Why are you atheist?

[warpus]

Yes.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'extraordinary' but induction is an unjustified process that has an all-encompassing effect on our lives. It isn'ty clear how it differs materially from religion.

Yeah, but.. what's the extraordinary claim here? The extraordinary claim in the case of God is "God exists"

It can't be "induction exists", because I can easily produce an example of it (x=x+2)

If the extraordinary claim is "Induction leads to knowledge" or some other philosophical concept, then hey, maybe it is extraordinary, who am I to argue with Hume?

 

[lovett]

Yeah, but.. what's the extraordinary claim here? The extraordinary claim in the case of God is "God exists"

It can't be "induction exists", because I can easily produce an example of it (x=x+2)

If the extraordinary claim is "Induction leads to knowledge" or some other philosophical concept, then hey, maybe it is extraordinary, who am I to argue with Hume?

The claim is to the effect that Induction leads to knowledge. That it is a valid form of knowledge acquisition.

It is a claim everyone believes. Otherwise they would be sceptical when told that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is not a claim purely of interest to philosophers; it is one central to human existence. Yet it is unjustified, just like the claim 'God Exists'.

 

[tycoonist]

They're philosophical terms. The problem of other minds relates to our belief other people have the same internal experiences we do. That they have minds like us, rather then being philosophical zombies. By the external world one means the idea that what we perceive exists; there is a world external to our own mind. I am confident you believe in other minds and the external world because almost everyone does.

Given that you don't know what the terms mean 'right off the bat' as it were I am also reasonably confident that you are not particularly cognizant about the issues involved. That is to say, you don't have solid justification for these beliefs. Yet you demand solid justification for a belief in God. See the problem?

please keep your ad hominem arguments to yourself.

thank you for explaining your terms. i do not know whether others are thinking beings, or whether the world we experience is not necessarily a figment of our imagination. however, i never demanded a solid justification for believing in God. it is an entirely irrational belief, and i have no problem with others following that dictum, as i explained in my first post. unlike believing in other minds, or believing in the external world, for me believing in god serves no purpose. belief in other minds gives us the empathy that allows our society to function. belief in external world gives us a reason to get up in the morning, gives us motivation. i do not see these benefits in a belief in God.

 

[warpus]

The claim is to the effect that Induction leads to knowledge. That it is a valid form of knowledge acquisition.

It is a claim everyone believes. Otherwise they would be sceptical when told that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is not a claim purely of interest to philosophers; it is one central to human existence. Yet it is unjustified, just like the claim 'God Exists'.

You think that "The sun will rise tomorrow" is an extraordinary claim?

If God showed up every day to say hi, "God exists" would be equally as extraordinary a claim.

Until then, let's admit that one of the claims is not as extraordinary as the other

 

[lovett]

please keep your ad hominem arguments to yourself.

thank you for explaining your terms. i do not know whether others are thinking beings, or whether the world we experience is not necessarily a figment of our imagination. however, i never demanded a solid justification for believing in God. it is an entirely irrational belief, and i have no problem with others following that dictum, as i explained in my first post. unlike believing in other minds, or believing in the external world, for me believing in god serves no purpose. belief in other minds gives us the empathy that allows our society to function. belief in external world gives us a reason to get up in the morning, gives us motivation. i do not see these benefits in a belief in God.

I was not engaging in an ad hominem attack. I was making deductions about your beliefs based on your behaviour. They were pertinent and seemingly accurate.

As per your second paragraph, are you saying that beliefs can be justified if they have good outcomes? That might be pertinent in saying whether we should believe but it seems a rather warped approach to the question 'Is X belief true'. The latter is surely the point under discussion when we ask 'Does God Exist?'

You think that "The sun will rise tomorrow" is an extraordinary claim?

If God showed up every day to say hi, "God exists" would be equally as extraordinary a claim.

Yeah, actually. That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, actually. That's exactly what I'm saying.

So if you agree that "The sun will rise tomorrow" and "God exists" are not even comparable in terms of extraordinaryness, why make your initial point in the first place?

 

[tycoonist]

As per your second paragraph, are you saying that beliefs can be justified if they have good outcomes? That might be pertinent in saying whether we should believe but it seems a rather warped approach to the question 'Is X belief true'. The latter is surely the point under discussion when we ask 'Does God Exist?'

i have already said multiple times that i know that i can't know whether god exists, and hence i do not believe in him. belief is irrational, as i have stated, and therefore the only purpose for belief is to have good outcomes. nobody asked "does god exist?". the question is "why are you an atheist?". and since i can see no advantage to me personally believing in god (and actually quite a lot of disadvantages), then i do not see why i should believe. so yeah, i am totally saying that beliefs can be justified by their outcomes.

if somebody who had spent a long time living in a criminal manner "found god", and changed his ways then i'd say fine, it worked for him. but i don't care whether god exists or not because, to me, it does not matter. it is irrelevant to any actual real world problem.

