Are Atheist Skeptics?

[CogentPhilosopher]

I'm not asking you to disprove any one god, I'm asking what makes you believe there are NO gods at all

The same thing that makes me lack belief in Lord Helix, the Tooth Fairy, and that there is a teapot orbiting the sun: lack of evidence.

, and to support the physicalist position it would entail.

First of all, it's called naturalism.

Second of all, not all atheists are naturalist.

Third of all, I am a naturalist because I see no evidence supporting the existence of anything beyond the natural.

In fact I'm not so much interested in the atheism itself than how the world then works and the evidence for that.

Science and philosophy.

I cannot explain all of that here in one post.

We actually just had a thread on double standards in atheism just recently.

**** I missed it! Do you mind linking me to it?

You literally claim to need evidence and reasoning, then refuse to provide any for your own position. I've found this almost universal among atheists.

You think that because do not understand how logic works.

You disbelieve in something from default and then with evidence you change your position.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You said that Lord Helix creates the universe. I take that as fantasy.

It was sarcasm used to illustrate a point Willamena

 

[Willamena]

It was sarcasm used to illustrate a point Willamena

Fantasy doesn't make for good sarcasm.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Fantasy doesn't make for good sarcasm.

Good sarcasm is subjective. It seems to work well for the vast majority of people I use it with.

 

[Willamena]

...Unless they have some sort of evidence that the rest of the world is nor privy to then they would need to not be skeptical of the deity they believe in order to believe in it.

The amount of butchered English in the sentence is itself worthy of skepticism.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The amount of butchered English in the sentence is itself worthy of skepticism.

Sorry, something is up with my autocorrect.

I will go fix it.

EDIT:

Scratch that.

It seems that you cannot edit your own post after a certain amount of time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My bad, I didn't understand what you're asking. I do consider myself a skeptic towards gods as well, but unlike with physicalism or atheism I've seen extremely convincing evidence and reasoning for gods. But I certainly wouldn't consider myself a "gnostic" or certain. I would say I probably debate myself daily.

Atheism just entails not being convinced of god-claims. Atheists (and theists, for that matter) may make claims about the non-existence of particular gods, but it isn't required to be an atheist.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "physicalism." Most of the atheists I've ever met will accept anything as real if given rational justification for it. Their position only tends to get labelled with terms like "physicalist" or "materialist" by people who want to poison the well by painting atheists as necessarily being arbitrarily closed-minded.

I get that it's sour grapes ("that atheist doesn't accept my position, so there must be something wrong with him"), but it ignores something important: physicalism/materialism isn't any sort of obstacle to accepting anything as real. If a physicalist finds justification to believe in, say, ghosts, he won't say "ah - but ghosts aren't physical, so they can't exist"; he'll say "ah - ghosts are real, and they must have a physical basis, because they exist!"

 

[1137]

I hope you don't mean that as a strike at atheism. I'm an atheist idealist, and I can assure you physicalism need not play a role in disbelieving in god or gods.

The user I was talking to seemed to be a physicalist.

The same thing that makes me lack belief in Lord Helix, the Tooth Fairy, and that there is a teapot orbiting the sun: lack of evidence.

But a lack of evidence really isn't anything, especially when evidence is often presented. You simply reject the evidence as unconvincing, though seem incapable of explaining why.

First of all, it's called naturalism.

Second of all, not all atheists are naturalist.

Third of all, I am a naturalist because I see no evidence supporting the existence of anything beyond the natural.

But do you think nature = the physical world.

Science and philosophy.

I cannot explain all of that here in one post.

Can you provide just, like, two supports?

**** I missed it! Do you mind linking me to it?

Of course! Atheistic Double Standard?

You think that because do not understand how logic works.

You disbelieve in something from default and then with evidence you change your position.

OK so I'll start at the default agnosticism. Convince me of physical naturalism with evidence.

 

[1137]

Atheism just entails not being convinced of god-claims. Atheists (and theists, for that matter) may make claims about the non-existence of particular gods, but it isn't required to be an atheist.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "physicalism." Most of the atheists I've ever met will accept anything as real if given rational justification for it. Their position only tends to get labelled with terms like "physicalist" or "materialist" by people who want to poison the well by painting atheists as necessarily being arbitrarily closed-minded.

