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.
It seems people don't understand what religion is. Religion is about belief. Belief in things (or power) that is not evident. If it can be proved objectively, it's not religion anymore - it would be science.
So, why would you believe in something that is not based on any kind of evidence? What is your motivation for trusting such a religion?
People can believe in an infinite number of things that have no evidence to back them.
I forgot to point out, please, that my theory, as I wrote it, relies on the fact that you state above, that atheists do not see a good reason to believe there is a god to talk to. I had included your statement in my theory, worded differently. Please look for it.
I did look (again) and (again) what I saw was this:
Quote:
I've noticed that atheists as a group have something in common with God in that both strongly believe in the biblical First Commandment, usually summed up as "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
Or stripped to its bare essentials:
Quote:
I've noticed that atheists as a group believe "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
Which I understandably read as the typical baseless stereotypical claim that we set ourselves up as gods because of the false claim "everyone worships something, even if only themselves".
So forgive me if your attempt to walk this clear statement of yours back seems less than credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
To clarify elsewhere, my theory means to say that atheists declare themselves a peer group only by coincidence as would be noticed by theists (or maybe by just me), not by any conscious choice of atheists. Atheists don't care to imitate any First Commandment, of course.
I am hoping to relieve you here of any need to defend that you do not acknowledge a higher power when I know, and my theory sought to state, that you do not. The thrust of my theory is to offer to the OP why it can't work to solicit here for evidence under the conditions specified by the OP.
OK, you accept that I don't believe theist truth claims and don't acknowledge things that we don't accept as true, namely in our case, the existence of any deities.
I would further decline to say I don't believe in a "higher power" because that is a far more generic claim that suggests to many not only that I don't believe there is a supreme supernatural being presiding in an interventionist way over creation, but that I believe in the primacy of me, myself and I. There are things larger than me and my personal objectives, that is why I am loyal to my significant other, my children, etc., why I cooperate in society with others to undertake large scale projects that require large scale cooperation, why I seek not to undermine the environment, or to militarize space, etc., etc. In other words there are other individuals and groups and "greater goods" that I to varying degrees sacrifice my personal safety, comfort, convenience, charitable support and longevity to on a daily basis. In doing so, I am demonstrating that belief in a deity is not required to produce social cohesion and solidarity and empathy and compassion.
As to the thrust of your theory, the real reason in my view that the OP will not be given evidence by believers is because they have no evidence to give that would be meaningful to an intellectually honest and epistemologically humble seeker of truth who wants to control for wishful thinking, confirmation bias, wrongful inference of agency, and other well understood weaknesses of human thinking and perception.
I have little doubt that the OP fully understands that he won't get the requested evidence. That is his point. He is attempting to underscore the evidential requirements of those who do not accept the failed epistemology of religious faith, and therefore the utter inability of religious faith to fulfill our request for evidence.
There are two possible responses to this on the part of believers. One is to continue to insist that religious faith is not a failed epistemology and is in fact a valid tool for approaching and apprehending truth about reality that unbelievers are discounting at their peril; or, they can simply admit that their personal subjective beliefs are non-binding on others and never the twain shall meet. In other words, few believers are willing to say, "I simply choose to believe for reasons other than empirical evidence or logical argument because it works for me personally." When I occasionally meet such believers, I completely respect their right to their beliefs because they are now in a conceptual place that completely respects my right to not believe in those same things. Live and let live.
Everyone, regardless of their beliefs, simply wants to be left alone to believe what they believe about things, and THAT is the common ground between believers and unbelievers. That is why atheists, agnostics, pantheists, deists and most liberal Christians for example have a lot of common cause. They see their (un)beliefs as personal and non-binding on others. They don't see giving others the space to follow their own convictions as "condoning sin" or "promoting abominations" or "worshipping man" or "rebelling against god" or any of the other countless zero sum mind games that conservative believers tend to bring into the discussion.
Most members of the groups I cited are willing to acknowledge that personal, invisible gods are non-falsifiable propositions that can be neither proven nor disproven and therefore don't enter into the realm of supportable knowledge claims. So they don't treat them as supportable truth claims. They treat them as personal belief claims. That is the way they SHOULD be treated.
In a very real sense, atheism is simply a more parsimonious approach to unknowns: treat speculation as a fun exercise if you like that sort of thing but be willing to embrace unknowns AS unknowns SO LONG AS they remain unknowns and do not afford belief to any knowledge claims that aren't supportable. Theists to some degree just layer some form of argument from incredulity atop the unknowns, and say "that which I don't understand or can't prove must be filled by some knowledge claim, hence my gnostic theism". Or at the very least (in the case, mainly, of more liberal believers) "I simply choose to believe anyway".
