Context is Everything

[jetfx]

Piddling around the internet on my day off when I should be writing the next brilliant science fiction novel (currently pages of plotless background), I tend to come across lots of wonderful gems that show how the large majority of us have not learned to properly interpret the media around us. That any news is never the full story and that feeding

Comments

[jetfx]

Quickly checking the definition of atheism, since you asked me to, atheism is at least a lack of a belief in deities. It does include the positive denial of the the existence of god, but that is best known as strong atheism, but atheism at its base is non belief rather than denial.

"God exists" is a hypothesis. When one makes a hypothesis, one is responsible for the proof, the 'burdern of proof'. Simply stating that a hypothesis cannot be disproved is actually a logical fallacy called negative proof. As an atheist I would only have to refute any proof of god, not bring forward proof of not god. "God does not exist" is actually the default position, not a counter hypothesis, because then it implies that there is some sort of other default, which is logically impossible in case between existence and non-existence. For all statements about reality, non-existence is the default state. Any hypothesis that states the existence of something must be proved. You can't prove non-existence, it's not logically possible.

If the question is beyond us, then belief in god is irrelevant. If god is unknowable, then nothing true can be said about him. What would there to believe in? In that case we would be back to atheism, because if nothing can be known about god, we still have no evidence.

While yes, we know the world around as insofar as we experience it, on the flip side the idea of Kant's ultimate reality is also meaningless. Simply because we cannot perceive the nature of the "true" reality in any way, it is completely irrelevant. If we cannot perceive it, it can have no effect on the universe. Simply put, this "true" reality is completely separate from actual reality. That also means that no other self aware entity we could meet can ever perceive more than us either, because then they would be able to affect us with this knowledge. If nothing can ever be known about it, it does not exist. Quite arguably, we don't have an anthropocentric view of reality, we have the final view of reality.

I'm a hard materialist by the way.

[amfmampmadbc]

From your source: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." In other words, Atheists Believe that there is No God.

I have heard of the "weak atheist" "strong atheist" split in sects(Get the religious reference?), but weak atheism is essentially the same as agnosticism.

Compare the two definitions and they're essentially the same.

So let's concentrate on Strong Atheism.

Strong Atheism is torn apart by Kant's philosophy, but you claim that Kant's philosophy is inapplicable here.

Why is Kant's philosophy inapplicable?

Kant's argument is irrefutable. So is the solipsist perspecitve. The skeptic is the victor. But the atheist is not a skeptic. The atheist is a dogmatist.

Neitzche argued against Kant by means of sarcasm and mockery. But he certainly didn't prove that Kant was wrong. If you're talking about something as metaphysical as "god" then you must revert to the Kantian or Solipsist perspective. We are restricted, in our analysis of reality, to the perceptions we are granted. Reality cannot be perceived, therefore there are aspects of reality that we do not know.

It only follows that there may or may not be a god. Why is the burden of proof placed solely on those who claim that something exists. Who decided that? Why are they correct? Just because somebody said something, does that mean that it's true?

The fact is: There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. why is negative proof a legitimate concept? Why is the burden of proof on the others, and not on you?

[jetfx]

I still don't understand where you're getting this idea that atheism is dogmatic. What articles of faith make up this 'religion'? That we're united by what we don't think exists? Besides atheism is an issue of evidence, not faith. I don't blindingly 'believe' in the non-existence of god. I do not fall into that trap, because atheism isn't a matter of faith.

How is strong atheism torn apart by Kant's philosophy? You've got to demonstrate it, not just make an unsupported claim. And besides, referring to Kant's philosophical perspective in general (he did talk about a lot of things) is too vague for me to actually know what point you're trying to get across here.

You failed to address my point, that unknowable elements of reality don't actually exist because they have no effect whatsoever on anything. You just reiterated that not all of reality can be perceived, while ignoring the problematic irrelevancies that this perspective gives rise to. It's a perfect case of where we apply an extra sharp Occam's Razor.

Logic is not an invention, it is an observation. If we boil it down to solipsism, the ultimate form of skepticism, that "I only know I exist", we are asked to prove everything else existence. Non-existence is logically self evidence, because it is the default in the absence of proof. No one decided that the burden of proof be placed on the person making a claim of existence, but rather observed that things cannot be thought to exist without evidence - things do not exist because they cannot be disproved. Negative proof is a perfectly legitimate logical fallacy, because all existence is conditional. Nothing exists unconditionally.

[amfmampmadbc]

Agnosticism is the skeptical position.

The agnostic recognizes two possibilities (Existence of god vs Non Existence of God.

He realizes that he cannot prove either.

He is therefore skeptical of any position that advocates either possibility.

Atheists plug the "burden of proof" idea repeatedly. It sounds pretty:

Prove to me that something exists. Why do you think it exists? Couldn't you just make up anything, like "elves" and say that elves exist? That sounds silly to me, so the burden of proof is on you, because you told me that elves exist. So prove it, bucko.

Yet, in fact, the notion that elves do not exist is equally ridiculous.

It is a claim that a FACT exists: the "fact that elves do not exist".

By claiming that god does not exist, you are claiming that "the fact that god does not exist" exists. In this manner, an extraordinary claim escapes your lips.

The idea is logically flawed. It's overlooks so much.

[jetfx]

One possibility, "god exists" is a conditional statement. It is true based on certain conditions, like evidence, and the truth of other conditional statements. The other possibility, "god does not exist" is unconditional. For it to be true statement about reality, it does not require any evidence or other conditional statements. The latter possibility best represents skepticism, because it starts with a logically self evident, unconditional foundation for all other assumptions. Beginning here, we can then examine all other conditional statements about reality and verify what is true and what is not.

Atheists plug the burden of proof so much because it is a valid method for understanding reality. All existence is conditional. This is logically sound. However your argument about how the burden of proof is logically flawed is not making a lot of sense. Explain to me how rejecting the statement "elves exist" because of lack of evidence is as ridiculous as accepting the statement without evidence. Facts are statements about reality that can verified through empirical evidence. Non-existence is usually thought of as a lack of empirical evidence (so not a fact by definition), so "the fact that elves/god does not exist" makes no sense. It is merely a default position, not a hypotheis/claim.

Agnosticism is certainly quite skeptical compared to any form of religious belief, but it is not as skeptical as atheism, since agnosticism treats "god does not exist" as something to be proven, which I think I have demonstrated, is logically flawed.

[amfmampmadbc]

Accepting the statement that "god exists" without evidence is what a theist does. It's obviously illogical.

You claim that rejecting the fact that "god exists" because there is a lack of evidence to support the claim is logical.

Ho: God does not exist
H1: God exists

Good Logic

Meanwhile, according to the burden of proof and negative proof, you could never set up an experiment with this hypothesis:

Ho: God does exist
H1: God does not exist

because it is logically flawed.

You're beginning to persuade me, and at the very least you've made the issues more explicit. I'll get back to you, and let you know whether I maintain my beliefs after giving it more thought.

P.S.
Apologies for not explaining myself properly regarding Kant and all that. I was drunk, which led to an increased emphasis on brevity and not on quality of content.

[jetfx]

No worries, I was a bit blazed writing my replies so my focus was on not being so wordy.

I'd love to hear your reply after some thought, but I've had my fill of arguing for the moment. You could probably expand your thoughts into a full post too.