Battlezone Forums

It has almost no power because it is not an organized movement, nobody gets to be the atheist Pope. It is simply a catch all description for all those who do not believe in gods. I suppose I was an atheist for the first half of my life, simply due to not being brought up with Religion and finding the concepts presented by them to be unbelievable.
For the second half of my life I developed a far more expansive understanding, I am neither religious or atheist, I realized that there are different ways of looking at the issue.
As I see it now most religions are stuck preaching their "Truth's" simply because to do anything else means that they would become something else. Atheists on the other hand have no specific narrative at all and would never be able to agree on what it was anyway. Both find it impossible to deal with the actuality of existence and it's implications.

I don't think anyone is right.

I also don't think anyone is wrong.

Boom, paradox.

Yes its a paradox. Time, reality and truth are all generated by the act of perception. This creates an infinity of stories, they are all true and published in the book called The Universe.

MrTwosheds wrote:It has almost no power because it is not an organized movement, nobody gets to be the atheist Pope.

Nobody gets to be the Islamic Pope either, but that doesn't stop people blaming a few idiots on an entire religion.

MrTwosheds wrote:It is simply a catch all description for all those who do not believe in gods.

I do not believe in gods, but I by no means can be considered an atheist.

MrTwosheds wrote:Atheists on the other hand have no specific narrative at all

Apart from the fact that they all say Gods do not exist - and there's no proof of that either.

General BlackDragon wrote:I don't think anyone is right.

I also don't think anyone is wrong.

Boom, paradox.

No, you just don't think

MrTwosheds wrote:Atheists on the other hand have no specific narrative at all and would never be able to agree on what it was anyway.

I disagree. I think that science uncovering the chain of cause and effect behind the existence of the Universe has found quite a lot of the true 'narrative' of existence. It hasn't come up with all of the answers yet, but perhaps it will one day. In the far future, we might discover the nature of the Universe - and it might be incredibly boring - like a bacteria discovering that it has lived its entire existence in a puddle of mud.

I would make one claim though; it's more likely that science will discover the truth about the Universe than religion ever will. That is simply because science is actually trying in a meaningful way. No, it has not yet succeeded. Until it does, if it does, this argument will never end.

MrTwosheds wrote:Both find it impossible to deal with the actuality of existence and it's implications.

The very notion of existence having implications at all is dicey. I don't think that there is some grand 'meaning of life' or grand reason behind existence. I think we're in a celestial-sized puddle of mud.

AHadley wrote:I do not believe in gods, but I by no means can be considered an atheist.

Uh...

AHadley wrote:Apart from the fact that they all say Gods do not exist - and there's no proof of that either.

Innocent until proven guilty ∴ Non-existent until proven to exist

Maybe AH is an autotheist.

I disagree. I think that science uncovering the chain cause and effect behind the existence of the Universe has found quite a lot of the true 'narrative' of existence.

Science uncovers facts, it takes philosophy to create a meaning for them and then someone turns that into a religion...
All 3 serve a purpose, discovery, interpretation, distribution. Brian Cox for Pope!

Secrets? There was a big bang (probably a collision) it expanded and then grew self awareness so that it could know that it was. It did it the way that worked.(still under construction) Godish enough?

MrTwosheds wrote: Science uncovers facts, it takes philosophy to create a meaning for them and then someone turns that into a religion...
All 3 serve a purpose, discovery, interpretation, distribution. Brian Cox for Pope!

I don't consider that the facts have any additional 'meaning' beyond their inherent truth. That is simply unnecessary. It is we humans who tag facts with unnecessary meaning. For example, human beings may tag the sun with the subjective meaning 'it is there to provide warmth for us', when in truth this is not the case. The sun exists because of a colossal thermal reaction. Nothing more. That it provides warmth is merely incedental.

It is our propensity to believe that we are the centre of the universe which leads us to conclude that there is 'meaning' in anything.

