Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[dlorde]

Why would you think there's a technological solution to loneliness? Can you give us a hint what it should look like? A drug? A new social theory?

The internet.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I feel another poem coming on...


What has science ever done?
How does my computer run?
How do buildings scrape the sky?
How do modern aircraft fly?
How do social groupings form?
How do cultures set their norms?

I drive a car, what makes it go?
How do we breed the food we grow?
What it is that makes me tick?
How is it that I get sick?
It must be some demonic curse
I pray and pray but just feel worse

The universe, how did it start?
These molecules and other parts?
Someone had to come before
'Cos life arose from something more
The Big Bang theory surely needs
Intelligence behind the deed

I know what's right, so here's the deal
Belief in something makes it real
Who cares if cultures contradict?
I fail to see how they conflict
Of course—I'll have to disagree
If you deny a deity

From whence arose the human mind?
That answer, we may never find
Subjective is the human truth
And anecdotes, you can't dispute
You don't know what created "you"
And thus my crackpot theory's true!

So how is science any good?
That's what I've never understood
It cannot tell me how to feel
And therefore it holds no appeal
I'd much prefer philosophy
If everyone agreed with me...


Hmm... needs more ellipses...

 

[Brian-M]

Why would you think there's a technological solution to loneliness? Can you give us a hint what it should look like? A drug? A new social theory?

Oooohhh! Electrodes implanted in the pleasure center of the brain should do the trick! (But failing that, social media such as discussion forums like this one might help alleviate the problem.)

 

[Dissolution]

So because I haven't demonstrated that technology can't solve the problem, I haven't demonstrated that there is a problem.

Logical fallacy anyone?

...and I've failed to demonstrate why having an imaginary friend would help.

I don't even know what to call that one. 'Stupid' I think.

One third of adults over 45 admit to chronic loneliness and I've failed to demonstrate there is any problem??????? Is English not your native vocabulary? Is loneliness regarded as an asset, or a liability? Does loneliness encourage happiness...or depression? Is happiness generally regarded to be preferable to depression?

It is also worth noting...that these numbers have been increasing.... dramatically ... during exactly the same period that technology has provided ever more opportunities for communication and interaction.

Apparently...technological solutions are not working. The 'why' of this has also been documented. But since you're so eager to get to the bottom of the issue, I'll leave you to locate the sources for those conclusions.

Care to try this again without all of the ad-homs?

First you failed to demonstrate that there was a problem, then you failed to demonstrate or even illustrate why technology couldn't treat it if there was one.
You've still failed to do either, merely using broad search terms and offering no actual links to any research.
You'd then need to show that these numbers actually have been increasing.

All you've done so far is to make various claims and then whine and respond with insults when you've been asked to back them up.

 

[annnnoid]

Care to try this again without all of the ad-homs?

First you failed to demonstrate that there was a problem, then you failed to demonstrate or even illustrate why technology couldn't treat it if there was one.
You've still failed to do either, merely using broad search terms and offering no actual links to any research.
You'd then need to show that these numbers actually have been increasing.

All you've done so far is to make various claims and then whine and respond with insults when you've been asked to back them up.

The claims…such as they were…were in response to the never-ending gospel of skepticism that gets constantly regurgitated on these pages claiming salvation through science. Science is everything, knows everything, does everything…and whatever it isn’t, doesn’t, or can’t now…it will be. Typically it’s nothing more than an insecure, ignorant, knee-jerk reaction to ‘…gawd I hate religion and there’s gotta be something simple I can believe I’ve buried it with….’

I merely point out the huge gaps in what science knows and what it can do. I was not the one making the claim that science can answer basic human needs…it was the rest of this illiterate mob. It is therefore up to them to prove it. So far that has not come anywhere close to happening.

As for loneliness…from the following link:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ocial_isolation_is_deadlier_than_obesity.html

Loneliness is not just making us sick, it is killing us. Loneliness is a serious health risk. Studies of elderly people and social isolation concluded that those without adequate social interaction were twice as likely to die prematurely.

The increased mortality risk is comparable to that from smoking. And loneliness is about twice as dangerous as obesity.

