To atheists: Is this a valid statement?

[xtreem5150ahm]

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

This is not the complete quote, but this is the part i want to try addressing... my intention for this topic is to try to show some problems with the thought that the atheistic worldview is inconsistant with itself-- much like the claim from non-believers that theism (esp. Christianity) is not logical.

I'm going to try to use the approach of positive apologetics... this is, i think, my first actual attempt at "playing offense".

I dont really have a plan of attack, so i'm just going to "wing it"... most likely i will concede early on, and try to learn from the experience.

Special Request to Lost Cause:

Please allow alittle extra lee-way. (not much though, this might not work at all).



God Bless,

johnny

P.S. the initial quote is from Martini, although it is not an attack to Martini. I've seen this statement many times over the years, and it's always bugged me, but i wasnt quite sure why. I'm just using the statement as an opener for the topic.

[xtreem5150ahm]

another ps

i'll only be up about another half hour tonight, but i'll try to work on it after work as long as i can, when i can.

[Lamabot]

That is the "scientific world view" everything is false unless proven otherwise. Works well in life seeing as how some awesome things are based on this (Presumption of innocence, FDA testing, Scientific peer review)

You wouldn't want your doctors to perscribe you Echinacea would you? You wouldn't want to be assumed guilty unless proven not guilty would you?

This worldview works well for practical purposes, albeit it deprives the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies.

Edit: This is not a "valid statement", but like I summed up it's a world view. That allows separation of truth from fantasy. I.E. According to this world view aliens don't exist, although they very well might do so. But what it does is prevent the person from blaming his blackouts on aliens kidnapping him and go to a doctor so he can find the testable and more likely reason.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-29-2007).]

[boozehound420]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

K well thats all you needed to say, good job on filling a long as post with pointless shit.

When associating atheist with that quote you have to change "something" with GOD, atheist is no god. Pretty simple

Wich is 100% true for the atheist,agnostic,humanist etc. view

Why do you refuse to believe the tooth ferry is real yet believe that god is real. I may be fucken hammerd but i can still see the simplisity of it all.



[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-29-2007).]

[Lamabot]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

K well thats all you needed to say, good job on filling a long as post with pointless shit.

When associating atheist with that quote you have to change "something" with GOD, atheist is no god. Pretty simple

Wich is 100% true for the atheist,agnostic,humanist etc. view

Why do you refuse to believe the tooth ferry is real yet believe that god is real. I may be fucken hammerd but i can still see the simplisity of it all.

1) Nobody wants to believe they die once, for ever and irreversibly.

2) Nobody wants to believe that the "natural beauty" is just a step in a long series of events.

3) Nobody wants to deprive himself of "faith" as society has glorified it. If you have faith you are a good person but if you say "i have no faith" what the fuck is wrong with you?

[truckfixr]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

This is not the complete quote, but this is the part i want to try addressing... my intention for this topic is to try to show some problems with the thought that the atheistic worldview is inconsistant with itself-- much like the claim from non-believers that theism (esp. Christianity) is not logical...

The quote pretty much sums it up. It is illogical to accept things as true without evidence.

There are a multitude of illogical beliefs within the Christian religion (as with other religions).

I'm curious to see what you consider inconsistant regarding the atheistic world view.

[Lamabot]

You are all getting it wrong. It is the SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW. Atheist believe in everything from acupuncture to ghost to aliens to homeopathic medicine. No this statement is not a fact, it is a process. Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

[xtreem5150ahm]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

That is the "scientific world view" everything is false unless proven otherwise. Works well in life seeing as how some awesome things are based on this (Presumption of innocence, FDA testing, Scientific peer review)

You wouldn't want your doctors to perscribe you Echinacea would you? You wouldn't want to be assumed guilty unless proven not guilty would you?

This worldview works well for practical purposes, albeit it deprives the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies.

Edit: This is not a "valid statement", but like I summed up it's a world view. That allows separation of truth from fantasy. I.E. According to this world view aliens don't exist, although they very well might do so. But what it does is prevent the person from blaming his blackouts on aliens kidnapping him and go to a doctor so he can find the testable and more likely reason.

