case, scientists commonly use "believe" in the same way as everybody else.

  You have no case. LOL.
• 

  bohm

  Essan: Could you outline the difference between theistic and "atheistic" belief? (i suppose that is atheist1?)

  I haven't accepted the bait and switch that your posited scientific "belief" (which you have not shown is standard among Scientists) is the same as atheistic "belief" because you have absolutely failed to prove this connection.

  Look, the atheists you talk about - atheist1 - are a pack of nuts. I dont claim to talk about them.

  Also - regarding the bolded section - can you contrast that with my very last post?
• 

  Essan

  PS Bohm,

  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "Atheism" was developed by Scientists is a lab, and the concept released into the world. LOL. In that lab, the Scientists only ever used "belief" to indicate probability (all fantasy, but no matter). So, they release "Atheism" as a concept into the non-scientific world with the mantra "Atheists - We do not believe in God". And this idea finds a home in receptive minds. There was no "manual" that came with this notion. No guidebook to scientific language. So when a non-scientist picks up this mantra and thinks "Yeah, I agree with that". He has no idea that "believe" means anything other than believe has always meant to him. He doesn't know the code. When he repeats it "I believe there is no God" he means it.

  The worlds atheists were not schooled in the scientific code. To them, believe means believe. Even if it were the case that these hypothetical Scientists meant "probably", there is no way that they were able to convey this usage to all atheists. It's nonsense. In fact, atheism springs up everywhere, in all backgrounds, throughout the centuries. It didn't come from scientists and has no connection to scientific language.

  If you could prove the technical scientific origin, which you can't, your point is still as crazy as saying that because a knife designer designed his knife for cutting vegetables (but boxed the knife labeled only as "knife") then all who bought his knife are incapable of harming anyone or using it for any other purpose because the knife was designed only for vegetables. LOL. "No these ones never mean any harm, when they use the knife they mean only to cut vegetables, because that's is what the knife was designed for, they adhere to the intent and meaning of the item as determined by it's designers. They can't use this knife for anything else."

  How can all the worlds atheists be using "belief" differently to everyone else, and differently to the way they use it in every other context, and as part of some supposed technical scientific language without anyone ever telling them about it? Some kind of supernatural planetary osmosis?
• 

  Caedes

  First of all, do you think we can keep this civil? I could do without the personal attacks from yet another poster.

  Perhaps, you need to develop a thicker skin, stating that it is egotistical to presume to speak for everyone is not a personal attack it is a direct criticism of your statement.

  What I said was that everyone acknowledges the need for a 'First Cause". I didn't say that cause was God. If there are people who feel the universe doesn't require any cause at all, then, as bizarre as that sounds to me and as much as it is news to me, then yes, it would be inaccurate to say that everyone acknowledges the necessity of a cause. You quoted Hawking "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.". But you make a switch here, I feel. I said everyone acknowledges a need for a first cause. Hawking doesn't say the Universe doesn't need a first cause, as far as I can see, he just claims that cause isn't God. So this doesn't disprove what I said. For Hawking the "First Cause" is perhaps the Big Bang - but he still has a First Cause.

  If by 'first cause' you mean an entirely natural phenomenon resulting from pre-big bang physics then I have no problem with a 'first cause' unfortunately your choice of words has a supernatural connotation which is simply not scientific. Professor Hawking is stating that something can come from nothing a position fundamentally at odds with your position I believe, he is stating there was no cause just the consequence of physical laws.

  My point was that seeing as almost everyone (acceptable?) as far as I am aware acknowledges the need for a first cause, and because the Universe apparently displays complex "design", it is reasonable for some to assign that to an Intelligent First Cause - which came to be known as God. It is a reasonable position. My point is that it is not the ridiculous fantasy you insist it is by comparing it to Santa and the Easter Bunny. I think that is a very unreasonable comparison.

  Just because lots of people believe something does not automatically mean that it is reasonable or true. It is reasonable to compare a belief system that has no empirical evidence to another with no evidence. You simply stating that it is unreasonable is not compelling, why is it unreasonable to compare a belief system such as kissing hank's ass (feel free to find it on the net) with another belief system that offers similar levels of evidence such as believing in god?

  There is a staggering amount of empirical evidence for this position - the entire Universe. But as with most evidence it can be interpreted various

  ways. Remember, I'm not arguing that Theism is correct, just not the laughable fairy tale you claim. Despite my clearly stating that I am not a

  Theist you and several other posters seem to want to cast me in that role.

  The entire universe is not evidence for god, there is no evidence found so far that it is anything but a natural phenomenon. I have not stated that I think you are a theist, I don't understand what difference it makes if you are or not. I am merely responding to your arguments.

  You speak of a "first cause exempt from the rules of cause and effect" as being childish, but you yourself state "I don't acknowledge that the universe requires a first cause". So something from nothing, something subject to cause, but uncaused is more "adult" a conclusion than something from something else?

  What makes your uncaused Universe any less childish than an uncaused God?

  Because my (and your) universe is an entirely natural phenomenon shaped entirely by the laws of physics. The theist universe is exactly the same with a supernatural phenomenon tacked on. You should probably re-read my initial post, I highlighted the word required. I didn't say I took a position on the cause of the big bang one way or another, my only position is that the big bang is a natural phenomenon. What came 'before' isn't likely to be proven one way or another in my lifetime, if at all.

  You said: "The many worlds hypothesis has not been proven"

  True, yet it is taken very seriously by science and credible many scientists believe it, or other theories almost equally as bizarre.

  The fact that some natural phenomena are not fully understood, (for example the double slit experiment) does not make the phenomena supernatural. By definition all scientific phenomena is natural.

  You continue: "but even if it were, no scientific theory allows for the supernatural. You do understand that science only deals with empirically provable phenomena?"

  This isn't really true. Define "supernatural".. Quantum physics displays many "supernatural" phenomena, but as they come to be discovered and

  slowly understood they are incorporated into our scientific understanding. And we are only just beginning to understand the quantum world. We have

  no idea where this investigation with lead. What is supernatural today may be seen as natural tomorrow. We can't rule out what we deem to

  be "supernatural" now because science may discover it later. Science doesn't only deal with empirically provable phenomena, it takes many

  theories very seriously and attempts to prove them. The empirical proof comes later.

  So you mean it isn't really true if you redefine supernatural to include natural phenomena?

  (BTW; Theories have already been proven, hypotheses are unproven scientific ideas.)

  The fact that science seeks to prove new ideas is trivial and has nothing to do with what people mean by the word supernatural. The empirical proof doesn't come later, the empirical proof is the science. Quantum mechanics isn't a scientific word for magic.

  Now let's stay civil. :)

  I'm always civil, just ask anyone here! ;-)