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.
I agreed that Atheism is not illogical if it is "simply not believing in a god"...with no consideration or critical analysis of the matter. But, as I said, that would be a very small percentage...since the vast a majority have considered the issue.
But my point was that, once a person is introduced to the concept of a deity, there is no logical position they can hold from that point forward, according to your reasoning. To not choose to believe = to choose not to believe. You have to be one or the other on this. So at best, I can concede that critical analysis would be illogical (What on earth are they analyzing anyway, right?), but consideration? That leaves everyone on the planet being illogical for the rest of their natural lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Once one contemplates it enough to "comment on whether a god exists, or whether evidence of a god exists"...they have obviously gone beyond "simply not believing in a god".
Unless they are commenting on whether they know either, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
From my experience (personal & the testimony of others) all but a very few Atheists base their view on the basis of "no evidence"...even presenting ridiculous comparisons to childish things life fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, and other such things that are known to be imaginary...and that IS, in fact, illogical and nothing more than a preference. They could have just as well decided on the preference to believe in a god on that same "no evidence" premise.
Well I do think it's a complete and total waste of time for any atheist to compare belief in a god with belief in these childish things (for a couple reasons actually), and that would qualify as illogical behavior in my book. Still, just basing your own personal lack of belief on a perceived lack of evidence is not illogical; it's the only "conclusion" you can reach without entertaining assumptions.
I think there is another tier to this. Another atheist and I just had a conversation elsewhere on the board about whether the belief in a god is in and of itself a truth claim. He felt that it was - a claim to oneself that what they believed was in actuality true. I felt otherwise, that you can believe something exists (or doesn't) while remembering you might be wrong. Otherwise, what is so intriguing about faith, really? If you convince yourself you have a higher degree of understanding than the next guy, it doesn't take so much faith to believe at that point, does it? It's a faith in your own understanding and not in a supreme being. Similarly, if an atheist chooses not to believe because they haven't seen evidence, that is not illogical unless they are taking it (even for themselves) as truth and not just disbelief.
I hope that makes sense. If not, this is interesting conversation, so I'd like to continue.
06-24-2014, 01:23 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Most Atheists don't believe god/s exist not because they think that 'no evidence' exists but because they are not persuaded by the so-called evidence that is presented or available. Very few if any claim that no evidence exists or that it cannot exist - which would be an absolute knowledge claim and not a belief claim based upon the evidence at hand.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,966,052 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I agreed that Atheism is not illogical if it is "simply not believing in a god"...with no consideration or critical analysis of the matter. But, as I said, that would be a very small percentage...since the vast a majority have considered the issue.
Once one contemplates it enough to "comment on whether a god exists, or whether evidence of a god exists"...they have obviously gone beyond "simply not believing in a god".
If their analysis has led them to draw the conclusion/determination not to believe because they feel there hasn't been any evidence...then they have come to a conclusion/determination based on a premise (no evidence) that does not comport with a Pure Logic protocol.
From my experience (personal & the testimony of others) all but a very few Atheists base their view on the basis of "no evidence"...even presenting ridiculous comparisons to childish things life fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, and other such things that are known to be imaginary...and that IS, in fact, illogical and nothing more than a preference. They could have just as well decided on the preference to believe in a god on that same "no evidence" premise.
Well, considering the bible talks about dragons and unicorns and devils and cherubs, how different is that from fairies, leprechauns, unicorns (oooopsss... those ARE in the bible) and gnomes?
they have obviously gone beyond "simply not believing in a god".
Which, depending on which god we are discussing, is also ok. Because some gods BY DEFINITION simply do not exist.
Take your own version of god for example. You claim that "energy and matter" are "god". Yet your definition of "god" is something with the ability to "create".
But "Energy and matter" do not "create". They simply assemble and reassemble in constant flux. At no point do they "create" anything at all however. And we all know the old scientific refrain of "Energy can not be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another".
So we can actively and honestly go further than simply saying we do not believe in YOUR god. By your own definition we can go further and objectively say YOUR god simply does not exist. Your own definition and parameters preclude it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
even presenting ridiculous comparisons to childish things life fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, and other such things that are known to be imaginary
The motivation and reasoning for such comparisons have been explained at length to you before. You simply chose to follow your usual MO when rebutted which is 1) Ignore it 2) Run away 3) Show up in another thread days or weeks later making the same error again.
The basis of such comparisons is solely to rebut the people who attempt the canard of telling us to "disprove god". There is no onus on anyone to prove an unfalsifiable negative. The comparison to fairies and Russels Teapot and so forth is based on highlighting this fact.
The fact is.... you know this. You simply feign ignorance of basic philosophy 101 and basic linguistics on most of the threads you scramble into.
even presenting ridiculous comparisons to childish things life fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, and other such things that are known to be imaginary...and that IS, in fact, illogical and nothing more than a preference. They could have just as well decided on the preference to believe in a god on that same "no evidence" premise.
The weakness of your argument can be found in the sentence highlighted in bold.
How do we know that those beings are imaginary? Is it simply because we say they are? Or is it because there is no evidence for their existences?
Because if it's the latter, then God essentially falls into the same category. Now, I know your concept of God is somewhat different than most and it does not include holy books, religions, and barbarism. Therefore, perhaps in your specific case, you might be right. Emphasis, of course, on "might."
But as an argument against the existence of a more mainstream God, comparisons to other creatures of legend do, in fact, work.
