Why is it silly?

5wize

Well-known member
I'd say just say you're atheists and you don't believe God exists, which is presumably the position you hold. If you lack belief X, doesn't that entail belief Y? E.g. I lack the belief that it's raining outside, therefore, I have the belief that it's not raining outside.

Whether you have or lack a belief is kind of irrelevant and boring in a discussion. From my experience hearing people on this question, it comes down to trying to escape a burden of proof in an argument *shrugs*.
I've heard it asserted that atheism is a claim to knowledge and agnosticism is a claim to belief. A claim to knowledge requires an explorable deductive basis for that knowledge. as in...

I know there is no Christian God because there is positive evidence against the biblical proposition because x.y. and z make the biblical proposition impossible to me.

as opposed to an explorable inductive basis as in..

I don't believe there is a Christian God because x, y, and z seems to not describe Him. Maybe the Christians are just wrong are there are other possibilities for His character that might make sense if I can explore those.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I've heard it asserted that atheism is a claim to knowledge and agnosticism is a claim to belief. A claim to knowledge requires an explorable deductive basis for that knowledge. as in...
You're getting there. Just take the next step and say there is no such thing as a hard atheist.

In fact the term atheist becomes quite irrelevant, by your own understaing, since you will never have your evidence to gain knowledge.

It would simplify things greatly if all y'all quit using the term 'atheist' and just use agnostic.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You, are the claim, silly.

You can confound me beyond all sense by saying you believe God exists.

Can't do it, can you big guy.
No, you made the claim - a false one. And you can't even bring yourself to admit it. Sad. Don't try to divert it to me; you're the one stating the falsehoods.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I'd say just say you're atheists and you don't believe God exists, which is presumably the position you hold. If you lack belief X, doesn't that entail belief Y? E.g. I lack the belief that it's raining outside, therefore, I have the belief that it's not raining outside.

Whether you have or lack a belief is kind of irrelevant and boring in a discussion. From my experience hearing people on this question, it comes down to trying to escape a burden of proof in an argument *shrugs*.
No, it's not correct that If I lack belief X, I have the belief not-X. If I'm inside and there's no windows, I don't have the belief that its' raining outside. But I also don't have the belief that it's not raining outside. It might be; it might not be. I don't know.

Similarly, I don't have the belief that a god exists. I also don't have the believe that no gods exist. One or some might exist; they might not. I don't know.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
No, it's not correct that If I lack belief X, I have the belief not-X. If I'm inside and there's no windows, I don't have the belief that its' raining outside. But I also don't have the belief that it's not raining outside. It might be; it might not be. I don't know.
Okay, that's fine, but you then do have the belief that "it might not or might not be raining outside", so does that leave you in agnosticism?
Similarly, I don't have the belief that a god exists. I also don't have the believe that no gods exist. One or some might exist; they might not. I don't know.
But isn't that confusing knowledge with belief?

So, does all atheism (unless it's a positive claim to know God doesn't exist) devolve to agnosticism?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
A number of people have called defining atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of gods "silly".

Why?

There are a large number of people who lack belief in the existence of gods. They don't believe that no gods exist, but they - for whatever reason - cannot draw the conclusion that a god exists.

What would you like them to be called (or to call themselves) if not atheists?
It's silly because anything that begun to exist, has a Cause...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
What does that have to do with how atheism is defined?

And how do you know the above to be true?
I was just using the word he used; IE Silly. I don't think any true definitions are Silly...

I know it's true through Empirical ways and Means. Any 'Thing' (IE Materialism) which began to exist has a Cause...
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I was just using the word he used; IE Silly.
But he was talking about applying it to the definition of atheism, not to whether or not atheism is correct.

I don't think any true definitions are Silly...
Definitions aren't true or false. They stipulate how words are to be used.

