Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

That presupposes that empiricism was something of a thing prior to when we know empiricism was a thing.
I'm looking at survivorship bias being a pretty useless tool in the analysis of philosophical and theological positions.

It's some people Maeght.

It is, yes. People who are atheist.

[Maeght]

If you do not believe in a deity, you would have to believe that everything came into existence without the need for conscious intent.  That is a belief system.
The profound opening of John's gospel, (in the beginning was the word), implies that conscious intent was there from the start.

Not so. Just because you are not convinced by the evidence for God or gods doesn't mean you hold a different belief. You can answer 'I don't know'. Being presented with two options and saying you are not convinced by the evidence for one doesn't automatically mean you believe in the other. There may be a third option, a fourth option, a fifth option etc etc options we just can't imagine at the moment or maybe ever. Atheists may have different alternative views, but if they aren't convinced by the evidence for God or gods they are atheists regardless. Atheism isn't a belief system.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is, yes. People who are atheist.

That's funny, some try to pass atheism of as merely the lack of belief but you are portraying atheism as a commitment to a specific definition of evidence from which you then reason toward the atheist conclusion...and then there are some who claim agnostic atheism where they are taking a particular epistemological position
While claiming that they act as atheists which presumably includes their behaviour here.

[Maeght]

That's funny, some try to pass atheism of as merely the lack of belief but you are portraying atheism as a commitment to a specific definition of evidence from which you then reason toward the atheist conclusion...and then there are some who claim agnostic atheism where they are taking a particular epistemological position
While claiming that they act as atheists which presumably includes their behaviour here.

Atheists are not convinced by the evidence, whatever form that evidence takes. Different atheists may have different standards of evidence but if they are in position where they are not convinced by the evidence presented then they are atheist. If they are convinced then they aren't atheist.

[torridon]

If you do not believe in a deity, you would have to believe that everything came into existence without the need for conscious intent.  That is a belief system.

So is it easier to believe that conscious intent just popped into existence out of nowhere ?  Conscious intent is a phenomenon of high order complexity; it took 4 billion years of gradually increasing complexity before the earliest forms of consciousness evolved on this planet.  The idea that something that complex could just exist ex-nihilo takes some swallowing.

[Nearly Sane]

So is it easier to believe that conscious intent just popped into existence out of nowhere ?  Conscious intent is a phenomenon of high order complexity; it took 4 billion years of gradually increasing complexity before the earliest forms of consciousness evolved on this planet.  The idea that something that complex could just exist ex-nihilo takes some swallowing.

And yet atheism is not a belief system.  None of the above is necessary to be an atheist.

[torridon]

And yet atheism is not a belief system.  None of the above is necessary to be an atheist.

Quite right.  Alan often crams much wrongness in a small space it's hard to know which bit to address

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheists are not convinced by the evidence, whatever form that evidence takes.

That sounds virtuous but an upfront refusal to accept anything ever, on closer inspection, doesn’t sound much like it but rather something like an oath. I think you might be close to proposing what a true atheist is. I do accept that there may be sincere atheists.

Different atheists may have different standards of evidence but if they are in position where they are not convinced by the evidence presented then they are atheist. If they are convinced then they aren't atheist.

I felt we were getting to the “True atheist”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet atheism is not a belief system.  None of the above is necessary to be an atheist.

so let me get this straight. The disbelief in all structured belief systems is not er, structured itself?

[Gordon]

That's funny, some try to pass atheism of as merely the lack of belief but you are portraying atheism as a commitment to a specific definition of evidence from which you then reason toward the atheist conclusion...and then there are some who claim agnostic atheism where they are taking a particular epistemological position
While claiming that they act as atheists which presumably includes their behaviour here.

You do thrash about so, Vlad: you're so 'full of sound and fury', etc.