Social isolation impairs immune function and boosts inflammation, which can lead to arthritis, type II diabetes, and heart disease.

Loneliness has doubled: 40 percent of adults in two recent surveys said they were lonely, up from 20 percent in the 1980s.

All of our Internet interactions aren’t helping and may be making loneliness worse. A recent study of Facebook users found that the amount of time you spend on the social network is inversely related to how happy you feel throughout the day.

http://www.aarp.org/personal-growth/transitions/info-09-2010/loneliness_2010.html

Loneliness was a significant predictor of poor health.

13% of lonely respondents felt they have fewer deep connections now that they keep in touch with people using the Internet,

From: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841

We text-messaged people five times per day for two-weeks to examine how Facebook use influences the two components of subjective well-being: how people feel moment-to-moment and how satisfied they are with their lives. Our results indicate that Facebook use predicts negative shifts on both of these variables over time.

The degree to which all this is definitive is debatable and would require a thread of its own…but do we need a scientist to tell us that loneliness is unhealthy (why not?)? What is not debatable…and what is definitive…is that there exists a technology today that has been around thousands of years that invariably does work. It is called a human being. One human being having a meaningful relationship with another human being reduces loneliness…every…single…time.

No science required.

That’s called human Truth…with a capital ‘T’…because when we experience it to its fullest degrees (and there is a clearly defined trajectory to human experience and affairs)…that is exactly how it feels. True. Real. Honest. Inside and out. Backwards and forwards. Up and down. Top to bottom. 100% pure. 100% subjective. It’s all anecdotal of course…but it’s confirmed in every authentic representation of human experience. It is what everyone seeks in life…whether they know it or not.

It is purpose.

Whether it comes from ‘God’ or not is impossible to establish because no one can fully comprehend the meaning of that word. What is possible to establish is that it does NOT come from us. Why? Because we did not and do not create ourselves and we neither know what did nor how we are created. As I’ve said repeatedly…there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what this universe is, where it comes from, or how it works. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what we are, where we come from, or how we work.

What does exist are vast and incomprehensibly complex internal and external realities, some of which are mapped using the epistemology of science. What also exists are innumerable examples of human experiences that specifically implicate purpose that satisfies the most basic of human conditions. That purpose is sometimes described by the word ‘God’…sometimes in other forms.

That is evidence.

Ultimately…it is the human epistemic reality that determines our condition…including whatever it is that the epistemology of science provides us with. You either learn to trust you…or there is no you.

 

[Resume]

The claims…such as they were…were in response to the never-ending gospel of skepticism that gets constantly regurgitated on these pages claiming salivation through science.

Pavlov's dogs?

 

[annnnoid]

Pavlov's dogs?

....on the limitations of automated spellcheckers. Much obliged.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@annnnoid:

When you posted:

It is a documented fact that loneliness is well beyond epidemic proportions in many first world countries where the populations have ready access to all the science-provided basic requirements of food, clothing, shelter, and warmth.

Were you suggesting God keeps you from feeling lonely?

When I believed in God as a young child, praying didn't get the boy down the street to like me and God really didn't make a good substitute for someone to play with when no other kids were around.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The claims…such as they were…were in response to the never-ending gospel of skepticism that gets constantly regurgitated on these pages claiming salvation through science. Science is everything, knows everything, does everything…and whatever it isn’t, doesn’t, or can’t now…it will be. Typically it’s nothing more than an insecure, ignorant, knee-jerk reaction to ‘…gawd I hate religion and there’s gotta be something simple I can believe I’ve buried it with….’

Yet it never occurred to you that some people may find religion to be disillusioning, inhumane, or oppressive, and thus have legitimate reason to turn away from it. If you want to speak of willful ignorance, I would remind you of how you downplayed the harm religion can cause to society. However, go ahead and beat up your strawman if it makes you feel better.

I merely point out the huge gaps in what science knows and what it can do. I was not the one making the claim that science can answer basic human needs…it was the rest of this illiterate mob. It is therefore up to them to prove it. So far that has not come anywhere close to happening.

