Atheism

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there such a thing as an unfalsifiable experiment? Believe in God, which is not an empirical concept, and be changed?

An experiment, by definition, is an attempt at falsification. So, experiments themselves aren't falsifiable, but the theories they try to test, are.

 

[createdtoworship]

Finding fault was the criticism.

My views are fault is no beuno.

huh?

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed However, in the absence of evidence, we don't know what the truth actually is. That's what science is for.

well like I said, the evidence was a logical theory. And that was sufficient (for me anyways).

 

[TScott]

I've seen very few atheists on CF say they believe there are no gods. We're always having to clarify that our position is non-belief, not belief.

I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".

But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".

But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.

Even Buddhism, Wicca, and Scientology?

 

[Davian]

Indeed However, in the absence of evidence, we don't know what the truth actually is. That's what science is for.

well like I said, the evidence was a logical theory. And that was sufficient (for me anyways).

Now that it has been show to be faulty, is it still sufficient for you? Do you continue to believe anyway?

Even if it were not faulty, the 'first cause' argument does not provide evidence for deites, or a particular deity.

 

[Davian]

I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".

But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.

Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?

 

[TScott]

Even Buddhism, Wicca, and Scientology?

I don't believe those deal in deities, do they?

However they do, to a certain degree deal with Truth, do they not?

 

[TScott]

Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?

That is up to the individual, isn't it. What is the value of your love of your favorite music? What is the value of quietly enjoying a beautiful sunset? I've known people who have been actually moved to tears upon grasping a simultaneous linear equation. What is the value in their reaction to that? Could it be demonstrated in the same way with you?

Love, beauty and gods are all Truths that are not always demonstrable.

 

[Davian]

Faith may be the problem with religion. Of what value is this 'Truth' if it is not demonstrable?

That is up to the individual, isn't it. What is the value of your love for your love of your favorite music? What is the value of quietly enjoying a beautiful sunset? I've known people who have been actually moved to tears upon grasping a simultaneous linear equation. What is the value in their reaction to that? Could it be demonstrated in the same way with you?

Love, beauty and gods are all Truths that are not always demonstrable.

A poor analogy. The love for music and sunsets is not being used for the basis of decisions for public education and governing of countries.

 

[Non sequitur]

To believe in something is to affirm it as true. To say "I believe there are no gods" is to affirm the truth of the claim, "There are no gods". This is a position which requires evidence, exactly the same as the claim "There are gods" requires evidence.

In the absence of evidence, we affirm neither statement. The weak atheist rejects both claims, until such time that evidence is presented.

Ok...

*confused*

 

[Non sequitur]

I've seen very few as well, but that is the topic of the OP, is it not? Also Mr. Sequitur seems to be confused over the difference between strong and weak atheism, at least that was the impression I got from his post with his confusion over what he calls the "null position".

But that is kind of tangental to Mr. Sequitur's irritation to the theist he was exchanging with when the theist made the statement about "Truth". I think many atheists are confused about Truth. They confuse it with truth. Truth with a capital "T" has to do with faith, while truth with a small "t" has to do with proof. Faith is the whole point of religion.

The OP was, at some point, asking about if one classifies themselves as a weak or strong atheist (along with a multitude of questions).

gradyll, the theist I was talking to, was going on some tangent about souls and whatnot.

I am aware of the difference, however, "Truth" or "truth" still arrives at "the thing that actually exists, whether we know (of) it or not" as its conclusion, whether we capitalize it or not.

I just detest any statement that can be thrown our there, that "trumps" anything, if the statement itself can work for anything or if it's used, like in 3rd grade ("No you!"), as a last word.

Very weak to do so, in my opinion.

 

[TScott]

A poor analogy. The love for music and sunsets is not being used for the basis of decisions for public education and governing of countries.

For one thing it wasn't an analogy, was it? It was a demonstration of the subjectiveness of Truth with a capital T. If your argument against religion is because it is used in government, then I would say that's another argument that I wasn't aware of.

Where did that thread begin?

Or were you just tossing it out there as a tangent?

 

[TScott]

I just detest any statement that can be thrown our there, that "trumps" anything, if the statement itself can work for anything or if it's used, like in 3rd grade ("No you!"), as a last word.

Very weak to do so, in my opinion.

I got that part.

But my original question stands: what did either of you expect from that exchange?

 

[Davian]

For one thing it wasn't an analogy, was it? It was a demonstration of the subjectiveness of Truth with a capital T. If your argument against religion is because it is used in government, then I would say that's another argument that I wasn't aware of.

Where did that thread begin?

Or were you just tossing it out there as a tangent?

It was in response to the claim of a religious 'Truth'-with-a-capital-T.

Perhaps 'value' was not the word I should have used; to rephrase: Of what significance is a religious 'Truth' that is not demonstrable? Should such a thing be applied to biology? Astrophysics? And, as I mentioned, decisions in government?

 

[Davian]

I got that part.

But my original question stands: what did either of you expect from that exchange?

For my part in it, I see it as a chance for them to work through their arguments; perhaps they might modify or retract those arguments based on how they are critiqued. For myself, I always have that bit of doubt that I may have missed something that I was not previously aware of, that discussions such as these might bring to light.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't believe those deal in deities, do they?

Nonetheless, they're religions in which people have faith.

However they do, to a certain degree deal with Truth, do they not?

You've yet to explain what 'Truth' is, so I don't know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok...

*confused*

What part confused you?

 

[TScott]

It was in response to the claim of a religious 'Truth'-with-a-capital-T.

Perhaps 'value' was not the word I should have used; to rephrase: Of what significance is a religious 'Truth' that is not demonstrable?

I suppose it would have significance to the individual who embraces it as a Truth.

Should such a thing be applied to biology?

if it is not relevent, no. Same with Astrophysics and government.

A vast majority of governments in the world are secular. It is best that way, as most are republics and the electorate are a multitude of religions or non-religious. Keep in mind that the first amendment of the US Constitution is not there to protect religions, like all the amendments it is there to protect individuals, religious or otherwise.

Science is science and is based on facts, religions usually have a more subjective basis and in most cases are not based on any science. God gave us brains, we should assume he expected we would use them-people who think the world is 6000 years old are not using their brains.

 

[Non sequitur]

What part confused you?

Why you replied to me and with an elaboration.