 

[lovett]

So if you agree that "The sun will rise tomorrow" and "God exists" are not even comparable in terms of extraordinaryness, why make your initial point in the first place?

No. I agree with your exposition. Both are equally 'extraordinary'.

I don't really think the fact that they're extraordinary has any relevance really. What do you even mean by the word?

 

[warpus]

No. I agree with your exposition. Both are equally 'extraordinary'.

How are they both extraordinary?

We have evidence of the sun coming up every single day for the last couple thousand years. No day has the sun NOT gone up. What makes assuming that it comes up tomorrow any degree of extraordinary, however you define the term?

We don't have any evidence of a God doing anything, ever. Claiming that one exists, then, is fairly extraordinary.

I don't see how you can compare both statements like that with a straight face. What you are saying is that EVERYTHING has the exact same degree of extraordinaryness, which is ridiculous.

I don't really think the fact that they're extraordinary has any relevance really. What do you even mean by the word?

What do you mean, what do I mean? Doesn't the word 'extraordinary' mean anything to you?

It has relevance because if somebody says: "Bathrooms exist!", nobody is going to doubt him - the statement is ordinary enough. We've all seen bathrooms (at least most of us have). Unless there is some sort of a world-wide "Let's make people believe that bathrooms exist while they really don't" involving all the worlds governments and hundreds of thousands of people, with fake bathrooms everywhere, what he is saying sounds perfectly legit to me and any other reasonable person.

"Bathrooms on mars exist" is a bit of an extraordinary statement, because such a thing isn't documented, as opposed to bathrooms on earth, millions of pictures existing thereof.

I hope you can see the variying degrees of extraordrinaryness in the above 2 examples.

 

[sophie]

My parents were both raised religious (Catholic Father Lutheran Mother) but they both rejected religion in general, and to say my dad hates Christians would be putting it lightly. Because that, I was raised firmly atheist (although ironically enough I was baptized in a Unitarian Church). In my younger years I did occasionally go to church with some of my more Christian friends, but I never truly believed, and to this day I still maintain the belief that no God of any sort exists.

However, my beliefs on religion as an institution tend to be the same as many here. I believe that there is no harm in believing in a God, if that's how you feel, that's none of my business. My problem exists with the religious individuals who think it is their life goal to forcefully convert every human being on earth to their religion, by any means necessary.

 

[lovett]

How are they both extraordinary?

We have evidence of the sun coming up every single day for the last couple thousand years. No day has the sun NOT gone up. What makes assuming that it comes up tomorrow any degree of extraordinary, however you define the term?

We don't have any evidence of a God doing anything, ever. Claiming that one exists, then, is fairly extraordinary.

I don't see how you can compare both statements like that with a straight face. What you are saying is that EVERYTHING has the exact same degree of extraordinaryness, which is ridiculous.

Our evidence that the sun will rise in inductive. As I have said, inductive reasoning in unjustified (note: I mean justified in a purely evidential sense). Similarly, the statement 'God exists' is unjustified. Both statement exist on the same level of justification; none. The problem here may well be that you are not fully aware of the problems in induction.

What do you mean, what do I mean? Doesn't the word 'extraordinary' mean anything to you?

It has relevance because if somebody says: "Bathrooms exist!", nobody is going to doubt him - the statement is ordinary enough. We've all seen bathrooms (at least most of us have). Unless there is some sort of a world-wide "Let's make people believe that bathrooms exist while they really don't" involving all the worlds governments and hundreds of thousands of people, with fake bathrooms everywhere, what he is saying sounds perfectly legit to me and any other reasonable person.

"Bathrooms on mars exist" is a bit of an extraordinary statement, because such a thing isn't documented, as opposed to bathrooms on earth, millions of pictures existing thereof.

I hope you can see the variying degrees of extraordrinaryness in the above 2 examples.

So we are meant to assess statement on the basis of majority opinion; whether anybody is going to doubt them? That doesn't seem like a particularly incisive way in finding out whether propositions are true. Especially so when we're talking about metaphysical issues (I.e God, external world, Induction etc). We have to ignore our usual methods of 'documentation' as per justification because the validity of those methods rests entirely on the issues in question.

 

[warpus]

lovett,

So if one of your friends calls you up and says: "want to come over and play with my time machine? It's real! It'll take us to 2050!" you believe him, and don't ask any questions?

