Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@J6
"Humanity is dangerous unto itself; it does not need religion to become violent."
Oh but religion helps, it helps a lot.
Yeah, I actually agree with J6 on this one, humanity does not need religion :p
I know, he meant it differently :)
But yes of course, humans are violent, they are violent with or without religion, but if history is any guide, religion has certainly made the problem worse. Simply another thing that divides people, if we were all atheist, their would be no division, no misinterpretation no books telling us the other folks are infidels and wrong etc.
If we were all atheists there would still be division. You can observe this by watching how people automatically form in groups and outgroups at even the most basic of differences, like who overestimated and who underestimated the number of pebbles in a jar. From such trivial differences you can see ingroup favoritism emerge. You'll treat those who are like you better than those who are not.
The way many atheists speak about religion demonstrates this. The language is not passive. It is the way one group has always characterized the opposition: As evil, uneducated, and the cause all your worlds problems
It's ironic.
Oh yeah for sure there would still be division, but at least we would have one less division, and that being religion/god concepts. And Religion division is especially nefarious as it becomes the core of peoples entire identity and worldview, and how they operate. You wont likely see wars and genocides etc played out over who overestimated marbles or underestimated.
I will say I am certainly in the group of: theist are different from me, and yes, I feel folks use religion as a warm blanket, that they should grow up and stop using as a blankie, but I do understand it is very difficult to give up said blankie, and that many theist have a lot invested in keeping said blankie. Theist parents and peers told them about their religion growing up during the highly influenced stage, and such a large change is very scary. And the older people get the more set in their ways they get making such a large change nearly impossible without a major life changing event.
I don't really consider religious folks the "opposition" except for a select few where they actively or in subtle ways try to push their beliefs on others. I do feel religion in general is a problem because I think we all need to be better and reading and understanding real evidence available to us to make better decisions for ourselves, and for others.
It also certainly does not help that atheist do, all too often with deadly consequences, face persecution. For instance in the US, it is political suicide to label yourself an atheist when running for any major office. Far better to lie, and pick whichever religion is most popular with the demographic vote you are going for in hopes of getting elected. Atheism or people who just do not care, actually represents a large portion of the US population, yet never get anywhere close to the same representation percents as the percents of the population that atheist/agnostic/dont-care segment is.
It's only ironic because you're using a straw man arguments. Saying atheists can be aggressive is the same as saying people who don't collects stamps can be aggressive.
Atheism is the lack of a single belief. On it's own this motivates nothing but freeing up an atheist from adherence to archaic and often pernicious beliefs...
It would not stop them being bad on its own. Merely remove strong motives to be so.
If you can be aggressive on your own, you can be violent as a whole. All it takes is that you see yourself as distinct from theists, and that there are others who view themselves the same: Birth of an ingroup
So everyone who doesn't collect stamps is on a slippery slope to membership of a violent gang? I'm dubious, but then you have form for plucking ludicrous and unevidenced claims out of thin air, and of course there is all that pesky research, hard evidence that shows atheists are decent moral people.
This is almost as funny as people who try to claim the Nazis were atheists, as if centuries of European christian antisemitism never happened, and antisemitism is an atheist preoccupation. Yes an atheist can be bad, so can people who don't go train spotting, go figure.
@ Johhny hieroglyph
Its not ironic. That's just a smart arse comment.
Your first para had some merit, the second betrays your lack of education. "always" , "many" hardly the kind of language I would expect from you.
You've certainly not helped change my mind with your various contributions to this forum.
It's only ironic because you're using a straw man arguments. Saying atheists can be aggressive is the same as saying people who don't collects stamps can be aggressive.
Atheism is the lack of a single belief. On it's own this motivates nothing but freeing up an atheist from adherence to archaic and often pernicious beliefs...
It would not stop them being bad on its own. Merely remove strong motives to be so.
Humanity invented religions. Since we all have the capacity to be dangerous do we really need to invent dangerous beliefs as well?
Especially when they're based on unevidenced superstition. At their heart all religions tell their believers they're somehow special and different, and that's a terrible idea on its own.