It's very simple: an atheist is someone who lacks beliefs in any claimed 'God/s', usually because they reject the case made by theists and/or they regard the notion of 'God/s' to be incoherent nonsense to extent that there can be no knowledge (the agnostic bit) that could be cited in support of any case advocating for the existence or for the non-existence of 'God/s'. That is certainly my position - that of an agnostic atheist, though the term 'igtheist' also fits.

There is no "commitment to a specific definition of evidence" as you suggest: I'd say it is the lack of evidence for theism that is the issue for most atheists, but no doubt that that is way to obvious for you to accept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do thrash about so, Vlad: you're so 'full of sound and fury', etc.

It's very simple: an atheist is someone who lacks beliefs in any claimed 'God/s', usually because they reject the case made by theists and/or they regard the notion of 'God/s' to be incoherent nonsense to extent that there can be no knowledge (the agniostic bit) that could be cited in support of any case advocating for the existence or for the non-existence of 'God/s'. That is certainly my position - that of an agnostic atheist, though the term 'igtheist' also fits.

There is no "commitment to a specific definition of evidence" as you suggest: I'd say it is the lack of evidence for theism that is the issue for most atheists, but no doubt that that is way to obvious for you to accept.

I don’t believe you are not committed to a specific definition of evidence. It would br remiss of you not to have a standard.

I would say that with some exceptions God has never sought to convince mainly using material, scientifically penetrable evidence so if you are relying on that you are likely to miss God imho...but that probably goes for the most avid creationist too I suppose.

[Gordon]

I don’t believe you are not committed to a specific definition of evidence. It would br remiss of you not to have a standard.

Easy peasy: information acquired via a clearly stated methodology (which may reflect theory) clearly stated data collection and analysis techniques and a statement of risks or limitations that may apply - thereby allowing for the opportunity for others to replicate the approach and findings - plus an acceptance that new knowledge or approaches means that any findings or conclusions are always provisional.   

I would say that with some exceptions God has never sought to convince mainly using material, scientifically penetrable evidence so if you are relying on that you are likely to miss God imho...but that probably goes for the most avid creationist too I suppose.

I would say that you are begging the question here. I would also say that if "material, scientifically penetrable evidence" is unsuited to claims of 'God/s' then either you need an alternative - which you don't have - and that you have conceded that your faith beliefs can never be supported by inherently naturalistic structured and reasoned methods of  investigation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy peasy: information acquired via a clearly stated methodology (which may reflect theory) clearly stated data collection and analysis techniques and a statement of risks or limitations that may apply - thereby allowing for the opportunity for others to replicate the approach and findings - plus an acceptance that new knowledge or approaches means that any findings or conclusions are always provisional.   

I would say that you are begging the question here. I would also say that if "material, scientifically penetrable evidence" is unsuited to claims of 'God/s' then either you need an alternative - which you don't have - and that you have conceded that your faith beliefs can never be supported by inherently naturalistic structured and reasoned methods of  investigation.

Science is not suited to a lot of things unless of course you believe that one day there will be a scientific answer for everything...which is scientism.

Science of course is competent in the study of matter energy of course. The problem with scientism is that it asserts, through circular argument that the limits of science are the limits of reality. Losing unjustified faith in that proposition should IMHO be the default position.

[Maeght]

I don’t believe you are not committed to a specific definition of evidence. It would br remiss of you not to have a standard.

I would say that with some exceptions God has never sought to convince mainly using material, scientifically penetrable evidence so if you are relying on that you are likely to miss God imho...but that probably goes for the most avid creationist too I suppose.

I didn't say that I am not committed to a specific definition of evidence - I was talking about atheists in general.

I have never had a personal experience of God or gods and don't find other people's testimony or interpretations of experiences to be good evidence. Other people's experiences are not sufficient to convince me.

Saying God has never sought to convince mainly through material, scientifically penetrable evidence is your interpretation of the way things are i.e. that there is no such evidence.

[Gordon]

Science is not suited to a lot of things unless of course you believe that one day there will be a scientific answer for everything...which is scientism.

I didn't claim that though.

