The confusion about faith (Satan, preaching, Methodist, different)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Truth?
Nobody knows the truth.

You think YOU know the truth?

About the God -claim? Nobody really knows the truth. That's what agnosticism is. Clearly, those who claim to Know that a god exists claim to know a truth that they can't.

What I think I do know is the arguments for and against religion and the god -claims. Better than those who believe them.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Except you think probability is not evidence, so you would not understand why the evidence is evidence.

The evidence against a god - aside from evidence against religions?

Improbability of a complex non -created creator.
A universe that is complex but does not look planned.
Life that is complex, but does not look planned.
A world of wrongs that no god does anything about.

Nobody can be certain, but for me, the evidence is all against an intelligent creator.

The God of the Bible - I'm certain. That creature does not exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

GoC, your post don't reek of fundy, for the most part. so I am not sure about your resistance to such simple notions. why would you focus on what we don't don't know?

Is it reasonable for me to say "nobody knows it all so there is a teapot on the other side of sun that we never see."

or is it more reasonable to say

"there isn't a teapot there there because none of the objects that orbit the sun look anything like a man made household object?

what faith statement is more reasonable?

remember, the data shows there is stuff that orbits and there just might be something orbiting that we haven't seen yet. In fact, its more valid to claim there is than there is not. It just doesn't have the traits of a teapot. Its the exact same thing for this god thing. There is something, but many of the traits are wrong. Like mystics "only love". And some of the less obvious traits may be correct. that it may be loving.

That was actually a pretty good post. It's about the most probable, based on reason and observation, really.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Once again must I explain what you pretend is UNEXPLAINED. Life is just chemistry, an exergonic chemical reaction. So that has kicked one leg out from under your god of the gaps argument.



So are you arguing intelligent beings can just exist for no reason, or that your god evolved?

I can hardly believe that after all this time, and repeated debunkings (yours the latest) he is still pulling 'we know nothing for sure because 'Observation', and the absurdity of infinite regression. Which is fair enough but argues against an intelligent creator, not for it. pornography? Mystic is the one doing the mental masturbation. But he never, ever, listens. Too busy panting.

Good luck with this discussion.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

More rubbish. No, atheists (which includes anti-theists) do not have the burden of proof,

Anti-theists especially have a burden of proof, as there needs to be some justification for opposing a worldview. You can't just be anti- something without having good reason. But then there are certainly atheists who may not even be anti-theists but still make the claim (not just believe) that there is no god. And they also have a burden of proof. Being atheists doesn't make us special. At best, it means we might not have a belief on the matter (depending on the definition we're going with) and so then wouldn't have a burden of proof. It doesn't mean we can't and don't make claims.

because we have already met the burden of proof.

Nonsense. And I used to think that perhaps showing theism (in and of itself) to be harmful would be enough (hypothetically, of course, because you guys haven't even managed to do this), but that's actually not the case. Surely if theism were true but still harmful we wouldn't suggest that people stop believing it, we'd just try to find ways of diminishing the harm caused.

And so, the task for the anti-theist is to show that theism is at least plausibly false. No one's been able to do this so far. We just keep getting the same, defeated problem of evil argument and certain rhetorical speeches (may the late, great Christopher Hitchens R.I.P.) or appeals to emotion.

When we go outside, we do not see gods with elephant heads, or monkeys flying on clouds, or people walking on water.

And you conclude from this that there is no god of any kind? Or that no one should believe in a god?

When we look at science, we always find it was never a god that did it. We keep on finding that we do not need a god to explain things.

Nor is theism typically adopted as a means with which to explain things. Even if you dig deep into certain theistic religions, it's not at all obvious that it began with "I don't know how to explain x, so let's hypothesize that a god did it". The god of the gaps argument is also an out-of-touch caricature.

The fact that there are thousands of god beliefs is evidence that people invent gods.

Not in the slightest, no.

The fact that those who are desperate to defend their beliefs have to lie, or use fallacies is evidence they have no evidence for their claims.

Sure, those who have to lie or use fallacies in their arguments for theism clearly have no evidence for it. Doesn't mean theism itself is false, or even that no one has good reasons to believe. There's a difference between believing something rationally and being able to present evidence for it to others.