Is that all you got out of that? Oh, man! I sidestepped a trap that was being set for me and, without malice, I offered a sporting reply, even included a concession that would allow any playful atheist to pounce and lay me to waste! Did you catch it? If anything, I was being a smarta**! You should at least acknowledge I was being set up, yet it is I whom you penalize for instigating! Go deeper next time and I’ll meet you there!
I did look (again) and (again) what I saw was this:
Or stripped to its bare essentials:
Which I understandably read as the typical baseless stereotypical claim that we set ourselves up as gods because of the false claim "everyone worships something, even if only themselves".
So forgive me if your attempt to walk this clear statement of yours back seems less than credible.
OK, you accept that I don't believe theist truth claims and don't acknowledge things that we don't accept as true, namely in our case, the existence of any deities.
I would further decline to say I don't believe in a "higher power" because that is a far more generic claim that suggests to many not only that I don't believe there is a supreme supernatural being presiding in an interventionist way over creation, but that I believe in the primacy of me, myself and I. There are things larger than me and my personal objectives, that is why I am loyal to my significant other, my children, etc., why I cooperate in society with others to undertake large scale projects that require large scale cooperation, why I seek not to undermine the environment, or to militarize space, etc., etc. In other words there are other individuals and groups and "greater goods" that I to varying degrees sacrifice my personal safety, comfort, convenience, charitable support and longevity to on a daily basis. In doing so, I am demonstrating that belief in a deity is not required to produce social cohesion and solidarity and empathy and compassion.
As to the thrust of your theory, the real reason in my view that the OP will not be given evidence by believers is because they have no evidence to give that would be meaningful to an intellectually honest and epistemologically humble seeker of truth who wants to control for wishful thinking, confirmation bias, wrongful inference of agency, and other well understood weaknesses of human thinking and perception.
I have little doubt that the OP fully understands that he won't get the requested evidence. That is his point. He is attempting to underscore the evidential requirements of those who do not accept the failed epistemology of religious faith, and therefore the utter inability of religious faith to fulfill our request for evidence.
There are two possible responses to this on the part of believers. One is to continue to insist that religious faith is not a failed epistemology and is in fact a valid tool for approaching and apprehending truth about reality that unbelievers are discounting at their peril; or, they can simply admit that their personal subjective beliefs are non-binding on others and never the twain shall meet. In other words, few believers are willing to say, "I simply choose to believe for reasons other than empirical evidence or logical argument because it works for me personally." When I occasionally meet such believers, I completely respect their right to their beliefs because they are now in a conceptual place that completely respects my right to not believe in those same things. Live and let live.
Everyone, regardless of their beliefs, simply wants to be left alone to believe what they believe about things, and THAT is the common ground between believers and unbelievers. That is why atheists, agnostics, pantheists, deists and most liberal Christians for example have a lot of common cause. They see their (un)beliefs as personal and non-binding on others. They don't see giving others the space to follow their own convictions as "condoning sin" or "promoting abominations" or "worshipping man" or "rebelling against god" or any of the other countless zero sum mind games that conservative believers tend to bring into the discussion.
Most members of the groups I cited are willing to acknowledge that personal, invisible gods are non-falsifiable propositions that can be neither proven nor disproven and therefore don't enter into the realm of supportable knowledge claims. So they don't treat them as supportable truth claims. They treat them as personal belief claims. That is the way they SHOULD be treated.
In a very real sense, atheism is simply a more parsimonious approach to unknowns: treat speculation as a fun exercise if you like that sort of thing but be willing to embrace unknowns AS unknowns SO LONG AS they remain unknowns and do not afford belief to any knowledge claims that aren't supportable. Theists to some degree just layer some form of argument from incredulity atop the unknowns, and say "that which I don't understand or can't prove must be filled by some knowledge claim, hence my gnostic theism". Or at the very least (in the case, mainly, of more liberal believers) "I simply choose to believe anyway".
First of all, please let me say that I am honored that you took the time to write for me the many thoughtful and intelligent things that you have said. Frankly, it conveys to me that you may consider me a peer of sorts to warrant your effort here, and that is a compliment. Thank you.
Upon reflection, perhaps when I transcribed the phrase "Thou shall have no other gods before me", it was the inclusion of the word "other" that incorrectly implied in my theory that atheists claim a peership with gods? I didn’t mean to imply that.
I get what you say about levels of higher power. Interesting what I didn’t realize I was skipping over. I wonder if I had used capitalization to have shown it as Higher Power, would that have caused you to zero in that I meant it as a synonym for deity and not for any of the higher powers that you mentioned.
The OP did make the effort to form his/her post as an actual request. It seemed sincere. Sometimes, I might want to think, "Okay, maybe s/he’s really making a statement indirectly, disguised as a question, and no reply is being requested." But other times, I exercise my option to consider such requests as bona fide requests.
