Atheists, What's the point?

[32k]

Oh my aching head!

Is (religious) belief a choice? Yes or no?

It is.

Well yes, if someone makes a claim but is not able to provide sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim.... Then why would I believe it?

I agree.

That is correct, however just because you withhold belief, that does not mean you are of the opinion that my middle name is not Robert. You simply have no belief that my middle name is Robert until shown evidence.

That is the exact position taken by atheists in regard to god claims. We do not have to assert god does not exist, we simply lack belief in the claim until shown evidence that supports it. That is why it's the proper default position.

I agree. The belief is pending.

My only objection is when an atheist, who claims "lack of belief"/neutrality, actively tries to undermine or disprove proposed evidence by the opposing party. They have thereby stepped out of their 'position of neutrality' and into an active position of 'there is no God', as far as Christianity/other religions are concerned.

 

[Gadarene]

My only objection is when an atheist, who claims "lack of belief"/neutrality, actively tries to undermine or disprove proposed evidence by the opposing party. They have thereby stepped out of their 'position of neutrality' and into an active position of 'there is no God', as far as Christianity/other religions are concerned.

No, they haven't. They may simply be holding to a consistent standard of evidence. They may be adversarial to all evidence for all proposed ideas/entities, for example.

 

[Jade Margery]

My only objection is when an atheist, who claims "lack of belief"/neutrality, actively tries to undermine or disprove proposed evidence by the opposing party. They have thereby stepped out of their 'position of neutrality' and into an active position of 'there is no God', as far as Christianity/other religions are concerned.

Evidence that can be easily disproven or cannot withstand rigorous testing or scrutiny is not evidence at all. It is just an opinion or a lie that someone has painted the word 'fact' on in the hopes that no one else will look too close.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My only objection is when an atheist, who claims "lack of belief"/neutrality, actively tries to undermine or disprove proposed evidence by the opposing party. They have thereby stepped out of their 'position of neutrality' and into an active position of 'there is no God', as far as Christianity/other religions are concerned.

That's not correct, pointing out critical flaws in the evidence does not put you in the position of asserting there is no God.... it simply puts you in a position where you are not accepting a specific piece of evidence demonstrates the case.

Getting back to the middle name example, if I wrote Robert between my first and last name on a random piece of paper, and claimed that was evidence it's my middle name, you would be correct in rejecting that evidence. Likewise if I asked some random guy on the street if my middle name was Robert, and he said yes. That also is not compelling evidence, and you would be wrong to accept it as such.

It doesn't mean you are asserting my middle name is not Robert, not does it oppose you to the idea. Rejecting bad or flawed evidence is simply what you have to do when presented with bad or flawed evidence.

It doesn't put you in a negative position at all, it simply keeps you in an honest position.

 

[32k]

No, they haven't. They may simply be holding to a consistent standard of evidence. They may be adversarial to all evidence for all proposed ideas/entities, for example.

I agree with this. But I wouldn't be so hasty to bet my life on it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I agree with this. But I wouldn't be so hasty to bet my life on it.

How do you figure you're betting your life on it?

 

[32k]

How do you figure you're betting your life on it?

If I were to take it with full conviction.

 

[freezerman2000]

Simple answer? Ya'll started it. I could care less what people believe, but when my child gets to be taught lies in science class because Christians can't handle reality, I have issues. When my girlfriend has to change birth control prescriptions to one that has harsher side effects because of Christians forcing their morality on us, I want more atheists on my side. When thousands of billboards get erected proselytizing the Christian faith and we atheists have to sue to get a couple dozen, I think more atheists are a good thing.

You don't want your faith challenged? Stop trying to make me live my life according to the tenets of your religion.

Sorry if my response is really belated..I have been off line through no wish of my own, but ,I need to reply to this.
Not every Christian wants to tell you how your child has to be taught in school,or tries to tell your girl friend whather reproductive rights are. There are many of us who abhor the fact that there are those that are "holier than thou"out there.They do Christ's core teachings no justice..Read the Beatitudes(Sermon on the Mount).

Why do you have to sue to get a bill board up? Those billboards are owned by companies,not by the government. No 1st Amendment there.
Peace to you..I'm no fanatic,I pray you are not one too.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If I were to take it with full conviction.

What do you mean? I don't quite follow what you're getting at.

 

[32k]

What do you mean? I don't quite follow what you're getting at.

Meaning I don't 'doubt' it.

 

[32k]

Really, I think most of you 'atheists' are really just agnostics.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sorry if my response is really belated..I have been off line through no wish of my own, but ,I need to reply to this.
Not every Christian wants to tell you how your child has to be taught in school,or tries to tell your girl friend whather reproductive rights are. There are many of us who abhor the fact that there are those that are "holier than thou"out there.They do Christ's core teachings no justice..Read the Beatitudes(Sermon on the Mount).

Why do you have to sue to get a bill board up? Those billboards are owned by companies,not by the government. No 1st Amendment there.
Peace to you..I'm no fanatic,I pray you are not one too.

No doubt there's many Christians out there that abhor the more fundamentalist approaches to their religion.... however what they need to do is stand up and also speak out against it rather than sitting on their hands and letting the fundamentalists dictate "Christian Ethics" to the country.