Most Atheists don't believe god/s exist not because they think that 'no evidence' exists but because they are not persuaded by the so-called evidence that is presented or available. Very few if any claim that no evidence exists or that it cannot exist - which would be an absolute knowledge claim and not a belief claim based upon the evidence at hand.
I think it has more to do with what is considered "evidence" for the purposes of these kinds of debates.
As such, many atheists WILL, in fact, claim there is no evidence for God because they don't consider answered prayers, weird metaphysical experiences that go on inside someone's mind, trees and sunsets, and holy books to be evidence for the existence of a god.
At BEST, an atheist might say some of those things are evidence for something as yet unexplained, but there is no evidence linking anything to an all-powerful, supernatural entity -- especially an entity at the head of a specific religion.
If someone claims that someone's cancer going into remission is evidence for the existence of God, they've skipped a step or two, immediately lurching toward the explanation they want to be true.
Which, depending on which god we are discussing, is also ok. Because some gods BY DEFINITION simply do not exist.
Take your own version of god for example. You claim that "energy and matter" are "god". Yet your definition of "god" is something with the ability to "create".
But "Energy and matter" do not "create". They simply assemble and reassemble in constant flux. At no point do they "create" anything at all however. And we all know the old scientific refrain of "Energy can not be created or destroyed only changed from one form to another".
So we can actively and honestly go further than simply saying we do not believe in YOUR god. By your own definition we can go further and objectively say YOUR god simply does not exist. Your own definition and parameters preclude it.
"All the matter and energy that exists and has existed" as it "assembles and reassembles in constant flux" is, of course, all that could ever "create" anything. If THAT isn't "creating"...do tell, why even have such a word?
But, really...is THAT the best you guys have!? To claim Websters doesn't know how to define words...and only your "vernacular" is indicative of the meaning?
Wow...there have been some weak arguments...but that is about as poor as it gets.
I stand by my claim...the Websters' definitions of words can be considered as having more merit and validity that "the vernacular" of you, et al.
Quote:
The motivation and reasoning for such comparisons have been explained at length to you before. You simply chose to follow your usual MO when rebutted which is 1) Ignore it 2) Run away 3) Show up in another thread days or weeks later making the same error again.
The basis of such comparisons is solely to rebut the people who attempt the canard of telling us to "disprove god". There is no onus on anyone to prove an unfalsifiable negative. The comparison to fairies and Russels Teapot and so forth is based on highlighting this fact.
The fact is.... you know this. You simply feign ignorance of basic philosophy 101 and basic linguistics on most of the threads you scramble into.
Moderator cut: reference to mod action
I don't "report". Not once in the over 4 years I've been on this board. I'm not so uptight that I let the words of strangers on an internet forum tweak me out...I have more control of my emotions than that.
So, once that starts against me (you even noted it)...I know it's time to find other distractions to occupy my work lag time for a bit...before I'm forced to do it.
And though you seem inordinately interested in it...I owe you no reason why I left that thread.
Moderator cut: deleted
""""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."""
You are just too funny man...I love ya Buddy! I "second" the request "Nozzie"...Don't ever change.
The weakness of your argument can be found in the sentence highlighted in bold.
How do we know that those beings are imaginary? Is it simply because we say they are? Or is it because there is no evidence for their existences?
Because if it's the latter, then God essentially falls into the same category. Now, I know your concept of God is somewhat different than most and it does not include holy books, religions, and barbarism. Therefore, perhaps in your specific case, you might be right. Emphasis, of course, on "might."
But as an argument against the existence of a more mainstream God, comparisons to other creatures of legend do, in fact, work.
Well, since my concept of "God" is "God is All"...that would necessarily include all books, all ideas/concepts/thoughts (including theological concepts/ideas), and all actions (good, bad, and in between). All these are known to actually exist...and easily evidenced.
Whether anything actually "exists" in a physical/material sense would be based on an analysis of it...with info from all possible sources considered.
OTOH, those "childish" things I mentioned like leprechauns, fairies, etc, would be considered to be imaginary based upon their source presenting them as such.
J.M. Barrie doesn't present Tinker Bell as "real"...it is just part of a story. Disney doesn't claim Ariel (a mermaid) is "real" (too bad...what a hottie!), or that their fairies are "real". Others present their fairies as "fiction" too (again, what a shame...they are typically smokin' as well: Fairies, Sexy and Adult on Pinterest) and that is understood.
I could go on, but, you get the point I'm sure.
I don't know that I was ever aware of those that believe in a Deity that presented them as "not real" or "fiction".
That Atheists, and non-religious Theists view that as "not valid" notwithstanding.
Where is the flock? There doesn't seem to be a lot of conversion to the 'faith'. Perhaps the idea isn't very compelling. Better magnets need to be found if the numbers are to increase.
Public relations....not very good nor the image of adherents to the cause. There appears to be a lack of trust. Could it be that moral thing?
Disparaging religion and believers...not very nice...not good in scoring points...the idea of kindergarten has been lost for it's there where we all learn to play well with others....;-)...
But yes in a battle I guess all bets are off!
The emphasis on that 'science' angle. Nice if life is simply latched to a material and reductionist approach and that is the only grounding to our world. There are other approaches too for human experience.
Atheism... A weak also-ran to Christianity in the development of civilization , institutions and morality. It's attempt for some kind of lift in the modern age is reflected in its bold attack on the ancient theology. In order for it to rise the other must fall. Frankly, a cheap way to chip away at the edifice.
Disparaging atheists and non-believers...not very nice...not good in scoring points..On the other hand Atheists are one of the fastest growing groups in the world.
Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038
Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world's future. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-...b_1565108.html
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.