We have a whole universe of evidence that atheism is most probably true (whether it is or not).
This background knowledge is the evidence for atheism whether an atheist realizes this or not.
THIS is the evidence you assert we do not have.

Let's see your premises then. I'm quite confident there's going to be a fallacy (usually a non sequitur) if you get courageous enough to put this argument in deductive form.

So the burden of proof IS on the theists for their extraordinary claims.

It's on anyone making a claim; again, we're not special.

not William Lane Craig and his misrepresentation of cosmology,

Let me guess. The allegation that he misrepresented Alexander Vilenkin even though Vilenkin confirmed that he didn't?

As it stands, even if I granted for the sake of argument that absolutely none of the theistic arguments were any good, you've still not given any positive argument for the opposite conclusion. And while I would agree wholeheartedly that simply being an atheist (whether that means believing there is no god or simply not believing there is one) doesn't put a burden of proof on us, opposing theism does. And I view the denial of that as an admission that you simply can't carry such a burden.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by Rafius

OK plz
provide your evidence that Ganesh does not exist. See where you are going wrong?

First, I have never made that claim (although that is what I believe) so I have no need to prove the claim. On the other hand, you make the claim for the existence of Yahweh every day on this forum so it's for you to provide the verifiable evidence for your claim. Of course, we know you - can't but maybe you are not daft after all. Let's see.

May be you need to re-evaluate your reading comprehension skills - I don’t make any claims, such as, “I know that God exists.”

In my posts, I state that, I believe in the existence of God based on FAITH - and by definition, a faith based belief does NOT require any proof or evidence.

Yet you keep talking about proofs and evidences.

It’s like, I am telling you that I arrived here by foot and you are asking me to show the airplane ticket.

Do you follow this logic now?’


I do not have any proof or evidence that Ganesh exists or does not exist - I reject Ganesh based on faith - the same faith that I base on to believe that God exists.

You are the one who is obsessed with evidences and proofs, so let’s do it. Please provide your evidence that Ganesh is not a God and/or Ganesh does not exist.

If you can’t prove that Ganesh is not a God then technically you are not an Atheist anymore.

So let’s see your proof.

[TRANSPONDER]

You really are getting it all wrong and because of a theist argument mindset.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Anti-theists especially have a burden of proof, as there needs to be some justification for opposing a worldview. You can't just be anti- something without having good reason. But then there are certainly atheists who may not even be anti-theists but still make the claim (not just believe) that there is no god. And they also have a burden of proof. Being atheists doesn't make us special. At best, it means we might not have a belief on the matter (depending on the definition we're going with) and so then wouldn't have a burden of proof. It doesn't mean we can't and don't make claims.

]You are confusing the burden of proof for a god -claim with the requirement (which I accept) that the atheist give reasons why they do not accept the claims put forward by the believer.

Nonsense. And I used to think that perhaps showing theism (in and of itself) to be harmful would be enough (hypothetically, of course, because you guys haven't even managed to do this), but that's actually not the case. Surely if theism were true but still harmful we wouldn't suggest that people stop believing it, we'd just try to find ways of diminishing the harm caused.

Again, this is not the argument. It is the Theist argument that religion - even if not true - is justified because of the good it does. We see the harm that it does which does not make up for the free Soup. And if theism cleaned it up, atheism would probably drop the campaign as it would not be a proble, not in society, politics or education. But even that wouldn't make it true, and we would still disbelieve and teach others why they should doubt, too.

And so, the task for the anti-theist is to show that theism is at least plausibly false. No one's been able to do this so far. We just keep getting the same, defeated problem of evil argument and certain rhetorical speeches (may the late, great Christopher Hitchens R.I.P.) or appeals to emotion.

Again you are shifting the burden of proof. All that we logically have to do is reject the god -claim. In fairness, I accept that we have good reasons to do that, and we have, on the Bible -claims, the morality claims, the creator -claims and every one of the others. Though you don't see it, you have agred with us by not being able to counter any one of these other than appealing to undisprovable possibilities without a scrap of decent proof.

And you conclude from this that there is no god of any kind? Or that no one should believe in a god?

