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.
You have simply denied that you are an atheist. You are some hybrid evidentialist but not an atheist. An atheist BELIEVES there is/are no God/gods, period. The semantic nonsense of there is no proof of God is only a partial description of the belief. The rest of the belief is, therefore there is/are no gods. Stop being so cowardly and disingenuous. If you are atheist just own it and stop trying to pretend that the default position is "No God."
Wrong. If ones not believe the god -claim, that is all that is needed to be an atheist. Whether one then believes that a god does not exist does not alter that.
I find it remarkable that so much of this discussion has been you an Vic. trying to force strawman arguments on atheism in hopes to discrtedit nit with 'semantic diddling' as you called it. Once again it is seen that, if you take theist accusation and apply it to themselves, they fit perfectly.
Have you also noticed how Vic. claims he won points that in fact he didn't win? Selective memory again. The theistic denial that they could ever be wrong because they believe that God is inspiring them with Truth. This is (I believe) the secret to Faith -based thinking. And Vic. does it like a dyed in the wool Theist.
I already explained that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, depending on how well the parameters are known. Tha parameters for evil in the world (for example) are well enough known to say that nothing (apparently) is being done about it ither than what humans can do.
Just because evil exists in the world does not mean or suggest that nothing's being done about it. All it means is that it hasn't been entirely eradicated/prevented. And the failure of the problem of evil argument is precisely that it doesn't provide an argument for thinking that if a god exists, he would be wrong to allow evil/suffering to exist or continue as long as it has.
Quote:
I agree with him. I think that god -belief is a human delusion. There's a good deal of reason to think so.
So far, all I've heard from you is the fallacy that absence of evidence = evidence of absence and the problem of evil argument. What other "reason" do you have for concluding that there is no god?
There is a psychological reason that logical, intelligent people can STILL believe in a benevolent God. It is the same reason husbands who actually love their wives (and don't want to destroy their marriages) STILL have AFFAIRS.
It is a psychological defense mechanism called "compartmentalism." It prevents "cognitive dissonance" (the mental stress caused by holding two mutually exclusive beliefs in your mind at the same time), as well as other psychological discomfort. In short, your mind creates "compartments" that wall off what you believe (or are enjoying) in one compartment from considering (or even knowing about) the obvious ramifications your beliefs & actions have for another compartment of your life.
In religion, it means you don't have to worry about fossil skeletons like australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") or relatively recent neanderthals, and their obvious similarity to the skeletons of "homo sapiens sapiens" (and we know that far more than 6,000 years occurred between these species).
In marriage (or engagement), it means you don't have to worry that the sexual fun / excitement provided by your mistress today is ABSOLUTELY going to continue to torture your wife (and family) for the rest of your lives together (assuming she doesn't divorce you). Hopefully, deep down, you loathe your wife, since she will suffer more than if you had spent months torturing her and everything she loved to death.
Just because evil exists in the world does not mean or suggest that nothing's being done about it. All it means is that it hasn't been entirely eradicated/prevented. And the failure of the problem of evil argument is precisely that it doesn't provide an argument for thinking that if a god exists, he would be wrong to allow evil/suffering to exist or continue as long as it has.
My god, you fell headlong into a trap that I hadn't even dug. 'apart from what humans can do' I said, anticipating an attempt to score a cheap, irrelevant, point of that kind.
And your claimed refutation of the 'problem of evil' is simply a denialist one. The (negative) evidence Is valid reason to see the non -existence of an intervening god as the simpler and better hypothesis than claiming that there must be a good reason, even if you can't explain it.
Quote:
So far, all I've heard from you is the fallacy that absence of evidence = evidence of absence and the problem of evil argument. What other "reason" do you have for concluding that there is no god?
I have corrected you several times over your false 'absence of evidence' argument. I have shown that the problem of evil is based on (negative) evidence (which you tried to invalidate with a stock theist misunderstanding or misreading of the argument - I corrected you but you simply ignored it) and you are in fact left with nothing but denial and claims that you won the point when you didn't.
I explained that the human morality that we all use (and Christians and atheists alike use it to evaluate the doings of the god in the Bible by trying to explain away or excuse evils whereas they would simply be 'good' if ordered by God) if derived from God (and one must ask -if not - why not?) would expect a just god to intervene and not care whether it was detectable or not (the foolish claim that God is hamstrung by a fear of destroying Faith if He gave good evidence that he existed is a feeble excuse, refuted by his interventions in the Bible). Despite Christians claiming that Bible IS solid evidence that He does.
