Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 09:05 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 11, 2025, 02:52 PM

New Britain
January 10, 2025, 09:40 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 09, 2025, 09:33 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 09, 2025, 01:34 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Berlin car crasher
by zeca
December 21, 2024, 11:10 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Atheism is NOT a Belief

 (Read 21111 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #30 - October 21, 2010, 11:34 PM

    Sure, you can take them for granted for all pragmatic matters but nothing can be taken for granted when you are being epistemologically accurate.


    We can only go so far along this line of discussion before discussion itself is meaningless.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #31 - October 21, 2010, 11:37 PM

    Well let us put aside theism then, I am not a theist and make the same claim that all positive statements about reality have some level of faith - it is a mystery how certain knowledge can be possible. This is a pretty standard philosophical position on the problems of epistemology and nobody in over 2000 years of discussion has yet come up with a method of securing certain knowledge that isn't doubtable. There are degrees of usefulness to the fictions we have created to explain reality but to treat any of them as more than useful fiction is wilfully ignoring the central problems of knowledge.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #32 - October 21, 2010, 11:37 PM

    some are more right than others  Wink


    how do you know for sure? all you know is that some are more useful than others - there is no further statement that can be made about them.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #33 - October 21, 2010, 11:41 PM

    z10, how do you figure out if someone is telling the truth to you or not?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #34 - October 21, 2010, 11:44 PM

    You either believe them or you don't.  Smiley

    Really, you can use past history, intuition, lie detectors etc to try and come close to the truth but in the end there will be some level of faith involved however little.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #35 - October 21, 2010, 11:47 PM

    To what degree do you carry this line of thinking? What would you say to a person who came up to you and said he was a cat? Would you rule it out as a possibilty outright, or would you think there might possibly be some truth to it?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #36 - October 21, 2010, 11:53 PM

    how do you know for sure?

    I dont and hence I would agree - I remain agnostic.  However I am atheist in respect to Abrahmic faiths, because of their contradictory nature.

    all you know is that some are more useful than others - there is no further statement that can be made about them.

    Usefulness has nothing to do with the truth.  I measure the truth by the methods that have been tried & tested for ages - its used in medicine, law courts, science etc.  Evidence works, and in uncertainty its the safest position to fall back on.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #37 - October 21, 2010, 11:54 PM

    Bearing in mind everything that I know, I would be of the opinion that that person is wrong.
    However, I know my opinion is fallible and can be proven wrong, I would be open to this possibility even if I find it highly unlikely. Just like I would find it highly unlikely that the sun won't rise on the morrow.
    The point is, unlikely cannot and will not ever be the same thing as impossible even if it is so close to being so that for all practical purposes it is fine to assume so. However, we are talking about the actual problems of knowledge here and not just being practical. Of course it is practical to assume that if I jump, gravity will pull me down again but I cannot let that assumption somehow morph itself into the whole and complete truth.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #38 - October 21, 2010, 11:56 PM

    I dont and hence I would agree - I remain agnostic.  However I am atheist in respect to Abrahmic faiths, because of their contradictory nature.
    Usefulness has nothing to do with the truth.  I measure the truth by the methods that have been tried & tested for ages - its used in medicine, law courts, science etc.  Evidence works, and in uncertainty its the safest position to fall back on.


    Science is a useful fiction, no less, no more. The problems of scientific proclamations of truth are well documented and I believe I even started a thread on why science cannot ever proclaim the truth but only useful correlations of phenomena. If you like I can find that thread.

    I also do not believe in the abrahamic religions. That does not mean that now I have the truth, it just means I have one less hypothesis to consider.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #39 - October 21, 2010, 11:59 PM

    Ok.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #40 - October 22, 2010, 02:10 AM

    Science is a useful fiction, no less, no more. The problems of scientific proclamations of truth are well documented and I believe I even started a thread on why science cannot ever proclaim the truth but only useful correlations of phenomena. If you like I can find that thread.

    I also do not believe in the abrahamic religions. That does not mean that now I have the truth, it just means I have one less hypothesis to consider.


