Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Dave Rogers]

Obviously, some agency is necessary to set up and maintain the conditions for an afterlife.

Why?

Dave

 

[Darat]

That is exactly what it means. Outside of this forum, you won't find anybody saying that atheism is a "lack of belief".

Google search: define atheist

Result:

atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

Indeed oops.

 

[Darat]

I don't necessarily disagree with that but it raises another semantic issue - gods.

Obviously, some agency is necessary to set up and maintain the conditions for an afterlife. It may not even be alive. But if the agency is alive and has some expectations of the people who are to be granted an afterlife then "god" is as good a description as any other.

A strange use of the word "obviously" - especially as you have already been given examples of an existing religion that millions of people follow that has no such agency but believe in an afterlife.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A strange use of the word "obviously" - especially as you have already been given examples of an existing religion that millions of people follow that has no such agency but believe in an afterlife.

It seems to me that one of the fundamental reasoning errors that leads to a belief in gods is an uncritical adherence to the axiom that physical effects cannot occur without the intervention of a guiding intelligence. All the available evidence, however, indicates that this axiom is unrealistic, and that physical effects may be simply described by a set of laws that make no possible allowance for any such intervention. It seems to me that psionl0 is trying to create a meta-argument that it is possible to posit physical effects that require intelligent intervention, and that therefore if these effects were observed there would be evidence of gods. However, s/he is simply committing the same error in this meta-argument, so the result is to move even further from a convincing argument for the possibility of gods.

Dave

 

[psionl0]

Why?

Since "afterlife" is considered to be a purely fictional concept I suppose that you could just make up a rule that it all happens spontaneously but that seems even less plausible than that an agency or mechanism exists.

 

[psionl0]

It seems to me that psionl0 is trying to create a meta-argument that it is possible to posit physical effects that require intelligent intervention, and that therefore if these effects were observed there would be evidence of gods.

Then you are in error. It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Indeed oops.

Well, it's tricky to avoid an "oops" moment when you're trying to argue both sides of a dilemma simultaneously.

You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".

Clearly implies a definition of an atheist as someone who lacks any form of belief whatsoever, while simultaneously...

That is exactly what it means. Outside of this forum, you won't find anybody saying that atheism is a "lack of belief".

...ridiculing anyone who uses the definition s/he has just used.

This is not an honest line of argument.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Then you are in error. It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process.

Another dishonest reply. Evidence and proof are different things.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since "afterlife" is considered to be a purely fictional concept I suppose that you could just make up a rule that it all happens spontaneously but that seems even less plausible than that an agency or mechanism exists.

As I said, you're simply repeating the axiom that intelligent intervention is necessary for processes to exist, but extending it to fictional processes.

Dave

 

[Darat]

It seems to me that one of the fundamental reasoning errors that leads to a belief in gods is an uncritical adherence to the axiom that physical effects cannot occur without the intervention of a guiding intelligence. All the available evidence, however, indicates that this axiom is unrealistic, and that physical effects may be simply described by a set of laws that make no possible allowance for any such intervention. It seems to me that psionl0 is trying to create a meta-argument that it is possible to posit physical effects that require intelligent intervention, and that therefore if these effects were observed there would be evidence of gods. However, s/he is simply committing the same error in this meta-argument, so the result is to move even further from a convincing argument for the possibility of gods.

Dave

Nah - they don't have an actual argument - been through this before - all they have is that if you don't define what a word means you can't say that "it" - whatever "it" is - doesn't exist.

You'd have been ashamed to bring it up in your easy plus one A level philosophy lecture!

 

[Darat]

Since "afterlife" is considered to be a purely fictional concept I suppose that you could just make up a rule that it all happens spontaneously but that seems even less plausible than that an agency or mechanism exists.

For billions of people it isn't considered fictional. For millions of those people it isn't linked to any "agency".

 

[psionl0]

Clearly implies a definition of an atheist as someone who lacks any form of belief whatsoever, while simultaneously...

...ridiculing anyone who uses the definition s/he has just used.

As I have said before, it is not my argument.

Many in this forum have insisted doggedly that atheism is just a "lack of belief" and absolutely nothing else "AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY OTHERWISE!!!!!!!"

