How can anyone be an atheist?

[PureX]

How then that makes their (the Atheism people's) position/no-position make any stronger, please? Science does not support them? Does it, please?

It's why they hide behind "unbelief" instead of stating that they believe no gods exist. They can't defend their atheism using the science that they demand the theist use to defend theism. They hide their atheism behind false agnosticism so they won't have to defend it as they demand the theist must.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's why they hide behind "unbelief" instead of stating that they believe no gods exist. They can't defend their atheism using the science that they demand the theist use to defend theism. They hide their atheism behind false agnosticism so they won't have to defend it as they demand the theist must.

I agree with one.
I understand, they (the Atheism people) don't have a sincere Criteria to find the truth that they first apply to Atheism and then to religion. Right, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, np

Me:
Explain to me why solipsism make sense to you?

You:
I can't, because you subjectively and mentally don't accept the subjective and mental.

You seem unaware for some cases, when you are subjective and mental. I can't solve that for you.

Me:
Thought so

You:
Could you post the whole answer. Now you are apparently it seems just dishonest, How subjective and mental of you. What happen to evidence, verification and truth. And what is that with the smiley. That is subjective and mental. Nobody will understand you now!

Simple. I am wrong, right. You have established that with evidence, verification and truth. It is a fact, that I am wrong since you know this with evidence, verification and truth.
That is nothing new to me. I have known that for over 20 years now as a radical skeptic. I was wrong 20 years ago and I still am. You are not the first one to notice that and you won't be the last one.

But I doubt it means, what you think it means, because I have been able to do it for over 20 years now. I know, that I am that, when I do racial skepticism. I know how to do and repeat it. I know how it as a kind of wrong works and I can replicate it again and again. And yet I am still here.
Somehow I doubt that it is problem for me, because then I would have noticed it.

So in general terms - you and I do certain negatives differently and I know that. You just know it differently.

 

[Audie]

The hosts answered the caller woman who is a Pentecostal Christian and therefore believes that Jesus is/was G-d . But Jesus did not believe that he was G-d, Jesus believed and prayed to God-the-Father and only worshiped Him.

Nevertheless, the Atheism position no-position is sure wrong, I understand, as it has not been put to any tests /observations/experiments by Science to prove it correct. At the most, as I understand, it is only a conjecture or leap in the dark. Right, please?

Regards

Science is not proper noun, and, never has nor ever will prove anything correct.

Your utter incomprehension of what science is and does
is likely indicative of a similar lack of a clue about athieism. (Whch
is btw also not a proper npun)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is not proper noun, and, never has nor ever will proven anything correct.

Your utter incomprehension of what science is and does
is likely indicative of a similar lack of a clue about athieism. (Whch
is btw also not a proper npun)

So what does science do? And which version of science are we talking about, because I know of several versions. Some include truth, others don't. Some are forms of naturalism, other are forms of coherentism. There are also versions, which are pragmatic and don't claim realism.

So what are you talking about when you say science?

 

[Nimos]

Simple. I am wrong, right. You have established that with evidence, verification and truth. It is a fact, that I am wrong since you know this with evidence, verification and truth.
That is nothing new to me. I have known that for over 20 years now as a radical skeptic. I was wrong 20 years ago and I still am. You are not the first one to notice that and you won't be the last one.

But I doubt it means, what you think it means, because I have been able to do it for over 20 years now. I know, that I am that, when I do racial skepticism. I know how to do and repeat it. I know how it as a kind of wrong works and I can replicate it again and again. And yet I am still here.
Somehow I doubt that it is problem for me, because then I would have noticed it.

So in general terms - you and I do certain negatives differently and I know that. You just know it differently.

Its not especially about being right or wrong, we are all wrong on occasions, the important thing as I see it, at least, is that if one is made aware or shown to be wrong, its about how one learn from that. And don't misunderstand what im saying here as meaning that I have shown you wrong, it have nothing to do with that.!! Its in general, how we as humans learn from our mistakes, because we all make them.

And the fact is, that if we are wrong about something, we experience that as if we are right.
If we were aware of ourselves being wrong about something, then clearly we wouldn't believe it, and if we did, we would be highly irrational.