    Hint: science doesn't proclaim to have THE truth, and anyone who does is selling you something.  

    Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #41 - October 22, 2010, 05:25 AM

    *sits back and watches z10 in action* popcorn
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #42 - October 22, 2010, 06:02 AM

    Hint: science doesn't proclaim to have THE truth, and anyone who does is selling you something.  

    Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 


    What part would you like me to clear up, deusvult? The point I am making is that science doesn't have any truth, it just has useful predictability power and that's all.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #43 - October 22, 2010, 06:02 AM

    *sits back and watches z10 in action* popcorn


    Can I tag you in to take my place?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #44 - October 22, 2010, 06:06 AM

    Tag team??

  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #45 - October 22, 2010, 06:36 AM

    z10, your points uptil now are standard undergrad philosophy fare. we all know(atleast i do) that very little stands undisputed in academic philosophy. so where is this going?

    do you have some original ideas on metaphysics or philosophy of science. if so i'd like to hear them.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #46 - October 22, 2010, 07:02 AM

    I do not pretend to have anything more to say than has been said already s12, I'm only standing on the shoulders of giants after all  Smiley

    However, it seems that you are discounting the "standard" position of epistemology only because it is standard, does something have to be original to be pertinent to a discussion?
    Yes, all these things have been said before but they deserve to be repeated because they are worth repeating.
    What are your thoughts on these matters?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #47 - October 22, 2010, 07:16 AM

    Quote
    z10, your points uptil now are standard undergrad philosophy fare. we all know(atleast i do) that very little stands undisputed in academic philosophy. so where is this going?

    do you have some original ideas on metaphysics or philosophy of science. if so i'd like to hear them.


    There is no reason to be rude, z10 is nice to everyone and using a sly ad hominem dig isn't going to disprove anything he's said.

    As a non-undergraduate philosopher who is working on a thesis in metaphysics, I don't see anything even controversial here. From what I can understand of z10's argument all he is saying is that despite whether atheism is a negative belief, it must be supplemented with positive beliefs (or at least agnosticism). It can be said in regards to the 'big' questions about existence and things that while one may be an atheist about god, no one can be an atheist in regards to these questions.

    As to whether or not science is truthful, the philosophical position (or one at least), is that all science has underlying methodological assumptions which are not verifiable, thus the foundations of science are called into question which undermines any scientific claim. However Philosophers typically have a more rigid criteria when claiming something to be true, and what counts as Truth (with a capital "T") relies on the truth of the underlying theory. Science's standards for truth merely rely on obtaining consistent, accurate results (and of course some other things, but something like this). In this sense some things are "more true than others," though no statement is (on many philosophical views) exempt from being subject to a little bit of a leap in faith.

    I mean, philosophers deny the absolute verification of basic arithmetic, so it should not be surprising that science is also out the window for providing us with any "Truth."



  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #48 - October 22, 2010, 07:27 AM

    I love zoomi.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #49 - October 22, 2010, 07:52 AM

    I just can’t subscribe at all to it, z10. This no-truth philosophy. This no-true-knowledge. It never really interested me. Nobody ever managed to sell it to me. It just doesn’t engage me. Its so whimsical and self-indulgent, and by its very nature leads nowhere. It’s a spiritual dead-end in my opinion. Yes, ok, we can never truly know anything. But so what? That’s it. That’s where that thought diversion ends. A little bit of intellectual masturbation. Been there, seen that, heard it, explored that possibility. Why linger there? Lets go back to reality. Its much more interesting there. Reality is as real as it needs to be. Reality is as objective as it needs to be. Reality is the realm where beauty dwells, where everything we recognise and love, manifests and takes form.

    I’m an artist. I have to take hold of life - watch it unfold, knowing that its there, study it, sense it, reach out and touch it, rely on it, need it, want it, experience it, taste it, be aware of it, consciously. I need to understand it and be able to describe it. I need a measure of control over it. A mastery of it. Know it intimately. But more importantly, I need to be affected by it - love it or hate it, enjoy it, be stirred and inspired. I need my ideas to crystallise, not evaporate into vague phantom possibilities. They need to have form, life, meaning, substance, not float away before they ever had a chance to be something. Its my purpose to weave the tapestry, not pick it apart as I go along. I need patterns, shapes, colours, even if I have to apply my own. I need something to get my teeth into. I need to bite into it and lick the juice that runs down my chin.