I know it's true through Empirical ways and Means. Any 'Thing' (IE Materialism) which began to exist has a Cause...
What empirical evidence do you have then? All the empirical evidence of causes that I am aware of require a prior moment in time from which the cause can act. Do you know of any exceptions to this? If not, then the first moment in time, if there was one, would necessarily be a beginning without a cause.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
But he was talking about applying it to the definition of atheism, not to whether or not atheism is correct.


Definitions aren't true or false. They stipulate how words are to be used.


What empirical evidence do you have then? All the empirical evidence of causes that I am aware of require a prior moment in time from which the cause can act. Do you know of any exceptions to this? If not, then the first moment in time, if there was one, would necessarily be a beginning without a cause.
The Empirical Evidence I have is that before I began to exist, there was a Cause for my existence. You could say the same for everything; before the Earth began to exist, there was a Cause for the Earth. I know you're really not doubting this, and I should be able to get you to easily agree that before anything begins to exist, there is a Cause for it...

What you're really asking, is how I know that before any Material Thing began to exist for the first time, I know there was a Cause for it? You're not asking me to prove my statement is true for all 'things' which exists now; that's Empirically self evident...
 
Last edited:

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It's silly because anything that begun to exist, has a Cause...
Can I ask, what is it that you know of that began to exist, rather than is the rearrangement of already existing atoms?

However, yours is a tricky statement. It's mired in what we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing. Can I ask, is it possible that there is a difference between a cause and a reason? What I mean is, there might be a reason why there is something rather than nothing that has nothing to do with a cause. What I'm getting at is, if the universe is necessary, then talk of a cause is redundant.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The Empirical Evidence I have is that before I began to exist, there was a Cause for my existence. You could say the same for everything...
Don't you think that extrapolating from one case to all of existence might be a little irresponsible?

...before the Earth began to exist, there was a Cause for the Earth. I know you're really not doubting this, and I should be able to get you to easily agree that before anything begins to exist, there is a Cause for it...
No, I really am doubting it, and you have not given me reason to agree.

What you're really asking, is how I know that before any Material Thing began to exist for the first time, how do I know there was a Cause for it? You're not asking me to prove my statement is true for all 'things' in existence now; that's Empirically self evident...
Yes, "all things" includes past things. Again, all the empirical evidence of causes that I am aware of require a prior moment in time from which the cause can act. Do you know of any exceptions to this? If not, then the first moment in time, if there was one, would necessarily be a beginning without a cause. Could you address this point?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Can I ask, what is it that you know of that began to exist, rather than is the rearrangement of already existing atoms?

However, yours is a tricky statement. It's mired in what we don't know about why there is something rather than nothing. Can I ask, is it possible that there is a difference between a cause and a reason? What I mean is, there might be a reason why there is something rather than nothing that has nothing to do with a cause. What I'm getting at is, if the universe is necessary, then talk of a cause is redundant.
It's not really tricky at all. I said, The Empirical Evidence I have is that before I began to exist, there was a Cause for my existence. You could say the same for everything; before the Earth began to exist, there was a Cause for the Earth. I know you're really not doubting this, and I should be able to get you to easily agree that before anything begins to exist, there is a Cause for it...

You can follow me on the other conversation here, because if you remember me from the old Forum, you'll know that I can't talk to everyone who wants to talk to me...

 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It's not really tricky at all. I said, The Empirical Evidence I have is that before I began to exist, there was a Cause for my existence. You could say the same for everything; before the Earth began to exist, there was a Cause for the Earth. I know you're really not doubting this, and I should be able to get you to easily agree that before anything begins to exist, there is a Cause for it...
My point is, if something is necessary, does it have a cause?
You can follow me on the other conversation here, because if you remember me from the old Forum, you'll know that I can't talk to everyone who wants to talk to me...
Did you have the same name on the old forum?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Don't you think that extrapolating from one case to all of existence might be a little irresponsible?


No, I really am doubting it, and you have not given me reason to agree.