Science of course is competent in the study of matter energy of course. The problem with scientism is that it asserts, through circular argument that the limits of science are the limits of reality. Losing unjustified faith in that proposition should IMHO be the default position.

Leaving aside the above word salad of yours, where is your alternative method then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't claim that though.

Leaving aside the above word salad of yours, where is your alternative method then?

The method for getting out of scientism is obvious. It is to recognise it as a circular argument. Secondly we can safely say that science provides no evidence for scientism.
Science also cannot tell you that homophobia or misogyny is wrong rather than not useful.

So having dispensed with scientism we are now on our own and exposed to whatever is out there.....and that is the method.

[Outrider]

So having dispensed with scientism we are now on our own and exposed to whatever is out there.....and that is the method.

[Gordon]

The method for getting out of scientism is obvious. It is to recognise it as a circular argument. Secondly we can safely say that science provides no evidence for scientism.

I'm not a scientismatist though - so you're waffling again.

Science also cannot tell you that homophobia or misogyny is wrong rather than not useful.

Who said that science was suited to morality - is there a formula for 'goodness'? Don't think so, so you're waffing again.

So having dispensed with scientism we are now on our own and exposed to whatever is out there.....and that is the method.

You'll have to excuse me here - unlike you I don't speak fluent bollocks.

[Enki]

The method for getting out of scientism is obvious. It is to recognise it as a circular argument. Secondly we can safely say that science provides no evidence for scientism.

As I'm not into scientism, I've nothing to add. I am quite happy to accept the methods of science are so far the best way of examining and explaining the natural world because they are the most rigorous and the least susceptible to bias.

Science also cannot tell you that homophobia or misogyny is wrong rather than not useful.

For me, my sense of morality is driven by such traits as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings, so that I attempt to give the most constructive outcome which would satisfy my original motivations. My morality seems entirely consistent with certain evolutionary motivations rather than reflecting some sort of morality which has an objective existence.

So having dispensed with scientism we are now on our own and exposed to whatever is out there.....and that is the method.

I really find it hard to go along with this train of thought. For me, what is out there has no real purpose or meaning, apart from that which I give to it. Just to accept this attitude as a 'method'  doesn't seem to me to be a particularly useful way of approaching truths. Hence I apply other methods, such as applying scientific findings and using a rational approach.  It is in this way that I find no reason to believe in any gods.

[Nearly Sane]

so let me get this straight. The disbelief in all structured belief systems is not er, structured itself?

So no. Atheism is not a 'disbelief in all structured belief systems'.

[Nearly Sane]

...
Science also cannot tell you that homophobia or misogyny is wrong rather than not useful.

So having dispensed with scientism we are now on our own and exposed to whatever is out there.....and that is the method.

And the fucking Archbishop of fucking Uganda wants to kill gay people and you cheerlead your method.

[Outrider]

Science also cannot tell you that homophobia or misogyny is wrong rather than not useful.

Sure it can, it just can't tell you WHY it's wrong. But, then, neither can your Big Boy's Book of Bedtime Stories, it just tells that you that God doesn't like it so you shouldn't do it, because his displeasure eternal punishment. Because morality... something...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure it can, it just can't tell you WHY it's wrong. But, then, neither can your Big Boy's Book of Bedtime Stories, it just tells that you that God doesn't like it so you shouldn't do it, because his displeasure eternal punishment. Because morality... something...

O.

Sorry, don't understand how science does it at all, never mind WHY?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not a scientismatist though - so you're waffling again.

Who said that science was suited to morality - is there a formula for 'goodness'? Don't think so, so you're waffing again.

You'll have to excuse me here - unlike you I don't speak fluent bollocks.

Maybe not but you do have a heavy accent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The method for getting out of scientism is obvious. 

Just out of interest, have you ever either here or on the previous BBC board seen anyone actually argue for scientism?

I know you like to straw man with that label the people who say pretty much the opposite of that (me included), but as if features so large in your efforts here it’d be helpful to know if anyone was actually a proponent of it.