-->
@nagisa3
I don't see a good reason to doubt that I can think and rocks cant. Scepticism is an excellent principle but if you desire certainty at evry step.. You will not make many steps.
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
It seems that if one cannot even say something as innocuous as asserting rocks don't have the consciousness of the greatest of French philosophers then neither the number not quality of assertions will be high.
It seems silly to be skeptical of your own consciousness. The very act of thinking about yourself should show that positing yourself to be unaware is absurd.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm an antitheist. Change my mind.
-->
@Fallaneze
It seems silly to be skeptical of your own consciousness. The very act of thinking about yourself should show that positing yourself to be unaware is absurd.
Suddenly willing to grant that conciousness is more than an illusion?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
May I ask why you are an atheist?I'm an antitheist. Change my mind.
-->
@secularmerlin
Of course I believe consciousness isn't an illusion. But if you're trying to convince me that there's observable evidence (independently verifiable and perceivable) of consciousness, then you'll need to show it to me.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
As an atheist, you either (1) believe there are no God(s) or (2) neither believe nor disbelieve there are any God(s).
Are you in camp (1) or (2)?
-->
@Fallaneze
If conciousness is more than an illusion then human behavior is the verifiable observable evidence. If you concede that conciousness is real (which I accept provisionally only) then that is the evidence.Of course I believe consciousness isn't an illusion. But if you're trying to convince me that there's observable evidence (independently verifiable and perceivable) of consciousness, then you'll need to show it to me.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you trying to make the distinction between agnostic and gnostic atheists? Ones position gnostically concerns knowledge (or at least the claim of knowledge) not belief.As an atheist, you either (1) believe there are no God(s) or (2) neither believe nor disbelieve there are any God(s).
-->
@Fallaneze
I didn't say Atheist. I said Antitheist which means camp 1. But being an antitheist automatically makes one an atheist at the same time.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I initially became an atheist because my teacher was talking to a theist in class about something biblical and then said "you know that some people don't believe in god right" I had never even considered that was an option and I become an atheist within that five minute period.
As to why. I see no evidence for any gods and all of the evidence for no gods.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What do you mean by evidence for no gods? Surely all we have is no evidence for or against since many proposed gods would be completely undetectable. This of course leaves us with no reason to believe but that is quite different from proving nonexistence.
Antitheist... New to me.
-->
@keithprosser
Most people would say "gnostic atheist" but it's the same as antitheist. Some antitheists are people who are against the institution of religion. But those people are using it as a misnomer.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
First, what evidence supports your belief that no God(s) exist?
Second, are you aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? "Evidence" means information indicating whether something is true or not.
Third, "antitheist" refers to an attitude towards theism - it is not a position on whether the claim "God exists" is true or untrue. By law of excluded middle, the proposition "God exists" is either true or not true. If it's true, then theism is true. If it's untrue, then a-theism is true. Those are the only two options. God either exists or does not.
-->
@secularmerlin
No it isn't. That's at best indirect evidence of consciousness. Even if human behavior were direct evidence of consciousness, just because we both agree that consciousness isn't an illusion doesn't mean that that assumption is rationally justified on the basis of observable evidence.
-->
@Fallaneze
No it us not rationally justified. Accepting it is just a convenience but if people possess conciousness and rocks and photons do not the way to tell the difference is to observe behavior.
-->
@Fallaneze
God either exists or does not.
False dichotomy. There are literally thousands of proposed gods. One god, some gods, many gods, all gods, no gods. Can we eliminate any of these possibilities (excepting that we simply do not believe without evidence which case the default is no gods until proven itherwise)?
-->
@secularmerlin
You observing behavior is not you observing consciousness though. I don't think you'll be able to come up with observable evidence of consciousness. Observing someone's behavior is not the same thing as observing their consciousness.
We shouldn't believe anything that isn't rationally justified. I believe that other people are conscious because they mirror my own behavior and I myself am conscious, but I don't pretend to have observable evidence of their consciousness.
Any of the proposed god's existing will either be true or not true. It is not a false dichtomomy.
-->
@Fallaneze
. I believe that other people are conscious because they mirror my own behavior and I myself am conscious
Unless you can provide specific evidence that you are concious then you like me merely accept conciousness as a convenience however you would like to package it.