"Humanity is dangerous unto itself; it does not need religion to become violent."
Religion motivates people do to terrible things, to commit unspeakable atrocities, and most of them are celebrated in the bible. If humans are dangerous then religion isn't really helping if the best it can claim is they might be dangerous without it. There is also the incongruous fact that when researched on a level plane atheists are shown to be at least as law abiding and moral as theists. Western democracies that have secular government and low rates of religiosity among the populations have some of the lowest instances of violent crime like murder and rape in the developed world.
Your own religion sees nothing wrong with it's deity committing genocide, or torturing people forever after they die. Hardly a healthy moral outlook if teaching people that violence is wrong is a desirable outcome. People are fallible evolved mammals after all, this is not an excuse any rational person could extend to a deity for whom it claimed quite literally anything is possible.
As anyone who knows Breezy might suspect, and any one who knows anything about the field knows: this is NOT how hypothesis testing is done.
Both Cognostic and I are using the concept of a null hypothesis, the logic behind it, for an issue that isn't tested statistically. Before you tell me why I'm wrong, are you taking that into account?
Also, do we agree that "God exists" is the hypothesis, and "God does not exist" the null hypothesis?
Do you really need this explained again?
You believe a deity exists, and I can choose not to believe this without any contrary claim or evidence if I think your claim has not met it's burden of proof. If you define your deity in a way that is unfalsifiable then this would negate the possibility of anyone falsifying it anyway, even if your belief were in fact false, hence it would be irrational again for me to believe it if I felt it had not reached it's burden of proof. It would be absurd for you to cite the fact an unfalsifiable claim cannot be falsified as evidence for it's validity, and I've given you enough examples of unfalsifiable claims now for a repetition to be pointless. You can play with semantics all you want but you are wrong here, in your assertion that the rejection of a claim is the same as a contrary claim, or that disbelieving a claim which I think has not met it's burden of proof, itself carries a burden of proof.
The burden of proof is a legal, perhaps even a debate, concept. Falsification a scientific one. You wrongly mix the two together.
The goal in science is to disprove our hypotheses. That's the opposite of what the burden of proof asks for. Falsification is important because without it we cannot reject a claim scientifically. If you believe God is unfalsifiable (which I've stated before that I do not) then you're agreeing that you cannot reject the claim.
You'll have to turn to philosophy, or continue using the burden of proof as your only excuse for rejecting the claim. Look into any debate among two scientists, they're continually looking to disprove each others claims. You'll never find two scientists sitting with their arms crossed waiting for the other to prove their claim.
Again you are talking nonsense John, yes burden of proof is use as a legal term, but no it is not solely used in that context. I already said falsification was a scientific term, so what if I used it in a non-scientific context if it is apropos, which it is. You really are being ridiculously dishonest with such obfuscation.
"The goal in science is to disprove our hypotheses. "
The ultimate goal of science is to advance human knowledge and understanding. That is just one part of it's methods.
"That's the opposite of what the burden of proof asks for."
Straw man fallacy, where did I say the burden of proof was used in the scientific method, can really be this obtuse or is it deliberate evasion again?
--------------------------------------
"Falsification is important because without it we cannot reject a claim scientifically. If you believe God is unfalsifiable (which I've stated before that I do not) then you're agreeing that you cannot reject the claim."
OMFG John read what I posted, I quite specifically said that whether the claim a deity is real is an unfalsifiable claim depends how you are defining deity, and some of religions claims are quite demonstrably falsifiable, and some have been falsified like the Genesis claim that life was created in it's current form (species) rather than evolved slowly over time. Your conclusion is absurd and I have no idea why you think you can pluck this kind of nonsense out of thin air, but I stated as plainly as is possible again that I don't believe in any deities as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim. So unless you've keeping this evidence to yourself this is all just semantics from you yet again.
"You'll have to turn to philosophy, or continue using the burden of proof as your only excuse for rejecting the claim. "
I need no excuse as the claim has not met it's burden of proof, and I am using the phrase in an epistemological context not a legal one, since you tried to misrepresent it last time. When someone demonstrates some objective evidence for a deity then that might change,, but they've has thousands of years and so far nada.
