What Would Convince You To Not Believe?

Originally posted by vistesd
First of all, thanks for the discussion, and for pressing the point—keeps me on my toes. I don’t have a strategy here, by the way, and I admit that there are subtleties; but I suspect that they mostly lie at that level of justification: why one thinks this or that (or does not).

The way I see it, there are two possible logical propositions for any pers ...[text shortened]... rd, since this is the kind of area where “belief” sometimes might be turned into something else.

"(1) ... the strong atheist asserts that sufficient evidence indicates that there is no god... ",

Sorry for butting in. More simply, the strong atheist believes there is no god. He may assert it, and he may further assert that there is sufficient evidence for his assertion. But the defining characteristic is the belief that there is no god. IMO.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yes I can truthfully say that from my perspective there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or gods, what's more RJ there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the character you present to this forum as God does not exist.

"Your disbelief in God does not make you intellectually superior to those that believe in God."

No of course it doe ...[text shortened]... a belief in your pet God makes me think there is still hope for me to develop my intellect.

Then, I hope you are still a young man. 😏

Originally posted by JS357
I think so too. While agnosticism reduced to (or includes) weak atheism, I think weak atheism does not reduce to even weak agnosticism, or reduces misleadingly. It is certainly true that "I lack belief that P" implies "I do not know that P," but weak agnosticism is associated, rightly or wrongly, with a belief that P (God exists) is possibly true. I don't kno ...[text shortened]... lieve" misses by a mile. IMO no state of theological [b]belief reduces to that.[/b]

…but weak agnosticism is associated, rightly or wrongly, with a belief that P (God exists) is possibly true. I don't know even that. I don't know that "God exists" is true because the words refer to an entity being in a state that I do not know is possible. A full analysis is needed, and a full definition of the terms never seems to be made.

Yes—and that’s important, though I ignored it in my last post to kev (I really wanted to nail down the disjunction for myself, and needed to work through that). As I noted to kev, that working-through has cracked my brain for now; but I want to think about what you’ve said here.

It’ll likely take me awhile. I’m wondering if the way that Wittgenstein used the word “mystical” in the Tractatus is not synonymous with a kind of strong agnosticism with regard to certain questions for which our thinking that we can validly ask them stems from what he later called “bewitchment by language”. For things that actually are outside the grammar of our consciousness (which is not necessarily exhaustive of the larger syntax of the universe). ???

Originally posted by JS357
"(1) ... the strong atheist asserts that sufficient evidence indicates that there is no god... ",

Sorry for butting in. More simply, the strong atheist believes there is no god. He may assert it, and he may further assert that there is sufficient evidence for his assertion. But the defining characteristic is the belief that there is no god. IMO.

Agreed. Good catch.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't think anything can happen that would strip me completely of my faith. But one thing that would challenge me the most, is if aliens with superior technology visited us, and proceeded to convince us that they did all this, and they inspired the bible for their own purposes.

In fact, I've often thought about what an interesting movie it would be; hu ...[text shortened]... then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them.

The assumption there is that we would have somehow triumphed over our quite human nature to subjugate and conquer any civilization that is technologically inferior to our own. I'm not so sure.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Things are always simple for theist's and atheists, that is why theist's and atheist's get on so well, one does not really make sense without the other.

You can tell me I am a weak/agnostic atheist until you are blue in your strong/gnostic atheist face, but it will only be true for you, from your atheist viewpoint

I understand your strategy of dividin ...[text shortened]... of god or gods.

We need more knowledge, belief is meaningless in it's subjectivity.

It is true atheism does not make sense without theism.

If belief in a deity wasn't such a big thing there would be no need nor point to have a label for those that don't have this delusion.
Just as there is no term for people who don't believe in bigfoot, or Father Christmas.

However belief in god/s is a big deal and thus a label is required for those who don't believe.

However you have an objection to this word belief. fine lets replace it with the relevant meaning.

A theist is someone who has a firm conviction that a god exists.
An atheist is someone who does not have a firm conviction that a god exists.

As you should be able to see there is no other possibility.

You are either convinced a god exists or you are not.


If you are going the complete agnostic and say we can't know anything either way about gods existence (you can but that's a different debate)
then "ok, fine, but that's irrelevant". You (based on what you are saying) DON'T have a firm conviction that a god really does exist.

Thus you are an atheist.

This is as basic as saying that everything that is not A is ~A.

I think that a lot of atheist's confuse a rational rejection of any known dogmatic text purported to be the word of a god or gods by theist's
with evidence of the non existence of god or gods.

Ok well I disagree that that is generally the case but it certainly doesn't apply to me or frankly any atheist I can think of offhand on this site.

unfortunately I have not observed any evidence for the non existence of god or gods either.

So?

The burden of proof is always on those making a positive claim.

The default neutral position is always unbelief (or ~knowledge if you prefer) until evidence is supplied either way.