On the basis of reason and evidence, yep; that is the conclusion that one should assign weight to; the god claim has not been validated.

Nor is theism typically adopted as a means with which to explain things. Even if you dig deep into certain theistic religions, it's not at all obvious that it began with "I don't know how to explain x, so let's hypothesize that a god did it". The god of the gaps argument is also an out-of-touch caricature.

It's certainly a hoot, but it is something that theists habitually do. Whether you like it or not, the argumentum ignorantiam is a recognised informal logical fallacy, and is not only a stock in trade of theist apologetics, but they habitually posit 'gaps' that really aren't there. For example, Abiogenesis. The mechanism is hypothetically valid enough that there is no need to pop a god in there; Theists do so because they want to create 'evidence' that doesn't really exist.

You counter to the argument from evil is also a gap for God; the explanation (we are on our own' does not need a god. Your 'there could be some reason -let's pop God in there' is very much a gap for God that isn't logically there.

Not in the slightest, no.

Yes it is. You may dismiss it on some pretext (though you don't explain what) but that there are thousands of gods that are rejected by the other believers is powerful evidence that humans invent gods.

Sure, those who have to lie or use fallacies in their arguments for theism clearly have no evidence for it. Doesn't mean theism itself is false, or even that no one has good reasons to believe. There's a difference between believing something rationally and being able to present evidence for it to others.

Really? would you care to explain how a belief is rational if you cannot present any decent evidence for it to others?

Let's see your premises then. I'm quite confident there's going to be a fallacy (usually a non sequitur) if you get courageous enough to put this argument in deductive form.

Premise? That the evidence for Creation does not stand up (the evidence is all against a created humanity) and the claims in religions do not stand up. The only non -sequitur there (which you appear to misuse as "I don't want to hear this argument") is that what one cannot entirely 100% rule out must be regarded as not only equally valid with the evidence -based conclusion, but somehow becomes the default hypothesis.

It's on anyone making a claim; again, we're not special.

Yes; it's on anyone making a claim. Theists are; atheists aren't. Theists Force a claim on us, and even if that was valid, disbelief in the face of a lack of persuasive prof either way would be logical. Theism would be illogical, even if their lie was true.

Let me guess. The allegation that he misrepresented Alexander Vilenkin even though Vilenkin confirmed that he didn't?

As it stands, even if I granted for the sake of argument that absolutely none of the theistic arguments were any good, you've still not given any positive argument for the opposite conclusion. And while I would agree wholeheartedly that simply being an atheist (whether that means believing there is no god or simply not believing there is one) doesn't put a burden of proof on us, opposing theism does. And I view the denial of that as an admission that you simply can't carry such a burden.

I'll have to leave that one to your opponent here. I'll just say that his most celebrated apologetic (Kalam) fails logically. It only works if you posit a god to start with. This is the law that screws all theist arguments from the start.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

May be you need to re-evaluate your reading comprehension skills - I don’t make any claims, such as, “I know that God exists.”

In my posts, I state that, I believe in the existence of God based on FAITH - and by definition, a faith based belief does NOT require any proof or evidence.

I laughed out loud at that. The basis of Theism is Knowing (being firmly convinced' on Faith) of the existence of a god.

Yet you keep talking about proofs and evidences.

It’s like, I am telling you that I arrived here by foot and you are asking me to show the airplane ticket.

Do you follow this logic now?’

Better than you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nobody is going to demand evidence that you have a pet cat, but that you have a pet elephant (never mind a pet dragon) requires some more support. Have you noticed...(no, of course not) how Theist apologists have to fiddle their arguments in order to try to scrape some supportive points?

Btw - you couldn't even put the wrong argument correctly. We are the ones who say that we arrived on foot (evolved naturally) and you are demanding that we prove that we didn't arrive in an airliner, which is more irrational than asking that we show an airticket. You are just making up an incoherent wordsalad that sounds vaguely like as argument.

This is why the evidence is pretty much all against the Theist and religious claims - the theists claims almost never are sound. Theism works by crossing it's fingers that the opposition won't be smart enough to see the fallacy. That is rarely working, these days.