The notion of 'purpose' exists only from our perspective. The Universe has no purpose whatsoever. A puddle of mud has no purpose. It exists due to a chain of cause and effect.

The collective human ego has a hard time coping with this fact, so we spend a great amount of time attempting to 'find meaning' where there is none. That is not our fault but a result of our physically limited perspective and emotion-driven desire for living the socially-constructed idea of a 'worthwhile' life.

MrTwosheds wrote: Secrets? There was a big bang (probably a collision) it expanded and then grew self awareness so that it could know that it was. It did it the way that worked.(still under construction) Godish enough?

I assume that you're referring to life being 'part' of the Universe and the idea that 'we are the Universe experiencing itself'. I'm not convinced that is the case. Being part of the Universe is not akin to being part of anything else. The Universe is not a single entity but a collection of an incredible number of separate entities only bound together by a 'cause and effect' relationship. I'd say that we are not 'part' of the Universe, but among its many entities.

EDIT: In full agreement with the post above. Believing that the universe is self-aware is as much a matter of faith as belief in any religious deity - it just lacks the documentation.

bigbadbogie wrote:Innocent until proven guilty ∴ Non-existent until proven to exist

Guilt isn't an ideal analogy as "innocent until proven guilty" is for public and media consideration (and largely ignored these days anyway), not philosophy and thought experiment. I take issue with our legal systems anyway, as people are fallible and easily influenced. Besides, how do you decide which way around those should go? What says "innocent" should be equivalent to "non-existent" and not the other way around?

The usual phrase applied to this is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In a logical investigation, the fact that something has not been detected should only be considered conclusive if it could not evade detection in those circumstances. If you looked for adult kangaroos in the back of your car, you'd find an absence of evidence - it only becomes evidence of absence when you factor in that an adult kangaroo couldn't possibly hide from you there. Until the absence *becomes* evidence then it's all up in the air.

As an analogy, take a look at the Schrödinger's Cat experiment; two mutually exclusive options and no evidence for either, just like here. If there's no evidence to suggest the cat is dead, should we just assume it is alive?

AHadley wrote: The usual phrase applied to this is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In a logical investigation, the fact that something has not been detected should only be considered conclusive if it could not evade detection in those circumstances. If you looked for adult kangaroos in the back of your car, you'd find an absence of evidence - it only becomes evidence of absence when you factor in that an adult kangaroo couldn't possibly hide from you there. Until the absence *becomes* evidence then it's all up in the air.

I follow the idea that only that which can be proven to exist does exist. That still leaves all possibilities open. It all depends on whether new evidence comes to light. My default position is that I assume that 'it' does not exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but we do not require evidence to assume that something does not exist. We only require evidence to assume that something does exist.

There is no evidence that the Universe is toilet-shaped. There is also no evidence against it. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Universe is toilet-shaped.

AHadley wrote: As an analogy, take a look at the Schrödinger's Cat experiment; two mutually exclusive options and no evidence for either, just like here. If there's no evidence to suggest the cat is dead, should we just assume it is alive?

In that case, I'd take the third option and assume that the cat does not exist.

AHadley wrote:What says "innocent" should be equivalent to "non-existent" and not the other way around?

While presumed innocent, the verdict could go either way. Once presumed guilty, the verdict has gone one way.

bigbadbogie wrote:I follow the idea that only that which can be proven to exist does exist. That still leaves all possibilities open. It all depends on whether new evidence comes to light. My default position is that I assume that 'it' does not exist.

I follow both that and the opposite. If we were to discover evidence for a higher power tomorrow it would obviously not leap suddenly into existence; it will have been there all along. An assumption that something does not exist because there is no evidence is just as logically falsifible as the inverse.

There is also the issue that "god" is such a nebulous term that it can't be defined in an adequate enough way for us even to get close to proving or disproving it, so I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that we're talking about the theistic concept rather than the abstract.

bigbadbogie wrote:"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but we do not require evidence to assume that something does not exist. We only require evidence to assume that something does exist.

