The confusion about faith (evolution, Hindu, before, proof)
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.
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.
We have met that burden. Otherwise why are YOU an atheist? Because you have looked at the evidence, hopefully?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Do try and keep in the conversation. This has nothing to do with my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
No, the task for atheists is to show atheism is probably true. Which I have done. I have to ask myself why you are an atheist if you must straw man and make assertions about the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And you conclude from this that there is no god of any kind?
No, I conclude atheism is probably true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Or that no one should believe in a god?
Do try and keep in the conversation. This has nothing to do with my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Do try and keep in the conversation. This has nothing to do with my post.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.
And Mystic was on your side, and now you have just smashed his argument's over the head with a baseball bat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not in the slightest, no.
ARACH. ARACH. We have a deny everything atheist here. ARACH. Not even a rational argument, just "Not in the slightest, no".
Come on logician, start using logic for once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Of course it does not mean theism is false. I never argued that, so a straw man there. I argued for atheism being probably true, because theists have to often lie because they have no evidence for their claims. And logically if they have no evidence, then they are probably wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Goal post moving. I provided evidence for atheism by pointing out how things would be if atheism was true. Such as an old, large universe. It is not my problem if you do not understand how probability works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
It's on anyone making a claim; again, we're not special.
Agreed. And we have done that when we provide the evidence that makes more sense for atheism, and very little sense for theism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Let me guess. The allegation that he misrepresented Alexander Vilenkin even though Vilenkin confirmed that he didn't?
No, the other cosmologist that WLC took out of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
So you do not understand what evidence is, or you just like inventing excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
We have met that burden. Otherwise why are YOU an atheist? Because you have looked at the
evidence, hopefully?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence of positive ("strong") atheism. I certainly haven't seen any here at city-data.com! The reason I'm an atheist (in that I do not believe in any gods) is simply that I've not seen any compelling evidence for (nor had the experience of) such a being. I don't have to pretend to have more knowledge than that, to justify rejecting theism.
I would if I were an anti-theist though... which is why you guys are doing it :P
Quote:
And Mystic was on your side, and now you have just smashed his argument's over the head with a baseball bat.
I'm not on anyone's "side". If he does indeed employ god-of-the-gaps reasoning, he should stop, just like you should pry yourself off of the embarrassing problem of evil argument. But we all have to take baby steps sometimes!
Quote:
ARACH. ARACH. We have a deny everything atheist here. ARACH. Not even a rational argument, just "Not in the slightest, no".
Yes, I find a short rejection befitting a short assertion. Give me a complete argument and you'll get a complete rebuttal :P
Quote:
I argued for atheism being probably true, because theists have to often lie because they have no evidence for their claims.
And as I pointed out, that doesn't follow. No evidence for x =/= evidence that x is false or that the opposite of x is true.
Quote:
And logically if they have no evidence, then they are probably wrong.
Nonsense.
Quote:
I provided evidence for atheism by pointing out how things would be if atheism was true. Such as an old, large universe.
How do you imagine that speaks to atheism more than theism? The only semi-relevant point would be the distinction between a finite universe and a past-eternal one (as Hawking said, this would suggest no creator), but the evidence is strongly in support of the universe having a beginning.
Quote:
No, the other cosmologist that WLC took out of context.
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.
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about because I certainly don't. It is not possible to prove a negative. You can't prove that gods don't exist, only that they don't.
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?
You've not even shown one, much less an obvious one.
Which is just you claiming that the evidence says it's false, without giving that evidence... again...
Apparently not.
Wrong. All atheism has done by its very nature and existence is reject theism; that does not translate into being opposed to it.
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.
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?
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.
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 .
So do anti-theists. By saying that atheists have launched a campaign against theism, for example
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.
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.
Don't know whether you persistently fail to listen and understand, or whenther you do undersatand and hope to wear me down by reiterating the same is representations. I (and we) are not making a claim that no god (or gods) exist, but there is no goo reason to believe in one. That you refused to look the link suggests to me that you know very well that you have lost this one, but you are doing the usual theist stance of eyes shut, fingers in ears, mouth wide open. However, I'm just taking a break. Don't think that you won this one by sheer repetition of debunked claims.
Just for going on with, your premises are false - God is not to be taken as a given, and atheism does not have to prove a claim, only explain the reasons not to accept the claims made by the theists. If you can comprehend this, you have no case. If you refuse to listen, then you still have no case.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence of positive ("strong") atheism. I certainly haven't seen any here at city-data.com! The reason I'm an atheist (in that I do not believe in any gods) is simply that I've not seen any compelling evidence for (nor had the experience of) such a being. I don't have to pretend to have more knowledge than that, to justify rejecting theism.
I would if I were an anti-theist though... which is why you guys are doing it :P
I have told you - because religion has too much social influence, and teaching and preaching it as though it was known to be true is wrong. Our rationale is the same as the one you set out above. You can only justify finding fault with us by asserting positions that atheism doesn't actually hold.
Quote:
I'm not on anyone's "side". If he does indeed employ god-of-the-gaps reasoning, he should stop, just like you should pry yourself off of the embarrassing problem of evil argument. But we all have to take baby steps sometimes!
Yes, I find a short rejection befitting a short assertion. Give me a complete argument and you'll get a complete rebuttal :P
And as I pointed out, that doesn't follow. No evidence for x =/= evidence that x is false or that the opposite of x is true.
Nonsense.