I do not have any proof or evidence that Ganesh exists or does not exist - I reject Ganesh based on faith - the same faith that I base on to believe that God exists.

Then your disbelief is just as irrational as your belief. And atheism can expect that you incorrectly assume that you think atheists disbelieve as irrationally as you do.

You are the one who is obsessed with evidences and proofs, so let’s do it. Please provide your evidence that Ganesh is not a God and/or Ganesh does not exist.

If you can’t prove that Ganesh is not a God then technically you are not an Atheist anymore.

So let’s see your proof.

because there is no evidence for a Ganesh outside of human imagination.
That the stories fly in the face of science.
That there is no decent evidence that this god does anything beyond what would occur naturally,
that there are other gods so there is no reason to believe in that one.
That what we know about the world does not require any god.

That is the rationale for not accepting the claims for Ganesh or any other god. That is enough reason to not accept the claim. Atheism, despite the persistent theist fallacy, does not have to disprove any god conclusively; just give sound reasons not to believe.

You will never have a sound case when you persist in presenting fallacious logical constructs.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You are confusing the burden of proof for a god -claim with the requirement (which I accept) that the atheist give reasons why they do not accept the claims put forward by the believer.

No, I'm just listing the different claims and beliefs. In addition to atheists who simply reject theistic claims (and according to you should give reasons why), there are indeed anti-theists who have a burden of proof since they oppose theism and atheists who claim that there is no god who also have a burden of proof to substantiate that claim. Finally, there are atheists who merely believe that there is no god. I don't personally think they have a burden of proof if they're not making a claim though.

Again, this is not the argument. It is the Theist argument that religion - even if not true - is justified because of the good it does.

Sounds like a stereotype to me. I'm not sure most theists would agree that theism would be justified if false. But anyway, yeah, it seems to me the only way to justify anti-theism would be to show that it's false or at least probably false.

We see the harm that it does which does not make up for the free Soup.

Well I've certainly seen you guys claiming that theism/religion in and of itself causes harm. But it usually boils down to appeals to the availability heuristic, stereotypes, etc.

And if theism cleaned it up, atheism would probably drop the campaign as it would not be a proble, not in society, politics or education.

"Atheism" hasn't launched any campaign against theism, it's just an absence of belief in gods. And it's precisely because I don't see theism as a problem than I'm not an anti-theist.

All that we logically have to do is reject the god -claim.

I agree. It's when you guys oppose "the god -claim" or begin to make the opposite claim you run into trouble.

You counter to the argument from evil is also a gap for God; the explanation (we are on our own' does not need a god.

For what? It just is the statement that there's no god! How does that count as progress, just asserting something?

Your 'there could be some reason

Is true! And you haven't been able to show otherwise so as to actually make the problem of evil argument work.

let's pop God in there' is very much a gap for God that isn't logically there.

The problem of evil argument is not "There's evil. What's the explanation?" It specifically addresses whether or not the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is consistent with the existence of evil/suffering.

that there are thousands of gods that are rejected by the other believers is powerful evidence that humans invent gods.

Which is a different statement from "There is no god" or "Your particular god doesn't exist"...

Really? would you care to explain how a belief is rational if you cannot present any decent evidence for it to others?

Almost all of our beliefs based on personal experiences would qualify. Most of our experiences are not recorded or verified through another person. And of course this is in addition to my earlier points about how evidentialism on a more fundamental level fails.

Premise?

Yes, I asked for the argument in deductive form so that we can really see which two (or more) premises are supposed to lead to the conclusion that god doesn't exist.

That the evidence for Creation does not stand up (the evidence is all against a created humanity) and the claims in religions do not stand up.

Which would only suggest the bible isn't inerrant/literal or some such. And I'll ask again, "What evidence"?

The only non -sequitur there (which you appear to misuse as "I don't want to hear this argument") is that what one cannot entirely 100% rule out must be regarded as not only equally valid with the evidence -based conclusion, but somehow becomes the default hypothesis.

Not once did I say or imply such a thing.

Yes; it's on anyone making a claim. Theists are; atheists aren't.

Sometimes atheists are. I'm shocked that you can't even admit that. You're so biased against theism that you're really trying hard to paint it as a black and white picture, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I'll just say that his most celebrated apologetic (Kalam) fails logically. It only works if you posit a god to start with.