Thus the default position to any claim of a gods existence is to 'not have a firm conviction that a god exists' until evidence is presented to justify it.

This position is included in atheism and thus atheism is the default position. (on this topic)

Originally posted by Suzianne
The assumption there is that we would have somehow triumphed over our quite human nature to subjugate and conquer any civilization that is technologically inferior to our own. I'm not so sure.

or not. in the faith you believe, biblegod promises to sent his son/general with an invading army to conquer the nations of the earth and rule over them with an iron fist.

that would apply as an alien civilization with superior technology subjugating a culture inferior to their own. something very human.

Correction before someone else catches it: In my previous (T or ~T) post, I used the phrase "true disjunction" incorrectly. I could have said "exclusive" (as opposed to "inclusive" ) disjunction, although it turns out that that would be an old usage and I think that disjunction is now reserved for the inclusive type.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is true atheism does not make sense without theism.

If belief in a deity wasn't such a big thing there would be no need nor point to have a label for those that don't have this delusion.
Just as there is no term for people who don't believe in bigfoot, or Father Christmas.

However belief in god/s is a big deal and thus a label is required for t is included in atheism and thus atheism is the default position. (on this topic)

You want to ignore the importance of faith and belief.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

(Hebrew 11:1-3 NASB)

Today, do you understand what they understood only by faith in the word of God? That is, that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You want to ignore the importance of faith and belief.

[b]Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

(Hebrew 11:1-3 NASB) ...[text shortened]... he word of God? That is, that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.[/b]

"...so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Heb 11:3

That sounds like: "The Democritus model is the earliest atomic model of which there is written evidence. Democritus, the author of this model, lived from 460 BC to 370 BC. He was an ancient philosopher that spent more of his time wandering into the realm of science than actually espousing philosophy. He was the first to use the term atom and proposed that atoms were mechanically bound. It seemed to him that if atoms stayed together they did it with a system like a hook and eye. While we know that this is not true, he was very far ahead of his time by acknowledging the existence of the atom and many people consider him the father of modern science for his contributions."

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/60137/democritus-model/#ixzz29tE602k2

Originally posted by vivify
For religious folks here, what would be a legitimate reason to not believe in your chosen? In other words, what kind of evidence would be needed in order disprove the validity of the god you follow?

If someone could come up with a cause for everything from nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
"...so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Heb 11:3

That sounds like: "[b]The Democritus model is the earliest atomic model of which there is written evidence. Democritus, the author of this model, lived from 460 BC to 370 BC. He was an ancient philosopher that spent more of his time wandering into the realm of science than ...[text shortened]... ributions."

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/60137/democritus-model/#ixzz29tE602k2[/b]

So what is this supposed to mean? So are you trying to say their faith in the word of God going back to the Genesis account of god creating the heavens and the Earth out of nothing (or at least nothing visible) has nothing to do with there belief in God?

P.S. The article does not say how and what caused Democritus and Leucippus to believe these ideas. I wonder what was their evidence. Perhaps, it also is faith based, since they were philosophers.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If someone could come up with a cause for everything from nothing.
Kelly

Well for starters that would be a daft reason not to believe in a god because it's really pretty much totally irrelevant
to whether or not one exists.

And secondly, Who says that there was a beginning that needed a first cause?

And thirdly, as you have been told before, we observe things appearing/happening without any cause all the time.
And can also appear from nothing, depending on how you define that.


So given that things appear to be able to happen without a cause....

And depending on what you define as nothing things seem to be able to appear from that as well....

That there is no requirement that everything must have a 'first cause'....

And that even if none of that were true it has little to no barring on whether or not a god or gods exist....

Why would being able to prove (oh no, I see you say 'come up with' which is a whole lot easier) a 'cause' for everything
from nothing be a reason for you to stop believing in (having a firm conviction of the existence of) your god?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If someone could come up with a cause for everything from nothing.
Kelly

No one believes that. Not athiests, not evolutionists, no one. So why would someone need to "come up with a cause" for this?

Originally posted by vivify
No one believes that. Not athiests, not evolutionists, no one. So why would someone need to "come up with a cause" for this?

Science has back-pedaled a number of times since the days when the "Big Bang" became the cure-all answer for the existence of this universe.

First it was: "Everything exploded into existence from nothing."

Now it is: "Well, what we meant to say was, everything used to be condensed into a single, infinitely small, point of singularity, until it exploded into this universe."

But when asked, "Ok... then what outside force caused the explosion?" --- we find that science is still carrying the same bag of tricks. Something from nothing.

If science wants to claim the universe exploded into existence, then objective scientists (try as they must) cannot escape this fact: every effect has an antecedent cause. Something cannot bring itself into existence, else it would both exist--and not exist--at the same time and in the same relation, which is a felonious breaking of the fundamental scientific law of causality.