So im not saying you are wrong about everything, but some things you are, at least in my opinion. But when I ask you a question and you have the chance to answer it to make your case, and then you dodge or refuse to answer it, it just doesn't help anything.

The reason solipsism doesn't make sense in my opinion, is because, if you can only know that your own mind exist. Then first of all, why wouldn't you assume that whoever you speak to is just part of your imagination? How do one make that distinction? So already here this whole idea becomes meaningless, because basically you might simply be arguing with yourself.

And being the person on the other side (Me for instance), why would I bother discussing anything, with someone that doesn't even think im real?

Furthermore, how do you know that you are not simply dreaming and nothing is real? How would you test that, if you can't even be sure that your perception of reality is real. A person would have no way to do this, because everything potentially only exist in their mind. So relying on evidence for anything is pointless, because how would someone know if it weren't just their mind playing tricks on them?

So when I ask why, I can't talk about objectivity without having first solved solipsism is because there would be nothing to solve. And even if solipsism were true, it would make no difference. Because If im the only mind, that I can be certain of is existing, then everything could potentially only exist in my mind, which first of all raises the question of how im able to interact with a physical reality, unless that is also just an imagination.
And if that is the case, what difference would it make? To me, my reality would still appear to be objectively testable, because that is how I experience it.

Therefore it becomes pointless even to consider solipsism as I see it.

So if a person choose to live their life as if that is the case, that is fine with me, but in that case, I really see no reason, to discuss anything with them.

Therefore it is much more useful and productive, to view it like this I think:

Both you and me, can agree that we live in a reality where apples and bananas exist.

What we can't agree on or even determine in the first place, is whether an apple is objectively better than a banana.

But if we at least can agree, that we live in the same type of reality, then we have a chance of communicating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is not proper noun, and, never has nor ever will prove anything correct.

Your utter incomprehension of what science is and does
is likely indicative of a similar lack of a clue about athieism. (Whch
is btw also not a proper npun)

Take 2: Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
That is all. It say nothing else. Including any positive beliefs about what the world is. Nor what morality, science, evidence, truth and all those other cultural human concepts are.
So say that you are an atheist tells me nothing of interest to me. I am apathic towards atheism as such.

The fun starts when you say something other than about atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its not especially about being right or wrong, we are all wrong on occasions, the important thing as I see it, at least, is that if one is made aware or shown to be wrong, its about how one learn from that. And don't misunderstand what im saying here as meaning that I have shown you wrong, it have nothing to do with that.!! Its in general, how we as humans learn from our mistakes, because we all do it.

And the fact is, that if we are wrong about something, we experience that as if we are right.
If we were aware of ourselves being wrong about something, then clearly we wouldn't believe it, and if we did, we would be highly irrational.

So im not saying you are wrong about everything, but somethings you are, at least in my opinion. But when I ask you a question and you have the chance to answer it to make your case, and then you dodge or refuse to answer it, it just doesn't help anything.

Do you know what? If it is your opinion, that I am wrong and that it is the end all what this is about, I don't care. You can keep your opinion and I will keep mine.
I thought we are doing evidence, verification, truth and what not.

So it ends here. I don't care that I am in your opinion wrong.

The reason solipsism doesn't make sense in my opinion, is because, if you can only know that your own mind exist. Then first of all, why wouldn't you assume that whoever you speak to is just part of your imagination? How do one make that distinction? So already here this whole idea becomes meaningless, because basically you might simply be arguing with yourself.

You don't understand what I am asking of you? Have you solved solipsism? No? Neither have I. And in my opinion you exist, but I don't know that. That is what makes me a skeptic. I admit that I don't know that.

And being the person on the other side (Me for instance), why would I bother discussing anything, with someone that doesn't even think im real?

You are real to me. But that doesn't mean that you are metaphysically and ontologically real. You have to learn, that all positive claim about objective reality are nothing but beliefs, because nobody have solved solipsism. I haven't and you haven't. I just believe that objective reality is God and you apparently believe that objective reality is natural.