"You'll never find two scientists sitting with their arms crossed waiting for the other to prove their claim."
Another straw man, care to show where I claimed scientists did this? Though of course the idea that scientists don't replicate research to validate it's conclusions is incorrect. I'd also point out that I have told you on more than one occasion that science rewards those who falsify claims and ideas at least as much as those who validate it, in order to illustrate how ridiculous your claim is that there are valid scientific objections to species evolution, yet in over 150 years no one has falsified it.
Me: "You'll have to turn to philosophy, or continue using the burden of proof as your only excuse for rejecting the claim."
You: "I need no excuse as the claim has not met it's burden of proof (The excuse), and I am using the phrase in an epistemological (The philosophy) context not a legal one, since you tried to misrepresent it last time.
I must admit, there is something particularly unique about your way of thinking, which I find fascinating.
Now my thinking is unique, yesterday I was an atheist clone who couldn't think for himself, your obfuscation and deflection is becoming ever more desperate if these ad hominem attacks are anything to go by. Where did I ever claim I was using the burden of proof in a legal context (your lie). The burden of proof is not an excuse as anyone who understand anything about epistemology knows, and no one needs an excuse to reject a fairy tale that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for.
If nothing carries a burden of proof then literally anything can be believed, so at least it is clear why you think your beliefs carry no burden of proof. However I care whether what I believe is true, so superstition and the gullibility of blind faith are out, now can you demonstrate any objective evidence that your deity is any more real than all the others?
"If nothing carries a burden of proof then literally anything can be believed."
No; are you familiar with confirmation bias, the research behind it? People tend to seek confirming evidence and ignore or explain away disconfirming evidence. That is how lawyers prove their case; by taking a position, and finding all the evidence that confirms it.
Your passive approach, which I've called intellectually lazy, makes you an easy prey to people's biases. You seem to acknowledge that, given that you think the burden of proof is your only safeguard against believing anything. The only reason why you don't believe mermaids exist, appears to be because nobody has taken the time to present a compelling argument to you. One which ignores all the evidence against, and presents all the evidence in favor.
The concept of falsification, of conjecture and refutation, is at odds with the concept of the burden of proof.
"People tend to seek confirming evidence and ignore or explain away disconfirming evidence. "
Yes, theists do this all the time, they often cite prayers with a favourable outcome, but ignore the ones that fail. Or your own confirmation bias in failing to acknowledge the only scientific fact you deny are ones that refute part of your religious beliefs, like evolution for instance. Or a great example is when you tried to claim certain texts in the bible implied a condemnation of slavery but for page after page refused to discuss or even acknowledge the biblical texts that specifically mentioned slavery and of course quite specifically endorse it.
"you think the burden of proof is your only safeguard against believing anything."
I can't tell whether you're lying or have an execrable grasp of English, but I never said 'only' did I.This is just another example of your biased interpretation of what has been said, which is ironic.
"The only reason why you don't believe mermaids exist, appears to be because nobody has taken the time to present a compelling argument to you. "
Nope, and again you are either brazenly lying or have a woeful grasp of the English language. I have stated innumerable times what I consider proper evidence for a claim to be, and so I suspect it's the former, but I am starting to wonder. I certainly have never made any such claim, or even implied it.
"The concept of falsification, of conjecture and refutation, is at odds with the concept of the burden of proof."
I disagree, and falsification is a minimum scientific standard for any idea claim or hypothesis, all scientific ideas must be falsifiable or be rejected as unscientific. I am and always have been using burden of proof here in epistemological terms, and have said so many times. So I have no idea why you keep misrepresenting my use of it. What's more you pretend this phrase is somehow incorrectly applied here yet religious apologetics use it all the time, though like you they dishonestly try to claim that those who don't share their beliefs carry a burden of proof.