Yes, "all things" includes past things. Again, all the empirical evidence of causes that I am aware of require a prior moment in time from which the cause can act. Do you know of any exceptions to this? If not, then the first moment in time, if there was one, would necessarily be a beginning without a cause. Could you address this point?
By using the Empirical Method, we've discovered that for everything which began to exist, it has a Cause. We would actually avoid the results of the Empirical Method by not expecting the 'First Thing' to not have had a Cause outside of itself...

I know of the Many Worlds Theory. Time exists in other Universes if other Universes exist, and if those Universes are older than ours; they could be the Cause of our Universe in their Time...

Please; enjoy my Gospel Tract below...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Kardashev 5? ~ by ReverendRV

Revelation 21:1 NIV; Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

When Cosmologists speculate about the existence of Extraterrestrials, they tend to categorize potential civilizations by using the Kardashev Scale; proposed by the Astronomer Nicolai Kardashev long ago in the 60’s. This Scale has three categories based on the use of available energy; Planetary, Stellar and Galactic. Because of the advancement in Quantum Theory, proposals have been made to add a fourth and fifth category to the Scale; Universal and Multiversal Power! Inherent in this proposal is the contingency for the existence of Life which Transcends the Universe; right? Scientist suggest that it’s possible for several kinds of Universes to exist outside of Space and Time; so a ‘Steady State’ Universe could exist. This type of Universe would be Eternal, populated by Eternal people with Multiversal Power. And being Eternal, this demands that it be the ‘Parent Universe’ of all Universes. ~ In a way, Science catches up with the Bible without even knowing it; after all, Heaven, Earth, and Hell would qualify to be a Multiverse; right?

If Kardashev 5 Aliens came to Earth and demanded we keep their law, would you do it? I suppose you wouldn’t have a choice; they have the Might, and Right, as the obvious Creators of the Multiverse. Since a ‘Steady State’ Universe cannot evolve into new Universes, we are their Creation. Such an advanced civilization should be highly ethical, so their Laws would be similar to fundamental Laws we’re already under. ~ Have you ever Stolen ANYTHING? What would someone from a Kardashev 5 society call you for Stealing? “They wouldn’t call me anything, because I took it from MY job”. But remember, you’re under their Law; and they own the World and everything in it, anything you’ve Stolen you’ve stolen from them. ~ Stealing is only one of God’s Ten Commandments; if he judged you by his standard, will you be guilty? The Bible says breaking one Law breaks all of them; even Murder. Would you go to Heaven or to Hell?

God is highly ethical, so he has to love Justice; but he’s just as Merciful. ~ For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not be cast into the Universe of Hell but be received with open arms in the Universe of Heaven. The Logos of God came down from above to be Incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, to keep the Law of Heaven for Mankind. Though he was not a Lawbreaker, his Cross bore a sign charging him for being the King they didn’t want. He will freely trade you his sign for the sign from the Cross next to his, a sign charging us with Thievery. He shed his blood and died on the Cross as a Thief, the Just dying for the Unjust. He was buried, but arose from the dead; showing he was alive to five hundred people. We’re Saved by merciful Grace through Faith, apart from meritorious Works lest we boast in ourselves. Repent of your Sin, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; go to Church and ask them for a Bible. ~ I always say Science will eventually prove the Bible is true…

Ec 1:9 NLT; History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
By using the Empirical Method, we've discovered that for everything which began to exist, has a Cause.
No, we haven't. As I just explained, the empirical method shows us that all causes require prior time from which to act. Hence we have empirical grounds for insisting that the beginning of our universe of time and space MUST be uncaused. For the third time, could you please address this point? Can you point to even a single instance of a cause that did not precede its effect in time?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Okay, that's fine, but you then do have the belief that "it might not or might not be raining outside", so does that leave you in agnosticism?
No. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
But isn't that confusing knowledge with belief?
No. Atheism/theism are about belief; agnosticism is about knowledge.
So, does all atheism (unless it's a positive claim to know God doesn't exist) devolve to agnosticism?
No atheism devolves to agnosticism. They are about two very different things.

You can be an agnostic Christian, an agnostic Muslim, an agnostic atheist...an agnostic anything.
 
Top