The KCA is a deductive argument, not even including "god" anywhere in either of its premises...

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

No, I'm just listing the different claims and beliefs. In addition to atheists who simply reject theistic claims (and according to you should give reasons why), there are indeed anti-theists who have a burden of proof since they oppose theism and atheists who claim that there is no god who also have a burden of proof to substantiate that claim. Finally, there are atheists who merely believe that there is no god. I don't personally think they have a burden of proof if they're not making a claim though.

Again you are imposing a claim on atheism without which you reversal of the burden of proof is invalid.

Sounds like a stereotype to me. I'm not sure most theists would agree that theism would be justified if false. But anyway, yeah, it seems to me the only way to justify anti-theism would be to show that it's false or at least probably false.

I can assure you that it is far from an uncommon argument. In fact Ozzy has fielded it a couple of times. And I agree that the best way (perhaps the only way, as you say) is to give a good case as to why the claims why it is true do not stand up. 'Probably false' as you put it - the weight of the evidence.

That's what we do here - or would if theists did not try to turn reasoning on its' head with chop logic, semantic and Philosophical fiddlement.

Well I've certainly seen you guys claiming that theism/religion in and of itself causes harm. But it usually boils down to appeals to the availability heuristic, stereotypes, etc.

No, it's more than that. I'm not even talking about the more obvious harms, or the basic fact of teaching something that is (on evidence) false. But the impact on society is itself harmful. I agree this hasn't been realised but, since there is more atheist counselling nowadays, people are able to explain how damaging religion can be. There is a mustwatch Tracie Harris video of 'Christian family values' that is quite startling in what it reveals.

"Atheism" hasn't launched any campaign against theism, it's just an absence of belief in gods. And it's precisely because I don't see theism as a problem than I'm not an anti-theist.

By it's very nature and existence, it has, and because it is more vocal and effective, the term 'New' atheism has been coined, though it just the same atheism, but not afraid to speak up. I have said before that theism as such is not the problem (though we think it untrue) but organised religion is the problem.

I agree. It's when you guys oppose "the god -claim" or begin to make the opposite claim you run into trouble.

Nothing we can't get ourselves out of. Theist apologists stoutly deny that they are in the mire as they gradually sink lower and lower.

For what? It just is the statement that there's no god! How does that count as progress, just asserting something?

Years and years of supporting the contention that, on evidence, this is the better supported claim. That this is Not progress can only be the view of theists who see the continued dominance of religion as a good, assumed without discussion.

Is true! And you haven't been able to show otherwise so as to actually make the problem of evil argument work.

The problem of evil does work on the most probable explanation, not on unexeplained undisprovables, as you assert.

The problem of evil argument is not "There's evil. What's the explanation?" It specifically addresses whether or not the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is consistent with the existence of evil/suffering.

Which is what I said - you are the one popping 'God' in there as a 'what's the explanation' response.

Which is a different statement from "There is no god" or "Your particular god doesn't exist"...

Which is an argument foisted upon us by you. The actual reason is: "There is no reason to believe in any of these gods over any other"

Almost all of our beliefs based on personal experiences would qualify. Most of our experiences are not recorded or verified through another person. And of course this is in addition to my earlier points about how evidentialism on a more fundamental level fails.

Jesus back to ignoring valid verification and harping of the capacity of humans to be misled, and appealing to some useless philosophical term to try to make it stick. Don'r you see that rejecting all valid verification merely means that Nothing - including God -claims - counts for anything. You argument only leads anywhere if you think that One particular god is a 'given' that needs to be disproved. This is what is screwing up all your arguments.

Yes, I asked for the argument in deductive form so that we can really see which two (or more) premises are supposed to lead to the conclusion that god doesn't exist.

Deductive or inductive - suit yourself. The premise that 'no (intervening) god makes more explanatory sense is all we need to do. You are the one that needs to fish around for excuses.

Which would only suggest the bible isn't inerrant/literal or some such. And I'll ask again, "What evidence"?