Like it or not, the fact you are a Christian only goes to bolster their clout with government, even if you don't agree with what they are saying. Any time they need to appeal to the "Christian Majority" in the country, they include people like you in their numbers.

The one thing the more liberal or moderate Christians really need to do is speak out against the people pushing ideas like the ones that were listed in the previous post. That will likely be more effective at silencing that sort of craziness than any other demographic in the country.

 

[Tiberius]

Really, I think most of you 'atheists' are really just agnostics.

If you mean that most atheists will admit that they cannot prove beyond any doubt that no god exists, you are right. Very few atheists claim, "I know for a fact that there is no god."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Really, I think most of you 'atheists' are really just agnostics.

Actually, most Atheists are indeed agnostics. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tiberius]

I will ask you as well. What do you mean when you say "God"?

Any god that has so far been described can be invalidated, in my opinion. Usually they contain a bunch of qualities that are mutually incompatible. Such as knowing what will happen tomorrow and yet giving their creations free will.

Also, what would qualify as sufficient evidence for you to believe in God's existence?

For a start, a passage like the one in my signature. If such a passage appeared in the Bible or other holy text, it would clearly and unambiguously describe scientific knowledge that the people of the time could not have had, and yet it would not be open to interpretation. Such knowledge could only have come from a god (or time travellers).

In any case, even if I can't be sure of something that would convince me beyond any doubt that a god existed, I'm sure that god would know, and he'd be able to provide it.

 

[IzzyPop]

Sorry if my response is really belated..I have been off line through no wish of my own, but ,I need to reply to this.
Not every Christian wants to tell you how your child has to be taught in school,or tries to tell your girl friend whather reproductive rights are. There are many of us who abhor the fact that there are those that are "holier than thou"out there.They do Christ's core teachings no justice..Read the Beatitudes(Sermon on the Mount).

I realize that most people, religious or otherwise, are of the live and let live variety. Unfortunately, the people that do want to tell me how to live by their morals have some political clout behind them. Secular Americans are starting to stand up to them, so maybe things will work out.

Why do you have to sue to get a bill board up? Those billboards are owned by companies,not by the government. No 1st Amendment there.
Peace to you..I'm no fanatic,I pray you are not one too.

You are right, it wasn't billboards, it was bus ads in Little Rock. Public transportation that allowed Christian advertising but wouldn't allow a local atheist group to do the same. That being said, atheist billboards are vandalized at a pretty high rate and many companies will not sell the space due to that (heckler's veto, if you will).

 

[freezerman2000]

No doubt there's many Christians out there that abhor the more fundamentalist approaches to their religion.... however what they need to do is stand up and also speak out against it rather than sitting on their hands and letting the fundamentalists dictate "Christian Ethics" to the country.

Like it or not, the fact you are a Christian only goes to bolster their clout with government, even if you don't agree with what they are saying. Any time they need to appeal to the "Christian Majority" in the country, they include people like you in their numbers.

The one thing the more liberal or moderate Christians really need to do is speak out against the people pushing ideas like the ones that were listed in the previous post. That will likely be more effective at silencing that sort of craziness than any other demographic in the country.

I do my part to oppose draconian moral legislation..morality can not be legislated..and I know many more that do the same..I am not alone.

 

[Tiberius]

If the claim comes in the form of an explanation from a live pool of options to explain a set of data, then the claim that best explains the set of data is itself the sufficient evidence to justify believing that claim. At the very least, it must be seen as being tenable.

This doesn't work.

I can claim that magical moon fairies are responsible for everything that happens on Earth. This is the best explanation because it covers every single event that could possibly happen. It requires only one thing, and yet explains a great deal. And yet it remains false, even though, by your logic, it is the best explanation.

It is also important to note that believing in God's existence, and believing in God are two different things. The first is more intellectual, the second is more volitional.

This makes no sense. Can you explain how it is possible to believe in God's existence without believing in God? Or vice versa?

 

[IzzyPop]

Really, I think most of you 'atheists' are really just agnostics.

Not 'just' agnostics. Most of us are both atheist and agnostic. It is not a continuum with theism on one side, atheism on the other, and agnosticism in the middle.

 

[freezerman2000]

I realize that most people, religious or otherwise, are of the live and let live variety. Unfortunately, the people that do want to tell me how to live by their morals have some political clout behind them. Secular Americans are starting to stand up to them, so maybe things will work out.

You are right, it wasn't billboards, it was bus ads in Little Rock. Public transportation that allowed Christian advertising but wouldn't allow a local atheist group to do the same. That being said, atheist billboards are vandalized at a pretty high rate and many companies will not sell the space due to that (heckler's veto, if you will).

The ones who have political clout are those who can afford to..I have no answers to our problems..civility and moderation is the key.

It is a shame that has happened about the ads in the PT system...those that vandalize paid advertising need to be brought to justice..Christ would not have condoned such behavior.I have never read any quote attributed to Him that condones such behavior..It is shameful and ungodly.
I can understand the companies stance on the monetary point of view,but I may have a solution..have them put up a Christian ad butting up to an Atheist ad with a security cam on each(without the public knowing) and see which one gets the most damage within a week..it may seem silly now, but it may just show which gets the most damage over a period of time.
I am appalled at such actions that EITHER side would stoop to.