Hi Lamabot,

I agree that there are practical uses, however, what if you were crossing the street and i yelled, "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!"... would your first reaction be to get off the road, or would you check to see if i was fibbing first (even if i were prone to such pranks)? Would you consider avoiding a bus without verification the same as "depriving the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies"?

I think the parallel is the beginning presuppositions... "buses do travel on roads" is the presupposition in that senerio. In the case of origins, i think there are only two possible presuppositions: 1)happen by chance 2)created

(actually, there is a third.. always existed.. but since i specified 'origins', then by definition, it is ruled out of this statement)

As far as your example of the guy w/ the blackouts blaming aliens, the key is your phrase, "a testable and more likely reason", which actually makes my point... science presupposes an accepted (or, acceptable) answer, based on what it knows up to that point in time... but it can not disprove the possibility of his "alien blackouts".... for the record, I personally do not believe in ET's, but that is based mostly on my presuppositions (and that too, is limited to my limited knowledge IN my presuppositions).

OK, time for bed.. i realise that i didnt show the illogical or inconsistency of atheism here, but only indicated a possible portion... i'll try to continue tomorrow.

God Bless,

johnny

[Lamabot]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Hi Lamabot,

I agree that there are practical uses, however, what if you were crossing the street and i yelled, "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!"... would your first reaction be to get off the road, or would you check to see if i was fibbing first (even if i were prone to such pranks)? Would you consider avoiding a bus without verification the same as "depriving the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies"?

And Lamabot wrote:

...Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

Answered your question before you asked it

Not to mention that if you yelled "COME BACK THERE'S A BUS COMING" I'd be dead already. That's too long of a warning. There is a difference between immediate reaction and well-thought out reasonings. Stop mixing the two.

quote:

I think the parallel is the beginning presuppositions... "buses do travel on roads" is the presupposition in that senerio. In the case of origins, i think there are only two possible presuppositions: 1)happen by chance 2)created

(actually, there is a third.. always existed.. but since i specified 'origins', then by definition, it is ruled out of this statement)

As far as your example of the guy w/ the blackouts blaming aliens, the key is your phrase, "a testable and more likely reason", which actually makes my point... science presupposes an accepted (or, acceptable) answer, based on what it knows up to that point in time... but it can not disprove the possibility of his "alien blackouts".... for the record, I personally do not believe in ET's, but that is based mostly on my presuppositions (and that too, is limited to my limited knowledge IN my presuppositions).

The only problem is that these presuppositions have been tested, retested, re fucking tested, researched on, been written books upon, tested again, calculated and tested again. They are pretty much bullet proof. I'd put my life in the hands of these "presuppositions". Also please stop making two wrong assumptions about evolution.

Assumption 1 - Evolution is chance

-No, we already went over that 203823 times, please stop calling it that.

Assumption 2 - Evolution tries to account for the origins of life.

-No, Evolution accounts for the origins of species (hence the book). The scientific consensus for the origins of life lies with abiogenesis, which really is kinda chance, but it was the chance of creating a single cell (well protobions are not technically cells) rather than modern world.

quote:

OK, time for bed.. i realise that i didnt show the illogical or inconsistency of atheism here, but only indicated a possible portion... i'll try to continue tomorrow.

God Bless,

johnny

How many times did I tell you that this is the scientific worldview not the atheistic worldview. Atheists often believe in stupid (or unprovable, unproven or disproven) things. Ghosts, Aliens, Conspiracies, Homeopathic medicine.

Being atheist only means not believing in the existence of god. The scientific world view is only an argument ab scientia against assuming existence of god.

So even if you prove that this is illogical (you won't you'll have a better shot at disproving the scientific method) you still said nothing about atheists.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-29-2007).]

[IanBoyd3]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:



How many times did I tell you that this is the scientific worldview not the atheistic worldview. Atheists often believe in stupid (or unprovable, unproven or disproven) things. Ghosts, Aliens, Conspiracies, Homeopathic medicine.

Being atheist only means not believing in the existence of god. The scientific world view is only an argument ab scientia against assuming existence of god.

So even if you prove that this is illogical (you won't you'll have a better shot at disproving the scientific method) you still said nothing about atheists.

The word skeptic might be a better choice.

Skeptics seem to have a bad rep with believers, but the opposite of skepticism is gullibility.