Your expression tickles my intellect, especially when you wrote, "atheism is simply a more parsimonious approach to unknowns". You know, I’ve been able to talk to fellow Christians about what we know versus what we don’t know, but I wonder if the same candor is held back from an atheist. It makes me think of this thing that people do when they talk to someone whom they perceive as contrary, where they anticipate where they think the other party is headed in a discussion and they do not want to be cornered so they say pre-emptive things to the other party, things that may not really best represent what they truly believe at the current point in the discussion, but are things said to attempt to prevent the other party from prevailing on a point not yet arrived at in the discussion. These pre-emptive comments are less sincere when they are devices in the discussion. So the entire exchange shifts into artificial posturing and pretense and both parties are aware of it but neither can break free from it, having committed themselves down that road. To avoid that road, at times I have risked myself to get slaughtered yet there is a certain freedom in laying down the lightsaber.
Thanks for listening.
Last edited by sylvianfisher; 06-06-2016 at 02:33 PM..
So, why would you believe in something that is not based on any kind of evidence? What is your motivation for trusting such a religion?
People can believe in an infinite number of things that have no evidence to back them.
Nothing is out of blue. Many people start believing after experiencing something strong or unique. For them it's evident. Paul didn't know Jesus until after an unique appearance. Then he became the greatest promoter of Christ. Buddha is a symbol for truth in life. If a prince (or son of a wealthy merchant) called Sidharta lived 2600 years ago exactly as described, up to the minute detail, is less important than what he symbolizes: the one that became enlighted. One that understood the meaning of life. One who showed the way for the entire human kind.
But today we are closer then ever for science to understand and explain things that up till now are considered spiritual. In 100 years, amazing things will be revealed and proved scientifically.
Meanwhile you aren't forced to belive in anything you are unconfortable with. You can remain a skeptic without fearing retribution or punishment.
Meanwhile you aren't forced to believe in anything you are uncomfortable with. You can remain a skeptic without fearing retribution or punishment.
In many parts of the world yes. In many others, no. Right now for example President Erdogan of Turkey is doing his best to make women who are single or who use birth control "uncomfortable", and I would imagine if I were an unbeliever there I would be wise to be totally closeted. And he's nothing compared to the Iranians dishing out 100 lashes to students for having a party, or ISIS lopping off heads for just about everything.
Why do you bother asking for evidence when you have no intention of hearing any of it?
You, like JeffBase40 and a few others on this forum, like to maintain the narrative that people like myself do not want to hear the evidence by not actually OFFERING any. Until you offer some, you are simply able to pretend we will not accept it when you do. Which validates, at least to yourself internally, your cop out of admitting you do not have any to offer in the first place.
I have asked you NUMEROUS times for evidence for many of your claims. The problem has NEVER been my lack of intention to hear what you offer. The problem EVERY time has been you simply not offering any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
There is literally evidence of God all around you. Nature, birth and death, evolution, the physical laws. All of these are products of a creative order.
See you are trying to make things you randomly list be "evidence" merely by CALLING them evidence. Calling it evidence does not make it evidence. To be evidence you have to show HOW the things you list support the claim you are making.
For example you list some stuff above and then just ASSERT that they are products of a "creative order". So what you are doing is circular. You are being asked for evidence of this "creative order" and you are basically asserting the very thing you are being asked to substantiate.
Here for your learning is a short three step description of what evidence is. Because evidence is a process not a thing. And the process is as follows:
1) State clearly what you are claiming.
2) List clearly the things you feel support the claim.
3) Explain clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Your process is more like:
1) Be quite vague about what exactly you claim.
2) List some stuff.
3) Re-assert the claim in 1 as true and declare that what you listed in 2 supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
All of these are plain to see natural miracles that cannot be reproduced by any current technology. Even if they could produce it in a lab, this would prove that the substance (birth, for instance) was a created thing, validating the existence of a Creator.
You are wrong twice here in a short space. The first place you are wrong is that us not being able to reproduce it does not mean it must be a miracle or god made. The second place you are wrong is that just because we CAN reproduce something that does not prove the original one was a "created thing". It only proves that our copy of it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Ultimately, this is just troll-bait. There is absolutely nothing we can do to convince a person so willfully blind that they cannot see the hand of God in the world about them.
Common theist tactic. Rather than substantiate anything you say.... just call people who do not agree with you "blind" or make comments about their "half a brain" and then run away. Because where evidence fails you then insults..... to your own mind anyway..... will suffice.
Hey, everybody, let me turn this around by asking a different question, and maybe the car will get out of the ditch and back on the road...
Has any atheist reading this ever received evidence of any sort that gave you pause about your atheism? If so, what was it? What did you appreciate about it?
If not, have you heard of any other atheists who spoke of encountering evidence that paused them?
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.
