Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Easy. To be Atheist because you "simply lack belief" due to having never employed "any form of reasoning" would mean you have never even considered the concept as to whether a God exists...because if you ever had...you would have necessarily employed "some form of reasoning" to contemplate/consider the matter and chose Atheism. I'm sure very few don't believe a God exists because they have never considered the issue.
By "simply lack belief", I meant that they did not necessarily subscribe to the logical fallacies you are trying to pin on every single atheist. There are many reasons not to believe. It isn't all based on assumptions about the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Why would we have found the evidence? The Universe is awful big...you'd have to travel 670 MILLION miles per hour for 100 BILLION years to get across the known Universe...and it may be infinite. Seems to me it would make more sense to reason that there are probably a couple spots nobody has looked yet.
God is supposed to be bigger... remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Then Agnosticism is the proper stance...not Atheism.
These are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists (and agnostic theists) the world over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It IS illogical (from a Pure Logic standpoint) "to chose not to believe" (THAT is a conclusion/determination in itself..."to not believe") based upon not having seen, heard, or felt something yourself, (no firsthand evidence) and does not follow a logical protocol.
Then you are suggesting every possible view is illogical. Either you believe or you don't. I'm sure you cannot tell me why it would be more logical to believe, so what is the magic answer? "I don't know" (agnosticism) doesn't address whether you believe or not, because if you're not choosing to believe... you're choosing to stay an unbeliever. You're choosing... atheism.
I don't get it.
If you do not base your beliefs on a lack of evidence, then how do you distinguish fantasy from reality? I know I asked this question once already and no one bothered to answer it.
Would it be illogical, then, to assume my house is on fire even though I'm sitting in it and do not see or smell any smoke or fire? Would the lack of evidence for a fire give me just cause not to call the fire department and go about my life as if there was no fire?
Or must I be agnostic about the fire and claim, gee, uh, I dunno. IS my house on fire? I can't rule out the existence of a fire simply by the fact that there's no evidence of one. Therefore, the very best I could do is say that I don't know if my house is on fire.
And we could say that about anything imaginable. If there is no evidence that a meteor is about to hit you in the head, would you still duck? If there is no evidence that you're underwater, would you still hold your breath? If there's no evidence that you're asleep, would you still assume that reality is a dream? If there's no evidence that the water from your sink is poisoned, would you still refrain from drinking it?
If having no evidence for something isn't a logical reason to base your actions upon, then what is? How do you decide what to react to? How do you make any decisions, for that matter, because you might be about ready to walk into a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... there's no evidence of one, after all, so we have to accept that being killed by one of those clouds is a possibility. Thus, to be safe rather than sorry, we should evoke Pascal's Wager and busy ourselves finding a way to defeat a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... just in case.
This is not about everything, Shirina . . . this is about the Source of everything that exists. Those who believe in God believe God is the Source of everything that exists. That makes all the accumulated evidence about reality evidence about God. Those who do not believe in God reject all the evidence we have accumulated as evidence of God. They demand that we provide evidence in addition to everything we have accumulated so far as evidence of God. In a sense . . . this IS a special pleading instance because of our inability to resolve the two preferences for the Source of reality. Pretending this is just one of the many things we could debate the existence of is disingenuous and dishonest. It is entirely unique and there is no other phenomenon whose existence is disputed that is remotely comparable. Believers have all the evidence of reality as their evidence for God. Disbelievers reject all the evidence of reality as evidence for God. The two preferences are not resolvable . . . so any positive assertions in either direction are unwarranted. "We do NOT know," period.
By "simply lack belief", I meant that they did not necessarily subscribe to the logical fallacies you are trying to pin on every single atheist. There are many reasons not to believe. It isn't all based on assumptions about the evidence.
There is a misunderstanding.
You said: "Atheism in and of itself is a simple lack of belief. It is not automatically or necessarily attributed to any form of reasoning, logical or illogical".
I replied: "For the very small percentage of Atheists that are of the genre that "simply lacks belief"...without employing "any form of reasoning"...this might be true".
You then asked how I figured it was a small percentage.
I explained that I was sure very few Atheists came to their nonbelief by "no form of reasoning, logical or illogical"...because to even consider the issue requires some form of reasoning.
I can see that we didn't achieve a "meeting of the minds".
There certainly are "many reasons not to believe"...but, outside of never even contemplating the issue, all require some form of reasoning.
