Atheism Requires Faith Just as Theism Does

[IAMRED]

I personally welcome it

WUT BUT I THOT ATHIEEX H@T3Z TEH G0DDD?!?!!

No, my friends; I do not believe in a God because I do not BELIEVE in anything, and that includes the lack of a God. I'm simply patiently awaiting the answers and admitting that I don't know.

Link

Thoughts? I'd be interested in feedback.

[LunicaAshes]

Link

Thoughts? I'd be interested in feedback.

Evidence for P1?

[IAMRED]

Evidence for P1?

Read the "layman's terms" explanation.

[sportsfan7]

Evidence for P1?

You should look up in your profile pic, paint your eyes green, and give yourself fangs. Might look badass. Would def look cooler

Dunno y but you remind me of



No there's absolutely no resemblance

[Harbinger]

You're doing it again. You're ignoring a simple logical inference by making unfounded claims that I am making unfounded claims. Here's the inference:

By definition of science, we can never fully explain existence because science operates within that existence.

Exactly what is unfounded about that?

This is your definition of science that you have absolutely no way of proving.

[LunicaAshes]

Read the "layman's terms" explanation.

That's not supporting evidence, it's a false premise. Humans are capable of learning by observing and testing their environment, not just from other humans. Evolution also explains learning with no divine intervention, once you go back far enough to predate our species.

[mistaballoonhan]

Bump for retarded atheists.

Seriously, how badly do I have to insult you people to elicit a reply?

Yes we have to have faith. Congrats! It's not the same as theism's faith though, as the OP states.

Most atheists have faith in things which provide evidence, and make reasonable predictions on what should or will happen based on past experiences and testing. To a certain degree some people can prove themselves worthy of having faith in, people such as engineers, scientists, doctors, good people in general, although there's usually the option to test the things they tell us if we're skeptical. We also admit we don't know some things (a lot of things actually).

Christians have faith in a supernatural being who has never shown himself to us, and wrote down his memoirs through some other guy on another continent in another language 2000 years ago (did i mention there's been tons of other supernatural beings who have made extremely similar claims with similar evidence over the years). It also talks of walking on water, changing water to wine, healing blind, parting seas, talking snakes, etc. etc. tons of things that have never been able to be reproduced as they are written.

[Melkor]

I personally welcome it

[size=2UT BUT I THOT ATHIEEX H@T3Z TEH G0DDD?!?!![/size]

No, my friends; I do not believe in a God because I do not BELIEVE in anything, and that includes the lack of a God. I'm simply patiently awaiting the answers and admitting that I don't know.

[Freek314]

Link

Thoughts? I'd be interested in feedback.

I taught myself to count, add, subtract, and multiply using Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo when I was 5 after my mom told me what numbers were. Gee, all it would take for people to begin learning about math is to know what numbers are, and since numbers came around through observation.... unless you're saying that cavemen are so dumb they couldn't figure out that counting is useful (and developed a system so simple that children start learning it before they can speak fluently as a result).

Ohh, and I'm a Theist (Non-Denominational Christian).

[outlikeatrout]

So the only natural conclusion, then, is that a flying zombeh who is itself but also its own father sent itself to Earth to sacrifice itself to itself to appease itself of something that it did (but for which it blames us anyway). Makes total sense.

Who said that? Not me, certainly.

So this obviously means that only Christianity is true. I can't believe I couldn't see the obviousness in that before. It's not like there are other religions with equally absurd claims for which there is no credible evidence - because that would mean that Christianity is just as massively retarded as those religions.

Um...where did I say that because existence cannot be explained within atheism that therefore Christianity must be true.

Post # please, I'll wait.

So you know that existence can NEVER be explained using science...

Yes! Hello? What have we been talking about?

Here I'll say it again so you don't have to scroll back:

By definition of science, we can never fully explain existence because science operates within that existence.

Yet you also claim to not understand it.

How is this possible?

FYI, 1000 years ago science would NEVER be able to kill 100,000 people by someone simply moving their finger, yet now we have atomic bombs. Never is a very tough word to justify.

In this case it is justified by a simple logical inference:

By definition of science, we can never fully explain existence because science operates within that existence.

This is your definition of science that you have absolutely no way of proving.

What are you talking about? The definition of science is not in dispute. Science is theory based on observable and reproducible evidence. And because it is based on observable evidence, the question will always be begged where the physical laws come from that we used to make the observations.

[Queequeg]

Bump for retarded atheists.

Seriously, how badly do I have to insult you people to elicit a reply?

I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic, does that exempt me from a first principle? u mad?

[Harbinger]

What are you talking about? The definition of science is not in dispute. Science is theory based on observable and reproducible evidence. And because it is based on observable evidence, the question will always be begged where the physical laws come from that we used to make the observations.

What makes you think the forces governing the physical laws are unobservable?

[IAMRED]

That's not supporting evidence. Humans are capable of learning by observing and testing their environment, not just from other humans. Evolution also explains learning with no divine intervention, once you go back far enough to predate our species.