I've already given it, but I will again; broadly, that the Intelligent Creator claims fail, the argument from morality fails, the argument for Bible veracity fails, and for what it's worth, 'we need religion, true or not' fails. That's plenty to be going on with.

Not once did I say or imply such a thing.

That you 'non -sequiturs' are not implies just such a thing.

Sometimes atheists are. I'm shocked that you can't even admit that. You're so biased against theism that you're really trying hard to paint it as a black and white picture, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Theists consistently misunderstand or misrepresent the atheist position. I'm not shocked that you won't accept that. You are the one trying to paint it as a black and white picture - Theists claim a god - atheists claim no god'. And never mind putting credibility behind the weight of evidence; just rely on what we can't disprove 100% and pretend that's just as valid. It isn't even funny anymore.

The KCA is a deductive argument, not even including "god" anywhere in either of its premises...

It doesn't have to actually mention a god for it to be the elephant in the room without which the argument would not work.

There's a pretty good talk here on the flaws with the Kalam argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_tgoBOIxng

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Again you are imposing a claim on atheism without which you reversal of the burden of proof is invalid.

You're obviously not even reading what I type. I specifically said that not all atheists have a burden of proof. Some do in fact make claims (such as "There is no god") and so those atheists have a burden of proof. Some atheists oppose theism and therefore have a burden of proof so as to justify that. But then there are some who only believe that there is no god or have no belief either way; those do not have a burden of proof. Do you understand now?

I'm not even talking about the more obvious harms,

You've not even shown one, much less an obvious one.

or the basic fact of teaching something that is (on evidence) false.

Which is just you claiming that the evidence says it's false, without giving that evidence... again...

But the impact on society is itself harmful. I agree this hasn't been realised but, since there is more atheist counselling nowadays, people are able to explain how damaging religion can be.

Apparently not.

By it's very nature and existence, it has,

Wrong. All atheism has done by its very nature and existence is reject theism; that does not translate into being opposed to it.

I have said before that theism as such is not the problem (though we think it untrue) but organised religion is the problem.

I would agree, except that I see the "organized" part being the issue specifically. I think that any group of people, if given too much power, will do harm with it.

That this is Not progress can only be the view of theists who see the continued dominance of religion as a good, assumed without discussion.

Or of someone like me who's still waiting patiently for you to connect the dots here. How does your reasserting that there's no god (still giving no complete argument for that assertion) count as progress in terms of getting at truth?

The premise that 'no (intervening) god makes more explanatory sense is all we need to do.

I think you accidentally gave away the farm. No intervening god. IOW, what we know is that there is no god which is intervening with the evil/suffering in a way that we like. That's all that's apparent to us; there is not even an apparent contradiction or inconsistency between the Christians' doctrines of god being all-loving, all-powerful and the evil we see in the world.

I've already given it, but I will again; broadly, that the Intelligent Creator claims fail, the argument from morality fails, the argument for Bible veracity fails, and for what it's worth, 'we need religion, true or not' fails. That's plenty to be going on with.

Those seem to only be half-arguments, premises from arguments you don't want to actually give. Same as with the problem of evil argument, you give half of it and leave the other a mystery. For example, perhaps the second premise of your first argument is "If god existed, he wouldn't allow false/failing Intelligent Creator claims to be made". The world may never know if this is the second half of your argument, though, because you keep refusing to give it .

Theists consistently misunderstand or misrepresent the atheist position.

So do anti-theists. By saying that atheists have launched a campaign against theism, for example

You are the one trying to paint it as a black and white picture - Theists claim a god - atheists claim no god'.

That's an obvious misrepresentation of what I said. I very clearly said that some atheists claim that there's no god, and I talked about other sorts of atheists in the same paragraph.

It doesn't have to actually mention a god for it to be the elephant in the room without which the argument would not work.

Naturally, an argument for god's existence is going to be geared toward proving that he/she/it exists, if that's what you mean. I really don't understand what your criticism of the argument is. But the great thing about deductive arguments is that if the premises are true and the logic is valid the conclusion follows regardless. So even if the people giving the argument assume god's existence before they even start giving the premises, it won't matter.

As for the link, I won't be sent on another wild goose chase. You said the Kalam fails logically; I'm waiting for the refutation from you.