Quote:
God is supposed to be bigger... remember?
Which God is that...there are tens of thousands?
To me...God IS the Universe.
Quote:
These are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists (and agnostic theists) the world over.
I do realize there are people that give themselves those labels. It is the "pedigree" of the logic (or, the lack of) they used to draw their conclusions that I am noting.
Quote:
Then you are suggesting every possible view is illogical. Either you believe or you don't. I'm sure you cannot tell me why it would be more logical to believe, so what is the magic answer? "I don't know" (agnosticism) doesn't address whether you believe or not, because if you're not choosing to believe... you're choosing to stay an unbeliever. You're choosing... atheism.
If one has "no evidence" (for whatever reason they don't)...The only conclusion that comports with a Pure Logic protocol...is NO conclusion. Regardless of the issue under consideration.
Pure Logic needs objectively valid premises, following an argument of flawless form, that then assures a true deductive guarantee.
If you have "No evidence" as a premises...your deal is blown right there. Because, evidence could exist...you just don't know it.
"No evidence" can't be used AS evidence in the application of an argument comporting to a Pure Logic standard. I didn't make it that way...that's just the way it is.
But, personally, I take no issue with Logical Fallacies...I use them and endorse them. I have no allergy to them. I think they are a great tool.
Deism would explain perfectly why God is absent in this whole thing. When you remove God from having anything to do with all you're left with is Christian nutcases who went off the deep end. It could just as easily have been Moslems or Hindus or Buddhists or atheists. It was purely random, although I know the fact they all had Christian leanings is suspicious. It basically goes to just how pernicious Biblical brainwashing can be.
I am simply acknowledging the reality for others who do not have my personal experiences. I am certain.
Declaring your fantasy to be reality does not add anything to it. Except perhaps to massage your own doubts on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is not about everything, Shirina . . . this is about the Source of everything that exists. Those who believe in God believe God is the Source of everything that exists. That makes all the accumulated evidence about reality evidence about God.
More of your political linguistic propoganda here it seems. You - once again - are simply defining god into existence by playing with language. Nothing more. Empty rhetoric does not evidence the existence of your god. It does nothing but fill forum pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
In a sense . . . this IS a special pleading
Yes. Everything you just wrote is indeed special pleading. Not just "in a sense". It is exactly so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Pretending this is just one of the many things we could debate the existence of is disingenuous and dishonest.
No. But labeling everything you want to be "god" as "god" very much is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Believers have all the evidence of reality as their evidence for God.
Only because you simply relabel "reality" to "god" and act like this has made a point. It has not. You are just misusing language for your own agendas and ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
When you arbitrarily exclude evidence observable by humanity on the basis that it is not evidence of God
Yet no one is doing anything of the sort. They are just stating that you have failed to show that the evidence is evidence of god. No one is rejecting it could be or might be - just that you have done literally nothing to show it is. You simply declare it is and act annoyed when no one shares your fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is the crux of the issue . . . whether or not atheism is mere disbelief . . . or is it a positive assertion that "There is no God" based on a lack of evidence. If the latter . . . Gldn is correct.
That would entirely depend on which "god" you are talking about. And well you know it. For example in another thread - which I observe Gldn did a runner from instantly after having ass handed on plate and being totally schooled - it was very clearly shown how the particular god Gldn subscribes to does not exist by definition. There simply is no valid basis on offer to believe in the god Gldn is touting because Gldns own definition of this god excluded its existence by default.
As soon as this was pointed out Gldn of course not just disappeared from that thread - and has yet to return - but in fact disappeared from the entire forum for 2 weeks.
Last edited by monumentus; 06-20-2014 at 03:21 AM..
This is the crux of the issue . . . whether or not atheism is mere disbelief . . . or is it a positive assertion that "There is no God" based on a lack of evidence. If the latter . . . Gldn is correct. It IS illogical. If the former . . . it has nothing to do with logic or rationality . . . just preference.
Back here in reality, "no evidence" is a perfectly good reason to think that something's imaginary. We do it all the time. That's why normal people don't believe in unicorns or the Easter Bunny. What's the alternative? Should we believe in everything someone makes up, even contradictory things, until we have solid evidence that they aren't real? This is just a transparent effort to try and shift the burden of proof.
So basically, more empty word games from believers rather than actual reasons to believe there is a god. Who would have guessed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