This left you with No evidence, and nothing but a faith -based dismissal of the evidence that left you playing the very theist trick of 'you can't convince me, so I win'. Which, as i said, is irrelevant. That you deny that problem of evil is a valid argument that makes many Christians doubt is irrelevant. As irrelevant as your claim that this was (I believe you said) a 'rhetorical' point (I said a 'tactical' one). What Christians doubt is not evidence, but it does show that it is compelling, and so your denial is - as I said - irrelevant. And the problem of evil is - so far as it goes - logically valid, despite your persistent denial.
The lack of evidence is a good enough reason to suppose that there is no god. First cause itself (while being one of the better Gaps for God) makes more sense as a gradual appearance of matter from non -matter than a complex god without any explained origin. A universe that doesn't look as 'designed' as some would argue and and an evolution that roundly denies any planning simply because of all the extinctions that had to happen to get to us. Then we get to the Bible, which is demonstrably unreliable.
As you said, this hasn't been shown (though as an atheist, I'd have expected you to be familiar with the arguments), because we have been distracted with these tactical (and invalid) arguments about thinking and mindset, never mind your reiterated denial and restatement of refuted points.
Let me just say - the gospels are refuted by Paul. To him, Jesus was a man, not a god. And his 'resurrections' refute totally the Gospels. The two nativities are refuted by all other gospels, as well as history, prophecy is either wrong or retrospective, and the resurrection accounts refute each other utterly, as do so many tales in the gospels, such as the rejection at Nazareth. These are just some of the major ones - there are others. The Bible -(NT and Old) goes down the tube, it takes a good number of religions with it, and their gods.
Some non - religious god? Can't disprove it, but why should we care about it? The hellthreat God of the Bible is discredited utterly - even without the problem of Evil.
And your claimed refutation of the 'problem of evil' is simply a denialist one.
It's not even a matter of refuting it, just pointing out when it's incomplete... unless you're going to try and give an argument to justify its key premise now?
Quote:
The (negative) evidence Is valid reason to see the non -existence of an intervening god as the simpler and better one than claiming that there must be a good reason, even if you can't explain it.
It's not even a matter of refuting it, just pointing out when it's incomplete... unless you're going to try and give an argument to justify its key premise now?
I've already given that. And it is complete. You just have an excuse which you try to claim is more than that. It is little more than an undisprovable appeal to unknowns.
You have simply denied that you are an atheist. You are some hybrid evidentialist but not an atheist. An atheist BELIEVES there is/are no God/gods, period. The semantic nonsense of there is no proof of God is only a partial description of the belief. The rest of the belief is, therefore there is/are no gods. Stop being so cowardly and disingenuous. If you are atheist just own it and stop trying to pretend that the default position is "No God."
Hey, I learned a new word off Mystic. I highly suspect there is not a sentient being behind the origins of the universe. I can't know for sure. An entirely naturalistic explanation would lead me to use that as proof. My daughter figured out there was no Easter Bunny when she found her basket stashed in the linen closet a week before Easter.
Me as well. He just moves the goal posts talking about a different definition of this god.
This is the WLC tactic of just repeating what has been refuted. You may have also noted this is his subject he started. He has a small set of topics he keeps attempting to return to, because when he argues outside of his safe box, his arguments become embarrassing.
Me as well. He just moves the goal posts talking about a different definition of this god.
.
I moved no goalposts. You want to demand that the goal post be one or more of the human speculations about God. But for the question of the EXISTENCE of God I have rejected all human speculations and descriptions of God and consider ONLY what we have discovered and validated about our Reality as the attributes of God. They are considerable and extensive and not in dispute. Your preference to reject them as evidence for God is untenable and capricious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God. It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation. Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
So you keep asserting, yet never provide any evidence for this. The god of the gaps argument, yes, but never any evidence.
The evidence is NOT in any gap. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science IS the evidence for God. You think it is not enough and you want more. But for the EXISTENCE issue no more is needed. For the human speculations ABOUT God, however, more is needed and the Gaps provide a locus for those speculations. But the gaps are NOT needed to support the EXISTENCE of God despite semantic diddling and obfuscations.
I think that's perfectly rational. Mystic may be referring to the fact that some atheists have said they believe there is no god (or even just claimed it), and/or that some have said there is evidence for strong atheism (the non-existence of a god). We are a multi-faceted group, just as any other.
Mystic is basing his belief totally on his experiences. He knows the difference between an agnostic, an atheist, a theist and an agnostic atheist. I fall under the agnostic atheist because I lean more toward there not being a deity, at least not like the bible, quran or any other holy book's version of him/her. I wish I had had those types of "experiences" as a Christian but unfortunately they can all be explained scientifically.
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.