You don't merely point out the gaps, you also attempt to shove God and religion into those gaps. You're being very dishonest here.

The degree to which all this is definitive is debatable and would require a thread of its own…but do we need a scientist to tell us that loneliness is unhealthy (why not?)? What is not debatable…and what is definitive…is that there exists a technology today that has been around thousands of years that invariably does work. It is called a human being. One human being having a meaningful relationship with another human being reduces loneliness…every…single…time.

No science required.

And why shouldn't science study the health effects of social isolation? Is it treading on sacred ground?

That’s called human Truth…with a capital ‘T’…because when we experience it to its fullest degrees (and there is a clearly defined trajectory to human experience and affairs)…that is exactly how it feels. True. Real. Honest. Inside and out. Backwards and forwards. Up and down. Top to bottom. 100% pure. 100% subjective. It’s all anecdotal of course…but it’s confirmed in every authentic representation of human experience. It is what everyone seeks in life…whether they know it or not.

It is purpose.

Humans can also be backstabbing bastards who lie to and manipulate each other for personal gain. One person's experiences and anecdotes can contradict another's, since it's all subjective. You think you're saying something deep and meaningful, but all you're doing is spouting hollow platitudes.

Whether it comes from ‘God’ or not is impossible to establish because no one can fully comprehend the meaning of that word. What is possible to establish is that it does NOT come from us. Why? Because we did not and do not create ourselves and we neither know what did nor how we are created. As I’ve said repeatedly…there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what this universe is, where it comes from, or how it works. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what we are, where we come from, or how we work.

Are you serious? You just finished giving a personal definition of purpose, which is something you made up, and then you assert that this purpose comes from something higher than ourselves.

What does exist are vast and incomprehensibly complex internal and external realities, some of which are mapped using the epistemology of science. What also exists are innumerable examples of human experiences that specifically implicate purpose that satisfies the most basic of human conditions. That purpose is sometimes described by the word ‘God’…sometimes in other forms.

That is evidence.

As I have pointed out several times, which you've ignored, these human experiences frequently clash and contradict, therefore you can't take them as evidence for any sort of higher purpose.

Ultimately…it is the human epistemic reality that determines our condition…including whatever it is that the epistemology of science provides us with. You either learn to trust you…or there is no you.

I don't trust any statement that misuses so many ellipses.

 

[Tassman]

The claims…such as they were…were in response to the never-ending gospel of skepticism that gets constantly regurgitated on these pages claiming salvation through science. Science is everything, knows everything, does everything…and whatever it isn’t, doesn’t, or can’t now…it will be. Typically it’s nothing more than an insecure, ignorant, knee-jerk reaction to ‘…gawd I hate religion and there’s gotta be something simple I can believe I’ve buried it with….’

Straw-man! You are mischaracterizing science. It claims to be nothing more than an investigative tool for acquiring new knowledge. And it's a highly successful one. BTW: Religion is too silly to hate.

I merely point out the huge gaps in what science knows and what it can do. I was not the one making the claim that science can answer basic human needs…it was the rest of this illiterate mob. It is therefore up to them to prove it. So far that has not come anywhere close to happening.

Science is always a ‘work in progress’.

As for answering “basic human needs” it has a pretty good record in alleviating human suffering by extending life-spans and improving general health with medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, orthopedic and surgical techniques. Not to mention reducing starvation with the advancement of agriculture, farming techniques and animal husbandry! Plus contributing to social interaction with benefits such as computers, cell phones, TV...all electronic devices!

What has religion done by way of comparison, e.g. in dealing with the great plagues of history such as the Black Death and various ‘flu pandemics? It wasn't religion that discovered the causes and how to remedy them, it blamed sin and Jews, it was science.

<snipped>

The degree to which all this is definitive is debatable and would require a thread of its own…but do we need a scientist to tell us that loneliness is unhealthy (why not?)? What is not debatable…and what is definitive…is that there exists a technology today that has been around thousands of years that invariably does work. It is called a human being. One human being having a meaningful relationship with another human being reduces loneliness…every…single…time.