Knowledge is propositional. Given that, I have few questions relating to your philosophy of science:

On your theory, by what valid process could an observation statement - a proposition - be abstracted from an observation (sensation)?

Do you hold to a correspondence theory of truth?

It seems to be assumed that one's observations and tests (instruments?) are reliable. A problem with this is that, given there is no eternally omniscient being, to assert one's observations can be known presupposes an answer to the following insoluble dilemma: how do you know the truth of your observation statement isn't predicated on the truth of an observation you missed?

If it is indeed the case you are forwarding a form of empiricism, further criticisms could be made: nominalism, internal critiques (the subjectivity of sensation, e.g. inverted qualia), etc.

[IAMRED]

I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic, does that exempt me from a first principle? u mad?

Actually, it makes you mad

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

lol sorry

[IAMRED]

I taught myself to count, add, subtract, and multiply using Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo when I was 5 after my mom told me what numbers were. Gee, all it would take for people to begin learning about math is to know what numbers are, and since numbers came around through observation.... unless you're saying that cavemen are so dumb they couldn't figure out that counting is useful (and developed a system so simple that children start learning it before they can speak fluently as a result).

Ohh, and I'm a Theist (Non-Denominational Christian).

Mathematics is an internally consistent system constructed on axioms. You couldn't have picked a worse example to refute my point regarding the necessity of first principles.

Ohh, and I'm a math undergrad.

EDIT: Numbers are abstract concepts. They are not "observed." Your answer presupposes Platonic Ideas according to which you are able to classify. Ironically, this is not far off from another reason God is a necessary precondition for knowledge: to escape nominalism.

[mistaballoonhan]

Yes! Hello? What have we been talking about?

Here I'll say it again so you don't have to scroll back:

By definition of science, we can never fully explain existence because science operates within that existence.



In this case it is justified by a simple logical inference:

By definition of science, we can never fully explain existence because science operates within that existence.

So would it be correct to say we can never fully explain language using words, because the words used to explain it operate within language? I don't think so.

NEVER is a very hard word to justify. Out of curiosity, what definition of science are you using?

[An hero]

This is one of the worst threads ever made.

[IAMRED]

Yes we have to have faith. Congrats! It's not the same as theism's faith though, as the OP states.

The object of the faith differs, but that's obvious. The nature of the faith - belief without proof - is the same in all cases. You cannot prove your first principle.

I agree that one can have sane reasons for believing a first principle, don't get me wrong. It is more rational to believe a first principle whose resultant epistemological system is coherent than one which is self-defeating. Math, as I stated to another poster, would be an example of this.

Christians have faith in a supernatural being who has never shown himself to us

If God is spirit, as He has revealed Himself to be, how do you propose He does that?

...and wrote down his memoirs through some other guy on another continent in another language 2000 years ago (did i mention there's been tons of other supernatural beings who have made extremely similar claims with similar evidence over the years).

No, and I doubt you could supply me with pre-Judeo accounts.

It also talks of walking on water, changing water to wine, healing blind, parting seas, talking snakes, etc. etc. tons of things that have never been able to be reproduced as they are written.

Miracles by definition are uncommon. I do not know why you are subjecting the test of the coherence of a system to empirical verifiability or falsifiability. Perhaps you could answer the questions I asked LunicaAshes.

[Freek314]

Mathematics is an internally consistent system constructed on axioms. You couldn't have picked a worse example to refute my point regarding the necessity of first principles.

Ohh, and I'm a math undergrad.

You're over-thinking this. I was 5 and taught myself to count, add, subtract, and multiply because I knew what numbers were. Is it such a stretch that I could've come up with numbers all by myself if born thousands of years ago?

[IAMRED]

You're over-thinking this. I was 5 and taught myself to count, add, subtract, and multiply because I knew what numbers were. Is it such a stretch that I could've come up with numbers all by myself if born thousands of years ago?

Sorry, see my edit:

Numbers are abstract concepts. They are not "observed." Your answer presupposes Platonic Ideas according to which you are able to classify. Ironically, this is not far off from another reason God is a necessary precondition for knowledge: to escape nominalism.

Also, what you say doesn't really interact with my point.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Link

Thoughts? I'd be interested in feedback.

It appears to me that the inference of the author is that knowledge has meaning, perhaps even purpose - these do not exist beyond the individual conscious enough to consider the ramifications of their actions. The author is following the line of reasoning that makes creationism fail; rather than saying, here is the evidence, what is the conclusion, he is saying, here is the conclusion, where is the evidence? Even our deepest, most philosophical and inspiring thoughts are little more than a function of our animal brain geared towards survival.

[outlikeatrout]

What makes you think the forces governing the physical laws are unobservable?

Not that they are unobservable, just that the question remains where they came from.

Stating that they always existed is a matter of faith.

Stating that they are created is a matter of faith.