"The strength or weight of argument required by one side to convince the other side. The concept of burden of proof marks a balance between the competing points of view in a critical discussion, or in other adversarial types of dialogue. As more weight is gained by the argumentation of one side, its point of view is justified more strongly, and the burden of proof passes to the other side. As one side rises, the other falls, and the burden of proof passes accordingly. Recognition and use of burden of proof can be a powerful factor in reasoned persuasion. There are two main uses for the notion. The first is when, having gained a temporary advantage, we announce that the burden of proof now lies with the other side, and simply wait to see what, if anything, they produce; if nothing emerges we claim the victory, even though our own reasoning may have been far from conclusive. The second is where we attempt to claim that our own view ***enjoys some antecedent presumption in its favour,*** so that the burden of proof lies initially with our opponents. The dictates of common sense are often held to enjoy this privileged position. See also circular reasoning ; informal fallacies . : ‘ The burden of proof’ , American Philosophical Quarterly 7 ( 1970 ), 74 – 82 . : ‘ The psychological burden of proof’"
In asterisks is where Hitchens's razor "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", might apply for instance. This epistemological razor is of course named after the late Christopher Hitchens, but is an English translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"), which was commonly used in the 19th century.
Again I can't tell whether you're struggling with these concepts or are being dishonest, but you are certainly wrong that the absence or lack of belief is a claim, or that it carries any burden of proof. An atheist may choose to make such claims and may incur a burden of proof in doing so, but atheism does not require a burden of proof no matter how desperately you claim it does. Anymore than not believing I flew to the moon using magic last night requires anyone to offer contrary argument or evidence before they can disbelieve the claim.
That's a long response.
I suppose that as long as you don't claim or think that God doesn't exist, we can get along nicely. I also don't claim such a thing, so we may have found some common ground.
I don't believe any deity exist, that's why I am content to describe myself as an atheist. I don't believe the christian deity is any more real than Thor or Zeus. I fear you are still not understanding my atheism. I think part of the problem if that theists attach way more significance to atheism than atheists do.
What I've understood is that you don't agree with the claim that God doesn't exist.
"Either God exists or he doesn't, there is no middle ground. If theists claim God exists, then to reject that is to claim God doesn't exist."
Nonsense, that statement is demonstrably false. The disbelief of a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim. You're being absurd.
"If I want to reject a claim, that God exists, I have to find support for the null hypothesis."
So you either have to have proof mermaids don't exist or you have to believe they do exist? Rubbish Breezy, you're being ridiculous.
" You're clearly unable to support the null hypothesis, that God doesn't exist, otherwise why call it unfalsifiable?"
Dear oh dear, how can one falsify a claim that is unfalsifiable? If I claimed I flew to the moon last night using magic you couldn't disprove it because it is unfalsifiable, are you really asserting that you must believe that claim because you can't falsify it? This is beyond stupid Breezy, are you really in earnest?
Anyway I have to start preparing dinner as there is only so much of your dishonest semantics I can cope with. I shall leave others explain it to you if they can.
How can you possibly reject the claim that apples exist, and not be saying apples don't exist?
For a succinct explanation of the answer to this, John, go to YouTube and search for = Dilahunty, gum balls.
Or....one of us can go all remedial and paraphrase it for you.
If you don’t understand the concept, then you have no clue how criminal courts work.
How can you possibly keep misrepresenting disbelieving a claim as making a claim? An apple could have understood this by now, read what I actually wrote John, and stop making up false claims I never made based on what you want atheism to mean. I don't believe a deity exists as no one has demonstrated proper evidence for the claim. Instead of wasting everyone's time with dishonest semantics try presenting some objective evidence that a deity exists.
Have you heard of that overdone illustration, when somebody says DON"T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS. The moral of the story being that you can't, not think about them.
Its as if you're trying your hardest to convince me that you didn't think about a pink elephant. Trying to prove to me that your mind is blank, having no opinion, no belief, no thoughts.. That you can reject the existence of apples, but manage somehow to not deny their existence.
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ,
"Have you heard of that overdone illustration, when somebody says DON"T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS. The moral of the story being that you can't, not think about them."
Haven't you ever seen a pink elephant? They look just like green elephants except for their color.
https://img00.deviantart.net/dbe0/i/2007/114/8/c/pink_elephant_by_house_...
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/54500/Green-Elephant--54731.jpg
Pages