I get that it's sour grapes ("that atheist doesn't accept my position, so there must be something wrong with him"), but it ignores something important: physicalism/materialism isn't any sort of obstacle to accepting anything as real. If a physicalist finds justification to believe in, say, ghosts, he won't say "ah - but ghosts aren't physical, so they can't exist"; he'll say "ah - ghosts are real, and they must have a physical basis, because they exist!"

Yes, I understand that atheism is simply a belief that no gods are more likely than one, and is only greatly correlated with physicalism. I'd love to see even a tad of evidence for either, but nobody ever wants to provide any! Physicalism isn't a demeaning term, I have no idea what drove you to think that. Physicalism is just physical-ism, a metaphysical worldview that all is physical. If you feel the position worthy of demeaning that's not on me or any other non-physicalist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I understand that atheism is simply a belief that no gods are more likely than one, and is only greatly correlated with physicalism. I'd love to see even a tad of evidence for either, but nobody ever wants to provide any! Physicalism isn't a demeaning term, I have no idea what drove you to think that. Physicalism is just physical-ism, a metaphysical worldview that all is physical. If you feel the position worthy of demeaning that's not on me or any other non-physicalist.

I'm not demeaning physicalism; I'm criticizing your approach to physicalism.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The user I was talking to seemed to be a physicalist.

I do not know the exact definition of this made-up term so I cannot confirm nor deny.

But a lack of evidence really isn't anything, especially when evidence is often presented. You simply reject the evidence as unconvincing, though seem incapable of explaining why.

Show me this evidence that I am "unable" to explain why.

I suspect this is due to how you are not informed of how logic works.

But do you think nature = the physical world.

Define the "physical world".

Can you provide just, like, two supports?

For philosophy and by extension science?

Of course! Atheistic Double Standard?

Thank you very much! You are very kind.

OK so I'll start at the default agnosticism. Convince me of physical naturalism with evidence.

Incorrect.

If you start at the default position you would start with doubting that anything is real, physical or otherwise.

Can you do that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK so I'll start at the default agnosticism. Convince me of physical naturalism with evidence.

Agnosticism is based on a positive claim ("the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable"). It can't be a default position.

 

[1137]

I'm not demeaning physicalism; I'm criticizing your approach to physicalism.

To recognize it and ask for support? Lol, you would be critical of that!

I do not know the exact definition of this made-up term so I cannot confirm nor deny.

Made up term? Lol: Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Show me this evidence that I am "unable" to explain why.

I haven't seen you address any of it at all, not from the worst evidence of "the Bible says so" to the more convincing and supported logical arguments like the cosmological. I haven't seen you address any of it.

Define the "physical world".

Matter - Wikipedia

For philosophy and by extension science?

For your personal philosophy, yes.

If you start at the default position you would start with doubting that anything is real, physical or otherwise.

Can you do that?

Well that's incorrect, even a hardcore skeptic cannot deny their own self-existence. But outside that yeah, I can start at a true neutral position. So now will you convince me of naturalism?

Agnosticism is based on a positive claim ("the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable"). It can't be a default position.

Or simply that we don't have a reason to think one way or the other. Still waiting for literally any evidence at all in support of your position though, any tiny shred.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Made up term? Lol: Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

My bad then. I have just never heard it from a legitimate philosopher in my life.

I haven't seen you address any of it at all, not from the worst evidence of "the Bible says so" to the more convincing and supported logical arguments like the cosmological. I haven't seen you address any of it.

So you have not read all of my posts, congratulations.

Now do you have an argument you want to put forward that you claim I cannot debunk?

Matter - Wikipedia

I have never met or heard of anyone in the entire history of the world that believes that just matter exists.

This just shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

For your personal philosophy, yes.

I cannot support my entire view of the world with just two supports. It would take me a whole thesis to do that if not a dissertation.

If your talking about me not believing in the supernatural then its simply because there is no evidence that it exists.

Well that's incorrect, even a hardcore skeptic cannot deny their own self-existence.

Bull****, I started that way as well as many philosophers throughout human history.

But outside that yeah, I can start at a true neutral position. So now will you convince me of naturalism?

No, I will only do so when you start from the proper skeptical position and doubt everything including your own experiences.