Stating that you do not know is fine, just as long as you are intellectually honest and admit that you can never know.

So would it be correct to say we can never fully explain language using words, because the words used to explain it operate within language? I don't think so.

Yes, if we were somehow able to observe the words only with no information whatsoever about the creation of the words/language itself.

NEVER is a very hard word to justify. Out of curiosity, what definition of science are you using?

Theory based on observable and reproducible evidence, as stated about 10 times in this thread.

[IAMRED]

It appears to me that the inference of the author is that knowledge has meaning, perhaps even purpose - these do not exist beyond the individual conscious enough to consider the ramifications of their actions. The author is following the line of reasoning that makes creationism fail; rather than saying, here is the evidence, what is the conclusion, he is saying, here is the conclusion, where is the evidence? Even our deepest, most philosophical and inspiring thoughts are little more than a function of our animal brain geared towards survival.

Firstly, I am the author. In case you didn't know.

Secondly, I think you missed the point of the argument entirely. The point is that man's knowledge is learned, not intuitive, and that, such being the case, it follows that an eternally omniscient being exists. It's a modus ponens:

1. If P (man's knowledge is discursive), then Q (an eternally omniscient being exists)
2. P
3. Therefore, Q :.

It's a valid argument. If you want to question the soundness of the premises, that's one thing, but the conclusion is not evidence-less (at least not purportedly so).

[Freek314]

Sorry, see my edit:

Numbers are abstract concepts. They are not "observed." Your answer presupposes Platonic Ideas according to which you are able to classify. Ironically, this is not far off from another reason God is a necessary precondition for knowledge: to escape nominalism.

Also, what you say doesn't really interact with my point.

Numbers are abstract? Yeah, but they came from observation. If you had a herd of buffalo thousands of years ago and wanted to count them, you develop a system to count them. The buffalo aren't abstract, and it's common sense to just make a simple system to keep up with them if you wanna know how many you have.

[Harbinger]

Not that they are unobservable, just that the question remains where they came from.

Stating that they always existed is a matter of faith.

Stating that they are created is a matter of faith.

Stating that you do not know is fine, just as long as you are intellectually honest and admit that you can never know.

I don't know that we can never know, neither do you.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Firstly, I am the author. In case you didn't know.

Secondly, I think you missed the point of the argument entirely. The point is that man's knowledge is learned, not intuitive, and that, such being the case, it follows that an eternally omniscient being exists. It's a modus ponens:

1. If P (man's knowledge is discursive), then Q (an eternally omniscient being exists)
2. P
3. Therefore, Q :.

It's a valid argument. If you want to question the soundness of the premises, that's one thing, but the conclusion is not evidence-less (at least not purportedly so).

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. Man's learning stems from intuitiveness, and from accumulated knowledge. Earliest man learned from experience, and over time, as this knowledge has been accumulated, it has become more and more possible for it to be passed on and presented rather learned intuitively as an individual for survival.

And once again, it seems to me that the argument presupposes that learning implies that it is passed down - and while that may be the case, especially in today's complex societies, I don't see how this can always be true. Take a look at how cultures have developed entirely different from each other. I think that if we were to be wiped out, as human cultures developed they would not be the same as what we have now.

[IAMRED]

Numbers are abstract? Yeah, but they came from observation. If you had a herd of buffalo thousands of years ago and wanted to count them, you develop a system to count them. The buffalo aren't abstract, and it's common sense to just make a simple system to keep up with them if you wanna know how many you have.

I've covered this already. The concept "buffalo" presupposes a form of Platonic Ideas. No two alleged "buffalo" are the same, yet you group them together. On what basis?

[IAMRED]

Not at all. Man's learning stems from intuitiveness, and from accumulated knowledge. Earliest man learned from experience, and over time, as this knowledge has been accumulated, it has become more and more possible for it to be passed on and presented rather learned intuitively as an individual for survival.

I refer you to this post:

Knowledge is propositional. Given that, I have few questions relating to your philosophy of science:

On your theory, by what valid process could an observation statement - a proposition - be abstracted from an observation (sensation)?

Do you hold to a correspondence theory of truth?

It seems to be assumed that one's observations and tests (instruments?) are reliable. A problem with this is that, given there is no eternally omniscient being, to assert one's observations can be known presupposes an answer to the following insoluble dilemma: how do you know the truth of your observation statement isn't predicated on the truth of an observation you missed?

If it is indeed the case you are forwarding a form of empiricism, further criticisms could be made: nominalism, internal critiques (the subjectivity of sensation, e.g. inverted qualia), etc.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I refer you to this post:

Okay. But it still doesn't make sense. To say that man's knowledge is learned implies that it has meaning and purpose, and there is nothing to suggest such. It's like putting a group of people in a room, asking them a moral quandary, and then assuming that because they reached the same conclusion they got there via the same methods, that their experiences were the same in life, etc. And if man's knowledge is learned i.e. passed down from a higher source, why does man's knowledge keep evolving?