Any of the proposed god's existing will either be true or not true. It is not a false dichtomomy.
This is not a binary this is literally thousands of possibilities each equally possible until proven otherwise.
-->
@Fallaneze
My round 1 argument is the general answer I tend to give. If you want to get into semantics. I'm overjoyed to do so.
In this case of proving the identity of something, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In my humble opinion.
Would you agree that things that don't exist are absent?
Would you agree that things that don't exist can't have evidence?
Would you agree that absence of evidence is a good reason to be suspicious when everything known to exist has evidence?
Let's do roots.
The-ism
The = God , Ism = belief.
Claims a belief in a god.
A - the - ism
A = without, The = God , Ism = belief.
Claims the NOT have a god belief. Does not claim to have a NO God belief.
Anti-The-ism
Anti = Against/Reject/Deny , The = god , Ism = Belief.
Claims a NO God belief.
square is a rectangle, but rectangle is not square.
Thumb is finger, finger is not thumb
Antitheist is atheist, atheist is not antitheist.
sorry but you're wrong here.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your premise that you only believe in things that have observable evidence for them seems to be false. Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true without having any observable evidence for them.
Any god(s) that you posit to exist either will or won't.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Wed Aug 2, 2017
The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry, will set the stage for discussing an important distinction between global atheism and local atheism, which in turn will be helpful for distinguishing different forms of agnosticism. Examination of an argument in support of a modest form of agnosticism will ensue, followed by discussion of three arguments for atheism and one argument against a more ambitious form of agnosticism.
- 1. Definitions of “Atheism”
- 2. Definitions of “Agnosticism”
- 3. Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms
- 4. An Argument for Agnosticism
- 5. An Argument for Global Atheism?
- 7. An Argument against Agnosticism
- Bibliography
- Academic Tools
- Other Internet Resources
- Related Entries
1. Definitions of “Atheism”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
-->
@Fallaneze
Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true
Incorrect. I accept these as convenient to my perceived interactions with my perceived fellow humans and my perceived reality nothing more.
Any god(s) that you posit to exist either will or won't.
I do not posit any god(s) but if we include any and all gods ever proposed we are talking about thousands of alternate possibilities not a binary set
-->
@secularmerlin
If the statement "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true" is incorrect, then it is not true that "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true." Either something is or is not true. It's incoherent to assume that something is true or exists while simultaneously stating that it is not true or that it doesn't exist.
Thousands of gods still either exist or don't.
-->
@Fallaneze
The "a" is not a negation. It means without, you're just changing the meaning to fit your definition.
Furthermore, I don't think it's productive to use your own personal categories.
You'll have to spend half of every discussion you have establishing definitions for no reason.
Establishing definitions is fine in general.
However, In the case of "isms" I believe it's more productive to just ask the person how they define their "ism" and go from there. Don't you agree?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That was copy/pasted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I understand what your position is so that's most important. You believe that no God(s) exist.
I'll start again from the top.
First, what evidence supports your belief that no God(s) exist?
Second, are you aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? "Evidence" means information indicating whether something is true or not.
-->
@Fallaneze
I answered both of those questions before, just pretend I used those answers again and I'll drop the definition part cause I don't really care how you define me. As long as we can talk details.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Ok, I see where you answered the questions in between addressing the definition.
"In this case of proving the identity of something, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In my humble opinion."
Here is the response from Wiki:
"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.
Per the traditional aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance[1]of that which should have been found already, had it existed."
So evidence of absence supports conclusions, not absence of evidence.
"Would you agree that things that don't exist are absent?
Yes. But we determine that something doesn't exist because there's information indicating that. Information indicating something doesn't exist would be considered evidence of absence.
"Would you agree that things that don't exist can't have evidence?"
I believe it's coherent to say that there's evidence against something existing, so no, I do not agree.
"Would you agree that absence of evidence is a good reason to be suspicious when everything known to exist has evidence?"
Absence of information to indicate anything can't simultaneously be indicative of anything existing or not existing. There is also evidence of absence. So no, I do not agree that absence of evidence is a good reason for reaching a conclusion about whether something exists or not.