Or simply that we don't have a reason to think one way or the other. Still waiting for literally any evidence at all in support of your position though, any tiny shred.

I'm getting really tired of how ignorant your argument is here.

Hey PROVE to me that bigfoot doesn't exist?!? You cant? Then I guess he does!

Prove to me that your not an alien?!? You cant? Then I guess you are!

In logic the lack of belief in something is where you START from therefore it has NO burden of PROOF.

The POSITIVE CLAIM has the burden of PROOF.

How much more clear can this be made?

 

[1137]

My bad then. I have just never heard it from a legitimate philosopher in my life.

I find that highly suspect as one of the most popular metaphysical views around today..

So you have not read all of my posts, congratulations.

Now do you have an argument you want to put forward that you claim I cannot debunk?

I have not, but I meant that I'm this specific thread I've not seen you do such a thing. I'm not asking you to debunk or debate anything either, I'm simply asking you what evidence you have for atheism and "naturalism" as you define it.

I have never met or heard of anyone in the entire history of the world that believes that just matter exists.

This just shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

Again, this makes me concerned about your qualifications as materialism/physicalism is one of the most popular metaphysical positions out there, especially online.

I cannot support my entire view of the world with just two supports. It would take me a whole thesis to do that if not a dissertation.

But I didn't ask you to support your entire view, only to see two supports for it.

If your talking about me not believing in the supernatural then its simply because there is no evidence that it exists.

I don't believe in the supernatural either, yet I'm not an atheist. Imo if something exists it is "natural." So there must be another step to your reasoning.

Bull****, I started that way as well as many philosophers throughout human history.

You may have attempted to but it would not be possible, as self existence seems axiomatic. Literally all we think or do hinges on it. The very idea is absurd, for if you denied your self existence, who would there be to do the denying?

No, I will only do so when you start from the proper skeptical position and doubt everything including your own experiences.

I'm fine with doubting my own experiences, that's basic skepticism. I never suggested I had a problem with it.

I'm getting really tired of how ignorant your argument is here.

Hey PROVE to me that bigfoot doesn't exist?!? You cant? Then I guess he does!

Prove to me that your not an alien?!? You cant? Then I guess you are!

Ah, so you misunderstood what I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, I'm asking why you believe he does not. "Cuz there's no evidence," isn't anything but an appeal to ignorance and a misunderstanding of what evidence is. "Because we can perfectly recreated the best evidence, the Bigfoot footage, with a human being" is evidence against Bigfoot.

In logic the lack of belief in something is where you START from therefore it has NO burden of PROOF.

The POSITIVE CLAIM has the burden of PROOF.

How much more clear can this be made?

Well I agree about neutral positions, but in reality this basically equates to ignorance on a topic. In the case of theology this would be agnosticism, "we just don't know." You keep talking about logic while ignoring that "I have no belief in X being true" is identical to "I believe X is false." That's where we need to talk about "simplicity."

As for the burden of proof I kind of agree. But more realistically any held philosophical position should be defensible. I mean, what's a position that cannot be defended? We assume it's false.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I find that highly suspect as one of the most popular metaphysical views around today..

A lot of people are homo sapiens but that does not mean the word is used often.

I have not, but I meant that I'm this specific thread I've not seen you do such a thing. I'm not asking you to debunk or debate anything either, I'm simply asking you what evidence you have for atheism and "naturalism" as you define it.

You do not understand logic and refuse to do so.

Again, this makes me concerned about your qualifications as materialism/physicalism is one of the most popular metaphysical positions out there, especially online.

What qualifications? Are you going to say that only someone with a degree in philosophy can talk about philosophy? If so then you can't talk about it either.

But I didn't ask you to support your entire view, only to see two supports for it.

No, I'm not going to try to half-*** when explaining my viewpoints. Ask for something more specific.

I don't believe in the supernatural either, yet I'm not an atheist. Imo if something exists it is "natural." So there must be another step to your reasoning.

Do you believe in Set or magick? If you do can you prove them to be in nature?

You may have attempted to but it would not be possible, as self existence seems axiomatic. Literally all we think or do hinges on it. The very idea is absurd, for if you denied your self existence, who would there be to do the denying?

I'm saying lets start from a position where we assume nothing, and then start figuring out what's real from there.

Ah, so you misunderstood what I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, I'm asking why you believe he does not.

I have literally no reason to believe that he exists. Now if that is not a good enough reason then YOU tell me why you do not believe that he exist.

"Cuz there's no evidence," isn't anything but an appeal to ignorance and a misunderstanding of what evidence is.

I'm not saying that there could not be a bigfoot, I'm saying that I do not believe that there is a bigfoot.

"Because we can perfectly recreated the best evidence, the Bigfoot footage, with a human being" is evidence against Bigfoot.

No, that's evidence against the evidence for bigfoot not against bigfoot himself.

Well I agree about neutral positions, but in reality this basically equates to ignorance on a topic. In the case of theology this would be agnosticism, "we just don't know."

I am an agnostic e.e

You keep talking about logic while ignoring that "I have no belief in X being true" is identical to "I believe X is false." That's where we need to talk about "simplicity."

No it is not.

It is a simple semantics problem in English.

For example I do not believe the cafeteria is serving beef tomorrow because I have seen no indication that there is. Does that mean that I am asserting that I believe there would be no beef tomorrow?

As for the burden of proof I kind of agree. But more realistically any held philosophical position should be defensible. I mean, what's a position that cannot be defended? We assume it's false.

There is no point to defending the default position. Why go through a whole long chain of explaining when you can just explain the burden of proof and be done with it? There is no reason to suggest that unless you are just tired of not being able to use the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

 

[siti]

self existence seems axiomatic

Seems - but one could always allow for the fact that one's existence is no more than a persistent and convincing illusion. Descartes thought the only thing we could be sure of was that we are thinking about the question at hand and that this proved existence - cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am...that was his starting point. But thinking is not really that fundamental and I reckon we can go a bit deeper and suggest that the fact that we experience the world is axiomatic - in my clumsy Latin experior ergo sum. It doesn't matter whether that experience is real or imagined - either way, there must be an "I" either to experience the world or to experience the illusion of a world (including the "self").

If, for the sake of logical discussion, we assume that I am experiencing a real world (and I don't see how you can object to this since you made the much stronger claim that our self-existence is axiomatic), as far as I can possibly tell, 'the world' of my experience is constantly changing - it is never a set of ideal "forms" or "kinds" or whatever. From the deepest sub-micro scales we have yet plumbed to the most expansive cosmological view of the universe we have managed to scan, every bit of it and the whole shebang together never stands still for the briefest sub-micro Planck division of the time we can divide it up into. If God is perfect and eternally unchanging then "He" is entirely and utterly 'other' than the universe of our experience and I cannot for the life of me see how such an eternally immutable deity could possibly have any interaction with physical reality at any point in any way.

If, on the other hand, we say that our experience of the real world (and our own self-existence) is an illusion, then the same thing applies anyway, only the other way round. That is to say that if our entire existence is 'ideal' as opposed to real, then the realm of the ideal is not the perfect realm of unchangeableness and immutability that Plato (at least) envisioned it to be. Then what of God? "He" surely still can't be the constant bedrock underpinning the existence of the manifest world because the entire ideal realm, of which "He" would presumably be the whole, is as chaotic and amorphous as the reality of our illusory existence.

Therefore, I am skeptical about the existence of God. And until someone can explain to me how a static and unchanging 'ideality' can in anyway have influence over - let alone create - a dynamic reality such as we observe around us, I will remain skeptical of the existence of such a God.

Will that do as 'evidence'? (Or will you, like most non-physicalist theists in RF as far as I can see, pull the wool over your own eyes, ignore the evidence and logic argumentation and continue to pretend that none has been presented?)

 

[1137]

You do not understand logic and refuse to do so.

Because I asked you for existence of naturalism? That's a new one...

What qualifications? Are you going to say that only someone with a degree in philosophy can talk about philosophy? If so then you can't talk about it either.

Not at all, but if one is not aware of the most influential and present philosophical positions, how much can they really contribute.

No, I'm not going to try to half-*** when explaining my viewpoints. Ask for something more specific.

I mean, I'm just asking for any slight shred of support for your metaphysical positions. I don't understand how you cannot provide a single thing, and find it rather telling.

Do you believe in Set or magick? If you do can you prove them to be in nature?

Yes actually, but now we come to the double standards of atheism mentioned earlier and in the other thread. I've repeatedly asked you for any evidence, and you've yet to provide any, and now expect me too. We can happily discuss this once you provide the evidence I've asked several times for.

I'm saying lets start from a position where we assume nothing, and then start figuring out what's real from there.

Well I'm trying to but you refuse to explain anything further at all.

I have literally no reason to believe that he exists. Now if that is not a good enough reason then YOU tell me why you do not believe that he exist.

I already gave you one piece of evidence why I believe there's no Bigfoot: the famous footage of the creature has been recreated using men in costumes, thus explaining away one of the most compelling pieces of evidence. Your turn still.

I'm not saying that there could not be a bigfoot, I'm saying that I do not believe that there is a bigfoot.

I know, but apparently you have no evidence to support that position.

No it is not.

It is a simple semantics problem in English.

For example I do not believe the cafeteria is serving beef tomorrow because I have seen no indication that there is. Does that mean that I am asserting that I believe there would be no beef tomorrow?

Now you're getting it!

There is no point to defending the default position. Why go through a whole long chain of explaining when you can just explain the burden of proof and be done with it? There is no reason to suggest that unless you are just tired of not being able to use the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

Ohhhhhhhh, you believe your position is the default position, don't ya. Hahahahahaha, "skeptic!"

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Because I asked you for existence of naturalism? That's a new one...

It is the way in which you ask.

Not at all, but if one is not aware of the most influential and present philosophical positions, how much can they really contribute.

How do I explain this to you.

No-one uses that term. Why? Because people use the term naturalist because most people aren't trying to claim that magick and gods are natural. So of course it would not be well used or discussed despite a lot of people having it.

I mean, I'm just asking for any slight shred of support for your metaphysical positions. I don't understand how you cannot provide a single thing, and find it rather telling.

Again. Narrow. It. Down. To. A. Particular. Position.

Do that instead of trying to get me to make a broad generalization of my whole viewpoint of the world so I can fit neatly into your mind where you like to categorize everyone.

Yes actually, but now we come to the double standards of atheism mentioned earlier and in the other thread. I've repeatedly asked you for any evidence, and you've yet to provide any, and now expect me too. We can happily discuss this once you provide the evidence I've asked several times for.

No. By default you do not believe something is real.

Show me your evidence that there is no tea-cup orbiting the sun.

Well I'm trying to but you refuse to explain anything further at all.

We have to agree on the starting position before we explain anything first. How hard is that to understand?

I already gave you one piece of evidence why I believe there's no Bigfoot: the famous footage of the creature has been recreated using men in costumes, thus explaining away one of the most compelling pieces of evidence. Your turn still.

That is not how evidence works. Just because people could have dressed up as bigfoot doesn't mean that bigfoot is not real.

Your evidence is against another piece of evidence. How do I explain this to someone so ignorant of logic.....

Look in logic we start at point 1: Non-belief.

So you start at point 1 (Not believing in Bigfoot)
A women is at point 2 (Believing in Bigfoot)
The women has the positive claim and you have the negative one so SHE starts with the burden of proof.
The women provides pictures as a support for her claim.
You reason that these can be easily replicated without bigfoot and thus dismiss it.
Therefore you provided evidence that against her EVIDENCE and not her claim.

Now you both are left with no evidence but your position is the one that wins out. Why? Because you have the default position, non-belief.

Now lets follow your same standards here. You claim that Set and magick are real. I say that they could be made up by humans. Does that make my argument correct like yours did?

I know, but apparently you have no evidence to support that position.

Do you just choose to ignore me? The negative position is the default one, since no compelling evidence exist for the existence of bigfoot I have nothing that needs debunking.

Now you're getting it!

My views did not change at all right there. I was just explaining them to you. Are you really that thick headed?

Ohhhhhhhh, you believe you're position is the default position, don't ya. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, "skeptic!"

The default position is disbelief. This is literally the basis for all of logic.

Do you have a Skype?

If you are actually wanting to have a good debate I think I would be able to explain better over Skype if your just wanting to troll me then please do not respond to this.

 

[Willamena]

I got no deeds to do, no promises to keep
I'm baffled and drowsy and ready to sleep
But the morning-time drop all its presence on me