No science required.

The social sciences are in a better position than the religions to deal with such issues.

That’s called human Truth…with a capital ‘T’…because when we experience it to its fullest degrees (and there is a clearly defined trajectory to human experience and affairs)…that is exactly how it feels. True. Real. Honest. Inside and out. Backwards and forwards. Up and down. Top to bottom. 100% pure. 100% subjective. It’s all anecdotal of course…but it’s confirmed in every authentic representation of human experience. It is what everyone seeks in life…whether they know it or not.

It is purpose.

Whether it comes from ‘God’ or not is impossible to establish because no one can fully comprehend the meaning of that word. What is possible to establish is that it does NOT come from us. Why? Because we did not and do not create ourselves and we neither know what did nor how we are created. As I’ve said repeatedly…there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what this universe is, where it comes from, or how it works. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what we are, where we come from, or how we work.

What does exist are vast and incomprehensibly complex internal and external realities, some of which are mapped using the epistemology of science. What also exists are innumerable examples of human experiences that specifically implicate purpose that satisfies the most basic of human conditions. That purpose is sometimes described by the word ‘God’…sometimes in other forms.

That is evidence.

Ultimately…it is the human epistemic reality that determines our condition…including whatever it is that the epistemology of science provides us with. You either learn to trust you…or there is no you.

This little rant is demonstrably untrue. You are making self-serving anecdotal claims!

One only needs compare the societal health and ‘Happiness Index’ of the developed nations compared to the disease-ridden squalor of the medieval period OR modern third-world countries to see the fallaciousness of your claims. Both the latter dominated by superstition and religion in comparison to today's more atheistic developed nations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/world-happiness-report-happiest-countries_n_3894041.html

 

[punshhh]

I am not saying “that this unknown does not exist”. I have said repeatedly that some claims of the existence of say, gods, pixies or unicorns are improbable. They remain possible but improbable and until such time as credible evidence is produced they remain, in practical terms, non-existent.

You may say you do not claim that this unknown does not exist. But what you and others following this line of argument are saying is that it in practical terms they don't exist. This is a veiled claim that such unknowns are folly to consider. This kind of thought leads to belief.

Has it not occurred to you yet that notions like practicality and probability are irrelevant to this discussion? (Philosophy can provide this understanding/knowledge).

It does apply to science and ultimately all philosophical premises are based on knowledge acquired by science. Philosophy is unable to acquire new knowledge on its own.

More irrelevance, what humans think, do not reveal or explain the truth of existence as we know it. Such talk is pie in the sky, as it is not known the degree to which human understanding is a correct understanding of reality, or if so to what extent.(Philosophy can provide this knowledge(the point made in this sentence) and its importance in considerations of existence).

Even if these “something’s” are clearly delusions as per my examples?

It cannot be determined if such are delusions or contact from an external entity. You are making an assumption here (something philosophy can point out)

A hypothetical nevertheless concerns proposed real possibilities and as such they are either probable or improbable hypotheticals.

Actual probabilities cannot be determined, as the extent of the limitation of our understanding of the items under discussion cannot be established.

This is precisely the point of the analogy, i.e. the burden of proof rests with those who argue for the Celestial Teapot's existence (or the existence of pixies or gods or unicorns or any other unevidenced beliefs). It does not rest with those skeptical of such claims.

The burden of proof is an irrelevance here. We are talking of hypotheticals a burden is not required. It would only be required if someone is either claiming X exists or doesn't exist. You are doing a good impression of someone who is claiming X does not exist. I am claiming X might exist.
The burden is on your side, unless you are going to state that X might exist?

Correct. It’s called ‘natural philosophy’. It was the precursor of the natural sciences such as physics which have superseded it.

Correction, it's called metaphysics, not natural philosophy. Natural philosophy does not address existence, only the physical world we find ourselves in. (Again it is the knowledge provided by philosophy which can point this out).

I suggest you give some thought to the thought processes involved in the decision to adopt the atheist position. It may help weed out all these irrelevancies.