An assumption, by definition, requires a lack of evidence.

bigbadbogie wrote:There is no evidence that the Universe is toilet-shaped. There is also no evidence against it. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Universe is toilet-shaped.

Our models for the universe and its creation imply that it takes a nebulous, roughly spherical shape - obviously this is not conclusive proof, but it's more substantial than our proof of it being a toilet. It's the difference between estimation and assumption.

bigbadbogie wrote:In that case, I'd take the third option and assume that the cat does not exist.

You know it exists; you put it in the box.

bigbadbogie wrote:While presumed innocent, the verdict could go either way. Once presumed guilty, the verdict has gone one way.

So if we approach the matter in a scientific manner, why should we presume innocence if we don't know either way?

This rule only exists to protect the wrongfully accused.

AHadley wrote:I follow both that and the opposite. If we were to discover evidence for a higher power tomorrow it would obviously not leap suddenly into existence; it will have been there all along. An assumption that something does not exist because there is no evidence is just as logically falsifible as the inverse.

Non-existent until proven to exist is a good scientific method. If evidence is required to prove that something does not exist, it gives credence to anybody who wants to claim that something exists without being able to prove it. It doesn't prove their argument, but gives them the means to endlessly falsely argue in its favour.

"There is a god because you can't prove that there isn't". "Aliens abducted me last night. You can't prove that they didn't".

Whatever we discover will have been there all along but it is still safer to assume, while we are unsure, that it isn't there.

Science would not be possible if evidence was needed to disprove theories. That's just crazy.

AHadley wrote: There is also the issue that "god" is such a nebulous term that it can't be defined in an adequate enough way for us even to get close to proving or disproving it, so I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that we're talking about the theistic concept rather than the abstract.

The notion of an 'abstract' god is a theistic cop-out designed to cope with the amount of evidence which overwhelmingly obliterates the foundations of their views, but that's another argument.

AHadley wrote: An assumption, by definition, requires a lack of evidence.

Not necessarily. Some evidence is necessary, whether it is indirect or direct. There needs to be reasonable grounds to make an assumption.

AHadley wrote: Our models for the universe and its creation imply that it takes a nebulous, roughly spherical shape - obviously this is not conclusive proof, but it's more substantial than our proof of it being a toilet. It's the difference between estimation and assumption.

We are only able to see a limited distance through the Universe due to the limitation of the speed of light. The energy emanating from beyond that limit is yet to reach us. The Universe beyond could be much larger and different than what we see.

AHadley wrote: You know it exists; you put it in the box.

Then you have enough indirect evidence to assume with a very high probability of correctness whether the cat is dead or alive. You would have known whether the cat was dead or alive when you put it in the box.

AHadley wrote:So if we approach the matter in a scientific manner, why should we presume innocence if we don't know either way? This rule only exists to protect the wrongfully accused.

Wrongfully accused = wrongfully considered true/real

It protects from making mistakes born of false assumptions.

bigbadbogie wrote:If evidence is required to prove that something does not exist, it gives credence to anybody who wants to claim that something exists without being able to prove it. It doesn't prove their argument,

Nor does it prove yours. They already have credence.

bigbadbogie wrote:"There is a god because you can't prove that there isn't". "Aliens abducted me last night. You can't prove that they didn't".

Not the same. It's possible - if difficult and unethical - to gather evidence to disprove the latter. It's impossible to disprove the former.

bigbadbogie wrote:Whatever we discover will have been there all along but it is still safer to assume, while we are unsure, that it isn't there.

Surely it is safer to assume nothing?

bigbadbogie wrote:Science would not be possible if evidence was needed to disprove theories. That's just crazy.

Disproving something requires evidence by definition. This is how science has always works. The word that sentence should have used is "disregard".

bigbadbogie wrote:The notion of an 'abstract' god is a theistic cop-out designed to cope with the amount of evidence which overwhelmingly obliterates the foundations of their views, but that's another argument.