How do you imagine that speaks to atheism more than theism? The only semi-relevant point would be the distinction between a finite universe and a past-eternal one (as Hawking said, this would suggest no creator), but the evidence is strongly in support of the universe having a beginning.
Ooh a bonus mystery cosmologist. Dare I ask?
You are still ascribing to atheism a position that it doesn't actually hold.
We can do without your complete rebuttal, as so far it is wring, strawmans the argument and reiterates debunked claims.
You have a sauce suggesting that we give up the problem of evil when it has been made to stick, logically and practically, and all you have is feeble denialist excuse.
Yes, but as you said with regard to the problem of evil - one doesn't know. And if something is a remote but undisprovable possibility, to be consistent, that ought to have the same weight (or even more) than the Other argument - or do you just apply that when it suits you?
In any case, even if one gave into the intuitively appealing idea that the universe had a beginning, it doesn't do the God - claim any good. I'd give that one up, especially since you blustered that Lane Craig dodn't actually mention God, when it is very well known that is what he is arguing for, and you refused to look at the video refuting his position.
You poor reasoning, stubborn refusal to admit when you get debunked, and your persistent misrepresentations and strawmen are eroding your credibility, not ours.p
To my knowledge, there is no evidence of positive ("strong") atheism. I certainly haven't seen any here at city-data.com! The reason I'm an atheist (in that I do not believe in any gods) is simply that I've not seen any compelling evidence for (nor had the experience of) such a being.
Strange, I see plenty of evidence for strong atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I don't have to pretend to have more knowledge than that, to justify rejecting theism.
I would if I were an anti-theist though... which is why you guys are doing it :P
I am not pretending at knowledge, I argue from the knowledge I do have. And I am not arguing because I am an anti-theist, I am pointing out the evidence for atheism, and why theism is probably wrong. Also I am not against theism, I am against fundamentalism. But you keep on using anti-theist when you mean atheist, because anti-theist implies a motive other than rational arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'm not on anyone's "side".
And? I never said you were, I said he had aligned himself with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If he does indeed employ god-of-the-gaps reasoning, he should stop, just like you should pry yourself off of the embarrassing problem of evil argument. But we all have to take baby steps sometimes!
More misrepresentation. It is you started with an incorrect assertion about the problem of evil. We just pointed out why your excuses not to support your assertion were invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Yes, I find a short rejection befitting a short assertion. Give me a complete argument and you'll get a complete rebuttal :P
Straw man, it was not an assertion. And I am not going to explain the obvious just so you can make more excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And as I pointed out, that doesn't follow. No evidence for x =/= evidence that x is false or that the opposite of x is true.
Of course it follows. If theists had credible evidence, then they would present it. And if they have no evidence for a most improbable god, I have no reason to believe. Which is why you are an atheist, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Nonsense.
When is my birthday? What car do I drive? Need I go on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
How do you imagine that speaks to atheism more than theism?
Because this is what we would see if atheism was true. We do not need a god to explain why we are here. And as it is evidence for atheism while we have no credible evidence for theism, I will go with the evidence, not with what could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Ooh a bonus mystery cosmologist. Dare I ask?
You posted your WLC quote, I just pointed out (twice) where WLC took it out of context. I am not going to search the forum because you appear to have conveniently forgot one of your arguments.
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.
So what is your purpose in trying to convince us that god exists, when you know that we demand evidence?
So what is your purpose in trying to convince us that god exists, when you know that we demand evidence?
It was a completely footling post. he states that Faith needs no evidence, which in the case of 'Blind faith' is true - but makes it completely worthless and hardly needs refutation.
For the rest it is constructing a totally false position (something must be taken as existing if you can't disprove it) and tries to get us to argue on that basis. If you can't prove that something is true, it slides down to the 'less credible' position.
Yet again, where it is totally consistent is in making up rubbish arguments in hopes to support a faith -based position. And it is not about evidence, but the way people think.
Discussions of faith on religion forums always seem to result in confusion. Another active thread exemplifies this confusion. Many seem to think faith is some unique “religious thing” believers must defend.
If I climb onto a 30-foot ladder to fix my roof, I’m placing faith in the ladder. The unknown is “Will this ladder hold me?”
That's not true at all. The ladder has a known rating, and that information is provided by the manufacturer on a label affixed to the ladder.
Unless you constructed the ladder yourself, there's no guesswork involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball
Religious faith is no different in substance from this.
That's not true at all, either.
People are afraid of dying. They always have been.
In a particular region of England, the Cornish region, people abandoned Anglicanism in favor of the Methodist persuasion.
Why?
Because they were miners.
At the time, mining was an extremely hazardous and dangerous occupation. A lot of miners died. A lot. Many others were injured.
It had nothing to do with gods or the Anglican Church and everything to do with the fact that they simply lacked the knowledge and experience, and also lacked the technology to safely construct a mine and engage in mining operations in a safe but efficient manner.
The Anglican Church, um, you know, wasn't working out very well for them, so when John Wesley showed up preaching a different flavor of snake-oil, they seized on it and converted to the Methodist persuasion.
They still died and got injured, but they clung to the nonsense nevertheless, believing somehow that they would be protected.
And that's what religion is really all about: telling people what they want to hear, and then people clinging to that in hopes that it will protect them or save them or somehow change their lives.
It doesn't.
Life is all about Physics. It's action, reaction, random interaction.
There are no god-things involved.
That's the Truth, but people don't want to believe that, instead they want to cling to falsehoods.
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.