I am merely pointing out that it is illogical to simultaneously have a "lack of belief" as well as a belief. Maybe the rules for the existence or otherwise of an afterlife are different than the rules for the existence or otherwise of gods but considering that neither are falsifiable, I don't see the justification for this.

Another dishonest reply. Evidence and proof are different things.

So what? I am not trying to make some "meta-argument".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nah - they don't have an actual argument - been through this before - all they have is that if you don't define what a word means you can't say that "it" - whatever "it" is - doesn't exist.

There are two instances of this going on, I think; Schrodinger's God and Schrodinger's atheist. Schrodinger's God is unambiguously the creator of the Universe and the intelligent driving force behind all events, except when it's more convenient to say he's something infinitely more vague in order to try and argue that his existence hasn't been rendered vanishingly unlikely by the understanding of physical laws that leave no room for continual intervention; and Schrodinger's atheist is someone who has no beliefs in, or even opinions on, anything whatsoever, especially whether there is or is not a god, and at the same time fanatically disbelieves in anything that could somehow be shoehorned into a definition of the word god. The rest of the argument then devolves to a bait-and-switch between different definitions of the words. In effect, it's the fallacy of equivocation from start to finish.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am merely pointing out that it is illogical to simultaneously have a "lack of belief" as well as a belief. Maybe the rules for the existence or otherwise of an afterlife are different than the rules for the existence or otherwise of gods but considering that neither are falsifiable, I don't see the justification for this.

Your dishonesty lies in equivocating "lack of belief in gods" with "lack of belief in anything."

So what?

So "It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process" is not relevant to a discussion of whether it is possible to derive evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Dave

 

[psionl0]

Your dishonesty lies in equivocating "lack of belief in gods" with "lack of belief in anything."

The dishonesty is yours. You quoted my post but clearly didn't read it.

So "It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process" is not relevant to a discussion of whether it is possible to derive evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods.

OK, it is not possible to derive evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods.

NOW will you stop using semantics to label me dishonest?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't necessarily disagree with that but it raises another semantic issue - gods.

Obviously, some agency is necessary to set up and maintain the conditions for an afterlife. It may not even be alive. But if the agency is alive and has some expectations of the people who are to be granted an afterlife then "god" is as good a description as any other.

The afterlife might be a not yet discovered property of the universe and not require anything other than what maintains the universe. This would seem to mean that everybody gets one, but something like 'karma' might exist.

An alive agency which denies or grants access to the afterlife (or different kinds of afterlife) does indeed fill any reasonable definition of 'god'.

And it is then quite logical to say "I am an atheist: I neither believe in gods nor the afterlife."

However, one might also say "I am an atheist: I do not believe in gods, but I do believe in reincarnation." (or spirit world, or whatever)

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then you are in error. It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process.

That would be the stance of an agnostic. It is as such a form of belief. You cannot state it as a fact.

Hans

 

[Leumas]

Then you are in error. It is not possible to prove or disprove gods by any rational process.

You are the one in error... if a god exists it would be extremely simple to prove it... and thus... the fact that it is not proven ... or in many cases disproven... then this is... rationally... a definitive proof of:

• it does not exist
  OR
• it is playing hide and seek and thus either an infantile git... or a demonic dastard... i.e. not a god by the definitions used by the peddlers of gods.

So as you can see... rationally... gods cannot exist... if they did we would know it... and the fact that we do not, proves that there are none... QED!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

The dishonesty is yours. You quoted my post but clearly didn't read it.

'You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".'

That's the entire post. The only possible logical construction to place on it is that you are defining an atheist as someone who lacks belief in anything, rather than lacks belief specifically in the existence of gods.

OK, it is not possible to derive evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Can I quote you on that next time you try to do it? Or will you pretend that it meant something completely different as usual?

Dave

 

[psionl0]

'You can't be an atheist if you believe that because it is not a "lack of belief".'

That's the entire post.

You just doubled down on the dishonesty. That wasn't the post that you quoted nor responded to.

I have explained why I made that statement several times now and you have not acknowledged it once. More dishonesty!