    The creative soul is always hungry, never really satisfied. The hunger is like a crying baby, when you have tried everything and you still don’t know what it wants. It needs constant stimulus, excitement, hardship, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is this well of desire and inner conflict that true artists draw power from - an alien empathy and understanding of the world, with so much emphasis on their place in it. It is their greatest gift and also their biggest flaw. They wish only to make sense of this gift, to express it, to share it passionately, for it to be considered and appreciated, and ultimately set themselves up for misunderstanding, criticism and rejection. The lucky ones find a comfortable outlet, and live happily ever after in relative complacency. The greatest ones always want something more, and never get it.

    It is not as simple as creating beautiful works of art. Beauty is a fickle and subjective concept - a man-made, intangible entity. For this reason, there is no such thing as good or bad art - only truth or lies. That’s it for me - truth or lies. There has to be truth. Real, tangible understanding. Truth is my lifeblood. Because you are giving yourself, you need it to be worth something. If not to others, then at least to yourself.

    I am happy with this awkward truth, however True it might or might not be. It makes sense, and it must be appreciated fully for what it is, be explored, driven forward. I can only be fulfilled by sharing this reality, and I’d be purposeless without it. Even this humble understanding, this human amount of certainty, of this narrow spectrum of reality is enough to fuel my fire.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #50 - October 22, 2010, 08:14 AM

    I love zoomi.


    And we love you BD  far away hug
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #51 - October 22, 2010, 08:26 AM

    Do you realise how vague a question that is? Smiley


    How is it vague, you have a belief you exist right?
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #52 - October 22, 2010, 08:29 AM

    RE: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=ae49cd5187f5691edeb874c7c5eacda8&topic=5158.msg132251#msg132251

    We did this last year with Peruvian!
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #53 - October 22, 2010, 08:31 AM

    I just can’t subscribe at all to it, z10. This no-truth philosophy. This no-true-knowledge. It never really interested me. Nobody ever managed to sell it to me. It just doesn’t engage me. Its so whimsical and self-indulgent, and by its very nature leads nowhere. It’s a spiritual dead-end in my opinion. Yes, ok, we can never truly know anything. But so what? That’s it. That’s where that thought diversion ends. A little bit of intellectual masturbation. Been there, seen that, heard it, explored that possibility. Why linger there? Lets go back to reality. Its much more interesting there. Reality is as real as it needs to be. Reality is as objective as it needs to be. Reality is the realm where beauty dwells, where everything we recognise and love, manifests and takes form.

    I’m an artist. I have to take hold of life - watch it unfold, knowing that its there, study it, sense it, reach out and touch it, rely on it, need it, want it, experience it, taste it, be aware of it, consciously. I need to understand it and be able to describe it. I need a measure of control over it. A mastery of it. Know it intimately. But more importantly, I need to be affected by it - love it or hate it, enjoy it, be stirred and inspired. I need my ideas to crystallise, not evaporate into vague phantom possibilities. They need to have form, life, meaning, substance, not float away before they ever had a chance to be something. Its my purpose to weave the tapestry, not pick it apart as I go along. I need patterns, shapes, colours, even if I have to apply my own. I need something to get my teeth into. I need to bite into it and lick the juice that runs down my chin.

    The creative soul is always hungry, never really satisfied. The hunger is like a crying baby, when you have tried everything and you still don’t know what it wants. It needs constant stimulus, excitement, hardship, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is this well of desire and inner conflict that true artists draw power from - an alien empathy and understanding of the world, with so much emphasis on their place in it. It is their greatest gift and also their biggest flaw. They wish only to make sense of this gift, to express it, to share it passionately, for it to be considered and appreciated, and ultimately set themselves up for misunderstanding, criticism and rejection. The lucky ones find a comfortable outlet, and live happily ever after in relative complacency. The greatest ones always want something more, and never get it.