When somebody calls up and invites you over for some video games, do you tell him: "That is crazy! Video games don't exist! What kinda bs are you trying to sell me here?"

Or do you admit that the two situations contain different degrees of believability and thus different degrees of evidence are required?

That's all I'm saying with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Not all claims are made equal. I'm not going to believe all of them equally, because I'm sensible.

 

[lovett]

lovett,

So if one of your friends calls you up and says: "want to come over and play with my time machine? It's real! It'll take us to 2050!" you believe him, and don't ask any questions?

When somebody calls up and invites you over for some video games, do you tell him: "That is crazy! Video games don't exist! What kinda bs are you trying to sell me here?"

Or do you admit that the two situations contain different degrees of believability and thus different degrees of evidence are required?

That's all I'm saying with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Not all claims are made equal. I'm not going to believe all of them equally, because I'm sensible.

Those claims aren't metaphysical. Or, better to say those claims rest on metaphysical claims. If we take those metaphysical claims as given we assess these claims in our 'normal manner'. If we assume induction, logic and all our other methods of justification are valid then we assess these claims in a normal way. As we do assume those things we do act 'normally'.

Yet those metaphysical claims are not justified. When we ask for justification concerning God we must first explain why we do not need justification for induction et al. People tend not to do this.

 

[warpus]

Those claims aren't metaphysical. Or, better to say those claims rest on metaphysical claims.

What does it matter? I'm talking about my day-to-day approach to claims people make about stuff.

I see no need to put God in a special category here.

Saying "God exists" is an extraordinary claim and I would be intellectually dishonest if I took it at face value without *something* backing it up.

 

[lovett]

What does it matter? I'm talking about my day-to-day approach to claims people make about stuff.

I see no need to put God in a special category here.

Saying "God exists" is an extraordinary claim and I would be intellectually dishonest if I took it at face value without *something* backing it up.

My argument is that it is no more extraordinary then saying 'Induction is valid'. They're both statement which cannot be assessed empirically. God is meant to transcend the universe; he is not a part of it. Whether he exists is not a normal question it is a metaphysical question. That's the 'special category' you're looking for. It includes both Induction and God.

You believe the former but not the latter. Both are unjustified. You must give a reason for this distinction.

 

[Lillefix]

Whether he exists is not a normal question it is a metaphysical question.

You can't argue like that. You can say that about anything. Like Santa Claus.

Anyway, if he influences the world as the bible suggest then he must be physical in some way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Care to elaborate on this bar?

Well, having a dogma not smack-full of falsehoods would help, I guess. But, beyond that, a modicum of proof.

 

[warpus]

My argument is that it is no more extraordinary then saying 'Induction is valid'.

If someone said "induction is valid" I would expect evidence. Probably not as much evidence as in the case of God - cause to me induction makes perfect sense.

If I was a philosopher fully versed in the art of philosophy, AND i took the stance that induction is invalid, then I'd probably agree that it's an extraordinary claim and thus needs extraordinary evidence.

The question asked me here is "Why are you an atheist?". I'm an atheist because theists have made an extraordinary claim IMO, and have offered no evidence at all, let alone anything extraordinary.

They're both statement which cannot be assessed empirically. God is meant to transcend the universe; he is not a part of it. Whether he exists is not a normal question it is a metaphysical question. That's the 'special category' you're looking for. It includes both Induction and God.

Riiight

If you define God in such a way that it's impossible to provide evidence for his existance, then you have fun with that.

If I was asked if I'm an atheist using that definition of God, I would of course say no. If asked why, I would say that it's a convenient definition.

You're saying "Saying that God exists is not an extraordinary claim because he transcends the Universe and stuff! and metaphysics! he's in a special category! asking whether he exists isn't a normal question! That's why it's not extraordinary"

It appears to me as though you've taken a perfectly extraordinary claim and tacked philisophical mumbo jumbo to it in order to make it perfectly ordinary. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Arwon]

No one is born theists, I never became one.

That.

Thank God for apathetic parents. (ho ho ho)

 

[AesronDrosseli]

From all the responses so far, I'm personally quite intrigued. You see, in my area, most, if not all people, hold some degree of spirituality. It would seem as if most who don't believe in religion do so because:

a) They've never seen a need to in their lives (ie God doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever), and
b) Because there's no solid empirical evidence for God's existence

Now.. At risk of sounding like a prophet, I'm now foreseeing the death knell for religion in the far, far future as the world becomes more developed and people become more educated. Not that I'm saying that ascribing to religion connotes a lack of education, more of the fact that as people become more educated, they learn more about the way the world works and science and knowledge and all that jazz.