There are plenty of nontheistic religions which this discussion can't take into account, from deism and pandeism to raëlism and scientology.

bogie wrote:Not necessarily. Some evidence is necessary, whether it is indirect or direct. There needs to be reasonable grounds to make an assumption.

Assumption (n): a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

If you have evidence you are making an estimation.

bigbadbogie wrote:We are only able to see a limited distance through the Universe due to the limitation of the speed of light. The energy emanating from beyond that limit is yet to reach us. The Universe beyond could be much larger and different than what we see.

I do not dispute this, but our models for its form and evolution are based on empirical evidence and it is these that led us to our conclusion; it is not, therefore, an assumption.

bigbadbogie wrote:Then you have enough indirect evidence to assume with a very high probability of correctness whether the cat is dead or alive. You would have known whether the cat was dead or alive when you put it in the box.

Do remember that this box contains a phial of toxic gas that will be shattered at an unspecified time.

bigbadbogie wrote:Wrongfully accused = wrongfully considered true/real. It protects from making mistakes born of false assumptions.

Precisely.

Ideally a court would assume neither guilt nor innocence in order to prevent the judgement being clouded by that assumption, but as this thread illustrates people find it difficult to believe nothing.

AHadley wrote:

bigbadbogie wrote:If evidence is required to prove that something does not exist, it gives credence to anybody who wants to claim that something exists without being able to prove it. It doesn't prove their argument,

Nor does it prove yours. They already have credence.

True. It doesn't prove mine. Evidence is required to prove mine. Absence of contrary evidence is not considered evidence in favour. My argument requires other evidence.

If non-existent until proven to exist, they have no credence without evidence.

AHadley wrote:Not the same. It's possible - if difficult and unethical - to gather evidence to disprove the latter. It's impossible to disprove the former.

Just assume that there was no evidence for the latter.

AHadley wrote: Surely it is safer to assume nothing?

Assuming 'nothing' isn't really possible. Rather, it is assuming multiple possibilities. This includes assuming the possibility which would require evidence to disprove.

AHadley wrote:Disproving something requires evidence by definition. This is how science has always works. The word that sentence should have used is "disregard".

Theories remain theories until they are proven to be factual (they are still considered theories, but remember that gravity is only a theory). In order to prove a theory factual, it must become very widely accepted as truth by a great majority.

Any theory that is able to be disregarded has not yet been proven to be factual by a majority. It is contentious. By default, it is considered incorrect. There are only two positions on a theory. True or false. There is no 'sort-of right', no matter how close it is.

If, on the other hand, evidence were required to prove that this theory was incorrect, it could already be considered factual without the need for evidence in its favour - just the lack of evidence against it. That is just scientifically absurd.

AHadley wrote: There are plenty of nontheistic religions which this discussion can't take into account, from deism and pandeism to raëlism and scientology.

I don't know anything about the first two. Scientology is just insanity, though.

AHadley wrote: Assumption (n): a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

If you have evidence you are making an estimation.

Semantics. Yeah.

AHadley wrote: I do not dispute this, but our models for its form and evolution are based on empirical evidence and it is these that led us to our conclusion; it is not, therefore, an assumption.

An estimation, then.

AHadley wrote: Do remember that this box contains a phial of toxic gas that will be shattered at an unspecified time.

In that case, it becomes impossible to know. There is a physical barrier preventing us from knowing. However, there is an element of certainty. The cat is only either dead or alive. It cannot possibly be anything more than that. Instead of a single answer, there is a dual answer.

This still doesn't mean that the cat is alive and dead at the same time. We just can't possibly know which.

AHadley wrote:Precisely.

Ideally a court would assume neither guilt nor innocence in order to prevent the judgement being clouded by that assumption, but as this thread illustrates people find it difficult to believe nothing.

That ideal is impossible. We're all subjective beings by nature. The next best thing is to assume innocence.

Again, it's not assuming 'nothing', but assuming two possibilities at once, one of which requires evidence to disprove.