    It is not as simple as creating beautiful works of art. Beauty is a fickle and subjective concept - a man-made, intangible entity. For this reason, there is no such thing as good or bad art - only truth or lies. That’s it for me - truth or lies. There has to be truth. Real, tangible understanding. Truth is my lifeblood. Because you are giving yourself, you need it to be worth something. If not to others, then at least to yourself.

    I am happy with this awkward truth, however True it might or might not be. It makes sense, and it must be appreciated fully for what it is, be explored, driven forward. I can only be fulfilled by sharing this reality, and I’d be purposeless without it. Even this humble understanding, this human amount of certainty, of this narrow spectrum of reality is enough to fuel my fire.


    Great, but the discussion then just becomes about what you'd prefer to consider as true, not what is true. Or rather, what your own subjective standards tell you is good enough to constitute truth.

    I guess thats what makes the philosophers philosophers, they see the problem of coming to know the ultimate truth as a challenge, and not a dead-end.

    I consider myself as something of an artist too (in spirit, not in talent of course), and I chose to both weave and unravel the tapestry. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

    Though I understand the need for truth, something to grasp. To always question and to accept that you may never know is a difficult, frightening thing.

    So I guess the discussion sort of ends there, but good luck in your endeavors Smiley
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #54 - October 22, 2010, 08:36 AM

    So I guess the discussion sort of ends there, but good luck in your endeavors Smiley


    Its over before it begins really. Where do we go from "We can't know this thing exists"? Do we just go "Oh, ok" and pack up and go home? Or do we backtrack and start the conversation again?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #55 - October 22, 2010, 08:41 AM

    Proof is only relative to the system it is based on (axioms) outside that system it might not be true. It can be explained it just cannot be proven it is complete outside the system it is based on outside the axioms. It might be true, but it cannot be proven to be true.

    See the Liar paradox.

    If the statement is true, everything asserted in it must be true. However, because the statement asserts that it is itself false, it must be false. So the hypothesis that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is false. Yet the sentence cannot be false for that hypothesis also leads to contradiction. If the statement is false, then what it says about itself is not true. It says that it is false, so that must not be true. Hence, it is true. Under either hypothesis, the statement is both true and false.

    I.e consistent within the confines of the axioms and contradictory outside the confines of the axioms. So it is both inconsistent and contradictory, while at the same time being consistent in logic or semantics we have a paradox.

    This is why it is dumb to say, I can logically prove god, or logically disprove god - no you are just an idiot and you don't understand shit. What is why I laugh to myself when someone says I am outright atheist, being an atheist is not synonymous with intellect or rationality. You are just as bad as the theist.

    But being so smart myself I smack the theist with his proof, and show his axiom at the start is flawed so his proof is only true within the system he is confining it to, thus he has confined his god to a system which make it easy for me to prove that god based on the system it is confined to cannot be proven to be true outside that system, a system cannot prove its definition of true is true, and then he goes and cries in a corner asking why he was born in the wrong universe.

    This is why I say let the theist define his god before I crush him.

    Godel's incompleteness theorem is more so related to the fact that some abstract truths can never be shown to be true. This is all going back to the Galileo, Cantor, Turing ideas of infinity.

    from wikipedia:
    Stanley Jaki, followed much later by Stephen Hawking and others, argue that (an analogous argument to) G?del's theorem implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final".

    Faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith." In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'" - Godel's theorem: an incomplete guide to its use and abuse
    By Torkel Franz'n.

  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #56 - October 22, 2010, 08:49 AM

    Its over before it begins really. Where do we go from "We can't know this thing exists"? Do we just go "Oh, ok" and pack up and go home? Or do we backtrack and start the conversation again?


    We become Solipsists then.  Cheesy Afro

  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #57 - October 22, 2010, 12:58 PM

    Regardless of whether one considers "Allah" or any other entity that we may dub as "God" to be that to which we attribute the creation of the universe to and also, therefore its inherent "design"/"structure" as well.