Furthermore, how do you know that you are not simply dreaming and nothing is real? How would you test that, if you can't even be sure that your perception of reality is real. A person would have no way to do this, because everything potentially only exist in their mind. So relying on evidence for anything is pointless, because how would someone know if it weren't just their mind playing tricks on them?

So when I ask why, I can't talk about objectivity without having first solved solipsism is because there would be nothing to solve. And even if solipsism were true, it would make no difference. Because If im the only mind, that I can be certain of existing, then everything could potentially only exist in my mind, which first of all raises, the question of how im able to interact with a physical reality, unless that is also just an imagination. And if that is the case, what difference would it make? To me, my reality would still appear to be objectively testable, because that is how I experience it.

You are not even using the concept of solipsism in the correct manner. Solipsism is, that the only thing, I can know, is, that I exist. But even that has limits. I could be a Boltzmann Brain and only exist for 5 seconds. Solipsism is the epistemological problem of what the rest, that is not your mind is. I.e. what is objective reality other than being not you.
You don't care what the rest is, but you care because you act as if it is real. Okay, so do I.
Now show that you know what objective reality is other than not being you? COME ON. With evidence, verification and truth do that. You can't. And neither can I. That is how you are in effect a believer without evidence, verification and truth. You act as if objective reality is natural, but you don't know this. I act as if it is God, but I don't know this.

Therefore it becomes pointless even to consider solipsism as I see it.

So if a person choose to live their life as if that is the case, that is fine with me, but in that case, I really see no reason, to discuss anything with them.

Therefore it is much more useful and productive, to view it like this I think:

Both you and me, can agree that we live in a reality where apples and bananas exist.

What we can't agree on or even determine in the first place is, whether an apple is objectively better than a banana.

But if we at least can agree on, that we live in the same type of reality, then we have a chance of communicating.

I don't live as a solipsist. I am religious and believe objective reality is God. Now in your opinion that makes me wrong. I don't care about that.
And no, we can't agree on, what reality is. To you is natural and to me it is God. Now don't explain that away. Explain how is it, we can communicate yet believe differently. I can do that. You can't. Because your opinion that I am wrong, stops you from answering that question.

The problem with that I am wrong, is that it explains nothing, because in effect for all of humanity for all times for all the different religion and other beliefs 99+% of humanity were and are wrong. Honestly, what does that explain? I MEAN IT. What does it explain that humans are wrong, if 99+% of humanity were and are wrong.
Can you be just a little bit skeptical about that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The burden of proof. You are correct and I am incorrect and both cases are natural. And if we disagree, that is natural and if we agree, that is natural. It is all natural.

No idea what your point is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No idea what your point is.

If I am wrong, incorrect and what ever then, then that is a fact. As a radical skeptic I am a lot of wrong and I have been so for over 20 years now.
So I doubt that is that important as some humans make it out to be. I mean, one poster here use in caps ...THEN YOU ARE WRONG... Okay, I am now wrong, what is next?

 

[PureX]

I agree with one.
I understand, they (the Atheism people) don't have a sincere Criteria to find the truth that they first apply to Atheism and then to religion. Right, please?

Regards

I respect agnosticism. But agnosticism leaves the question of God's existence unresolved. Atheism does not. Atheism asserts that if the theist cannot prove God physically exists, then God doesn't exist. An assertion that they know they can't logically defend, so they hide behind agnosticism even though they are not asserting agnosticism. They are asserting atheism.

 

[Nimos]

Do you know what? If it is your opinion, that I am wrong and that it is the end all what this is about, I don't care. You can keep your opinion and I will keep mine.
I thought we are doing evidence, verification, truth and what not.

So it ends here. I don't care that I am in your opinion wrong.

We are, my opinion is based on what I believe to be true and you on what you believe is true. I assume your opinion is based on whatever evidence you believe you have, and so is mine. Does that mean that we are right? No, but that is what we believe is the case.
My assumption whenever I talk with someone and they give me their opinion, i trust they do this, because they believe they have a good reason for it, and ain't just guessing left right and center, unless they clearly say that it is the case. If I went on this forum assuming that were the case whenever people wrote something, then I wouldn't care to be here.

You don't understand what I am asking of you? Have you solved solipsism? No? Neither have I.

I just explained to you, that I don't think there is anything to solve. If you disagree with that, then give me a reason for why you think im wrong. You don't address what im saying, instead you express that you disagree, without giving any argument for why that is the case.

Solipsism is, that the only thing, I can know, is, that I exist. But even that has limits. I could be a Boltzmann Brain and only exist for 5 seconds.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The reason solipsism doesn't make sense in my opinion, is because, if you can only know that your own mind exist.

What does it matter if you only exist for 5 seconds, if that is the reality you experience. If those 5 seconds appear to be a whole lifetime, what does it matter if its only 5 seconds or not?

Do you believe you are a Boltzmann brain and if you don't. why do you care about it?

Again, I don't believe in unicorns, so why should I care about them?

You don't care what the rest is, but you care because you act as if it is real.

I don't care, because as I said, "How do you tell the difference?"

If I am the only mind, then I can't know, because I might simply make up whatever I want to believe, I can't verify anything. And as I said, if that works for you, then fine. I have no problem with that. But I find it to be an irrational way and a waste of time to even think about it as if it was real. Because I can't see how you could ever know.

Now show that you know what objective reality is other than not being you? COME ON. With evidence, verification and truth do that.

It doesn't matter, whether or not I believe solipsism is true or not, when I don't know it. That is what im trying to explain to you.

If solipsism is false and I don't know it, because I can't test it, then reality is what reality is and how I experience it, and it appears as if there are more than just my own mind.

If solipsism is true, I wouldn't know, because I have no way to test it. it appears to me as if solipsism is actually false and that more minds exists besides my own, so that is my reality.

There is no difference in my perception of reality, regardless of whether or not solipsism is true or false.

You even write this yourself:
You can't. And neither can I.

So why live your life being concerned about it?

I don't live as a solipsist. I am religious and believe objective reality is God. Now in your opinion that makes me wrong. I don't care about that.

No it doesn't.

It makes me realize that you are making a claim, which I would like you to backup with evidence?

And if you even consider the idea of solipsism, then God could just be something that is made up in your mind as well, right?

The problem with that I am wrong, is that it explains nothing, because in effect for all of humanity for all times for all the different religion and other beliefs 99+% of humanity were and are wrong. Honestly, what does that explain? I MEAN IT. What does it explain that humans are wrong, if 99+% of humanity were and are wrong.
Can you be just a little bit skeptical about that?

It explains why we should use methods for trying to verify what is most likely to be true or false. And if we can't, then we should take the default position of saying "We don't know".

 

[night912]

God exists because the great existential mystery exists. And the great existential mystery exists because we humans are human (and not gods). All of us.

Atheism is 'busted'.

According to your logic, theism is also "busted." Your whole "logical" argument for the existence of God, refutes itself.

The mystery exists and we know that that mystery is a mystery, making it not a mystery, therefore, the mystery does not exist.

The imaginary power of babble gabble, the only thing that triumphed over anything imaginable, even itself.

And before anyone who wants to give a counter argument to this, just remember that already defeated your argument. So to say otherwise, the argument already defeated itself.

 

[PureX]

The mystery exists and we know that that mystery is a mystery, making it not a mystery, therefore, the mystery does not exist.

That's just silly. Mysteries don't cease to exist just because we recognize them.

 

[night912]

That's just silly. Mysteries don't cease to exist just because we recognize them.

Read post #113.

 

[PureX]

Read post #113.

It's more complicated than making it "not a mystery". What people do, when being confronted by such a profound (and frightening) mystery, is create representational artifice; images, myths, symbols, personalities, superstitions, and so on, to act as the 'substance' of the mystery for them. And to give them some sense of understanding it, and of therefor being in 'control' of it. Or at least of being able to trust in it.

I agree that some people become so frightened and confused by the mystery of being that they pretend they have 'solved' the mystery, and that they "know God", and that their chosen artificial representations of it, ARE IT. But most theists understand that this is ultimately untrue, and is a form of idolatry. They understand that our human images and conceptions and labels are not really the substance of the great mystery, and that the great mystery (they call "God") remains a great mystery.

Sorry if I misread your post, before.