 

[AdMan]

More irrelevance, what humans think, do not reveal or explain the truth of existence as we know it. Such talk is pie in the sky, as it is not known the degree to which human understanding is a correct understanding of reality, or if so to what extent.(Philosophy can provide this knowledge(the point made in this sentence) and its importance in considerations of existence).

Can you write this in English?

 

[Tassman]

You may say you do not claim that this unknown does not exist. But what you and others following this line of argument are saying is that it in practical terms they don't exist. This is a veiled claim that such unknowns are folly to consider. This kind of thought leads to belief.

Has it not occurred to you yet that notions like practicality and probability are irrelevant to this discussion? (Philosophy can provide this understanding/knowledge).

Correct! In practical terms gods, pixies or unicorns are improbable to the extent that they may as well not exist.

Philosophy cannot provide this understanding/knowledge because it has no mechanism to establish an “actually true” premise. It can only operate within the framework of existing knowledge. I remind you that virtually every argument and conclusion Aristotle made about the natural world was incorrect. It was based on the existing knowledge of his era and it was wrong.

More irrelevance, what humans think, do not reveal or explain the truth of existence as we know it. Such talk is pie in the sky, as it is not known the degree to which human understanding is a correct understanding of reality, or if so to what extent.(Philosophy can provide this knowledge(the point made in this sentence) and its importance in considerations of existence).

Philosophy demonstrably cannot provide this knowledge. See above.

It cannot be determined if such are delusions or contact from an external entity. You are making an assumption here (something philosophy can point out)

Indeed it cannot be proved whether or not such "are delusions" generated within the brain or "contact from an external entity”. But it is probable that they are delusions given that there is no credible evidence of external entities and considerable evidence of delusional ideation - especially in our psychiatric institutions. So, ask yourself, which is the most likely explanation?

Actual probabilities cannot be determined, as the extent of the limitation of our understanding of the items under discussion cannot be established.

Actual probabilities can only be determined within the (ever expanding) “limitation of our understanding of the items under discussion”. To say any more than this is ‘god-of-the-gap’ style speculation; i.e. meaningless.

The burden of proof is an irrelevance here. We are talking of hypotheticals a burden is not required. It would only be required if someone is either claiming X exists or doesn't exist. You are doing a good impression of someone who is claiming X does not exist. I am claiming X might exist.
The burden is on your side, unless you are going to state that X might exist?

Whether you are making the claim that ‘X’ actually exists OR simply claiming that ‘X’ might hypothetically exist, the burden of proof still rests upon the one making the positive assertion – whether actual or hypothetical. And that’s you. Unless you are claiming that your hypothetical is not even possiby true in which case you are not saying anything at all.

Correction, it's called metaphysics, not natural philosophy. Natural philosophy does not address existence, only the physical world we find ourselves in. (Again it is the knowledge provided by philosophy which can point this out).

And on what basis do you separate the “physical world” from “existence”? Why?

What ‘metaphysics’ claims to examine namely the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter etc, is better examined by Cognitive science namely, the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. Cognitive science embraces philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics and anthropology. The latter can support its findings with tested evidence whereas the former (metaphysics) cannot.

I suggest you give some thought to the thought processes involved in the decision to adopt the atheist position. It may help weed out all these irrelevancies.

Atheism is the default position. It is up the theists (or Celestial Teapot believer) to provide evidence why a belief in their position is reasonable.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I suggest you give some thought to the thought processes involved in the decision to adopt the atheist position. It may help weed out all these irrelevancies.

An infinite number of fanciful things might exist, but until you offer up some specific evidence, why should we bother? That's what is meant by burden of proof.

Need I remind you of your insult to Her Invisible Pinkness in our previous debate?

 

[Tassman]

An infinite number of fanciful things might exist, but until you offer up some specific evidence, why should we bother? That's what is meant by burden of proof.

Need I remind you of your insult to Her Invisible Pinkness in our previous debate?

OH NO!!! Say it isn't so. Surely not Her Invisible Pinkness?!

 

[punshhh]

Philosophy demonstrably cannot

(I apologise for my delay in responding, I am very busy elsewhere at the moment.)

You miss understand, I was pointing out (in the phrase," the point made in this sentence") that philosophy can provide the understanding that it cannot be determined to what degree human understanding is a correct understanding of reality. Science based enquiry is blind to such considerations.

Whether you are making the claim that ‘X’ actually exists OR simply claiming that ‘X’ might hypothetically exist, the burden of proof still rests upon the one making the positive assertion – whether actual or hypothetical. And that’s you. Unless you are claiming that your hypothetical is not even possiby true in which case you are not saying anything at all.

I am happy to consider that X does not exist, are you happy to consider that it does? If you're not, the burden lies with you.

And on what basis do you separate the “physical world” from “existence”? Why?

Philosophy can provide the understanding that "existence" does not necessarily equate to physical matter, or what humanity can detect. As this understanding may be inaccurate, incomplete, or misguided.

What ‘metaphysics’ claims to examine namely the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter etc, is better examined by Cognitive science namely, the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. Cognitive science embraces philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics and anthropology. The latter can support its findings with tested evidence whereas the former (metaphysics) cannot.

You have a poor understanding of what philosophy is. As a result you continue to repeat irrelevancies. Philosophy is the study of what can rationally/logically be said (or not) given the position we find ourselves in. As such, as our position alters, due perhaps to scientific advancements, philosophy fills in the rational/logical gaps.

Atheism is the default position. It is up the theists (or Celestial Teapot believer) to provide evidence why a belief in their position is reasonable.

This is an entirely different issue, we are discussing the assumptions of atheism.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I am happy to consider that X does not exist, are you happy to consider that it does? If you're not, the burden lies with you.

Wrong, the burden always lies with the one making the positive claim, because there are an infinite number of things X that might exist. Some of my X may outright contradict your X, as is the case with the gods of various religions. See the problem yet?

 

[Tassman]

(I apologise for my delay in responding, I am very busy elsewhere at the moment.)

No problem; join the club.

You miss understand, I was pointing out (in the phrase," the point made in this sentence") that philosophy can provide the understanding that it cannot be determined to what degree human understanding is a correct understanding of reality. Science based enquiry is blind to such considerations.

But science doesn't claim that it has “a correct understanding of reality” nor does it claim that its theories are true. Nevertheless, unlike philosophy, it can provide considerable understanding of reality - including replicating tests and making successful predictions. So, although unproven in the metaphysical sense, it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent from such multiply verified scientific theories as the speed of light or the other natural laws and constants of the universe - despite being, in principle, falsifiable.

I am happy to consider that X does not exist, are you happy to consider that it does? If you're not, the burden lies with you.

I have said numerous times that ‘X’ is possibility true although things such as fairies, unicorns or gods, whilst possible are not probable. If you think they are then, the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the positive claim as Frozenwolf150 said.

Philosophy can provide the understanding that "existence" does not necessarily equate to physical matter, or what humanity can detect. As this understanding may be inaccurate, incomplete, or misguided.

Empty assertions such as this can provide an understanding but a philosophical argument can’t. Where would the premise of such an argument come from and how would you determine it was actually true? Without a true premise you cannot arrive at a true conclusion no matter how valid your deductive argument is.

You have a poor understanding of what philosophy is. As a result you continue to repeat irrelevancies. Philosophy is the study of what can rationally/logically be said (or not) given the position we find ourselves in. As such, as our position alters, due perhaps to scientific advancements, philosophy fills in the rational/logical gaps.

Philosophy-of-the-gaps will inevitably go the way of ‘god-of-the-gaps’ as the “gaps” keep getting filled in.

This is an entirely different issue, we are discussing the assumptions of atheism.

No assumptions! Atheism is the default position until such time as those who believe otherwise support their beliefs with credible evidence. Again, the burden of proof rests with those making the positive claim, i.e. you.

 

[Navigator]

...Atheism is the default position...

For what?

Not all atheists believe that.

 

[The Norseman]

For what?

For any god(s) that theists care to trot out.

Not all atheists believe that.

This null hypothesis (that god(s) do not exist) isn't based on personal belief.