    I argue against there being a "necessity" for an entity who is more intelligent than all of the intelligence of the universe and therefore through its intelligence necessarily giving rise to this universe.[aka Kalam's cosmological arguement]

    We cannot consider that which is non-intelligent as an "architect", let alone supreme. Since "design" is a principle that requires intelligence.

    We may say that this universe has a "design". Sure why not? But just because it appears so doesnt have to mean that there is an unseen hand working behind it.



    complexity derives from simplicity, complexity seems to be increasing in this universe

    namely; organic evolution[biology] and stages of development of the universe[cosmology]



    - organisms arise from inorganic matter

    we humans are sentient beings with, by far according to what we have observed, the highest level of consciousness and intelligence on this planet and we are fairly recent in the history of this earth

    evolution starts from simple organisms that gradually through adaptation and selection increase in complexity

    in particular, consciousness + intelligence seem to be that which seperate us from our ancestors and non-living things (non-living things exhibiting the least or no amount of consciousness and intelligence)

    and since it is of non-living things that we are fundamentally composed of and living things arise from non-living things

    If we are to trace a Source for this universe/from that which the universe proceeds from, it doesnt have to be one that is an even more conscious and intelligent being

    As we have already proven that by the observation of this universe, complexity can arise from simplicity. Infact the further we go back, the simpler things seem to be. Therefore the Source of this universe must infact instead be the most simplest.



    - the stages of development of the universe

    the universe undergoes stages of development, if we are to attribute the nature of the universe to its cause, then its cause must be undergoing transformation/the cause or "architect" never completes with its "construction", rather its an ongoing process.

    If we are to consider that this Source, is a cause that was not caused itself by anything else and never being affected by the effects that take place, it still must be undergoing a transformation of some sort because causes and effects that are taking place, are in this particular arrangement [the way things are happening]. [and the way things are happening is that]The universe isnt stagnant; 1) through simple observation of this world alone, it is obvious that numerous activities are taking place 2) the universe is expanding



    hey perhaps is that why Christians tend to be allergic to the theory of evolution and Muslims as well coming up, time and again with the strawman fallacy of "something cant come out of nothing"? Thinking hard
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #58 - October 22, 2010, 01:24 PM

    This is a non-issue really - atheism may well attempt to be a negative comment about a certain belief but nobody lives in such a void. Everybody has positive beliefs about reality, even atheists.


    Reality is something everyone within it share regardless of their perceptions of it.

    For example a person having psychological-neurological problems may imagine things that are happening when they really aren't. We define reality as per what vast majority of average humans under normal circumstances hold to be true/real.

    There is no specific reason or base for us to construct this "reality", but it has provided as a useful way of developing scientific methodology. The robust logic that we apply don't have to be so as well, but it gets results. And since there is no other way that works best as far as we know. We accept this.

    Of course people are free to imagine a reality wherein they see pink ponies galloping down the highway and choose to chase after them. But they should know that it is they who pay the price for it.
  • Re: Atheism is NOT a Belief
     Reply #59 - October 22, 2010, 02:07 PM

    Well, I don't presume to speak for what a theist says but it seems to me that the video has missed the point. Sure, it may well be true that atheism says nothing positive about any claim but the point is that atheists then have other positive beliefs that act as alternatives to the religious worldview.


    Atheists tend to have the plain worldview. It is you theists who add your own mix to it. Even then you theists cannot agree upon whether your entities of worship, be they one or several, are confined within material realms. Whereas most atheists rely solely upon science to confirm any metaphysical claim without invoking any supernatural entities.

    Quote
    So, the theist position is this - we all have positive beliefs about reality, some of us include a deity in that, others do not but every positive belief is a metaphysical position and thus open to criticism and scrutiny. The atheists cannot turn around and say that just because their positive beliefs about reality don't include a diety that they are somehow free of error


    How are we to establish when a person is or not in error? Upon what are you going to fall back on to provide certainty? Do you not recognize any systems of investigation and inference that could carry weight on any statements regarding the phenomena within this universe?
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »