Scientific Atheism is dishonest

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

mindlight said:
No your question was irrelevant because Zeus by definition is not comparable to God. His story itself sabotages his case. He is quite simply not in Gods league. I classify myself as a believer in the Christian God and extreme sceptic against all other pretenders. It is a nonsence to defines ones identity against a secondary reality to the main one you subscribe to. A godless man is making a denial about what is at the heart of reality. He is saying that it is empty or irrelevant to him. I am saying that the heart of reality is personally populated and Zeus is not even close to that heart by definition. If he exists then by definition he is creaturely, faulty, finite, non eternal - he has the character of a fallen angel or demon not a God. Also I am saying I know that he does not exist in the form claimed for him and that his titles are pretentious nonsence. The same cannot be said of a Christian God whose words I can read, who demonstrated his authenticity in the life of Christ on earth and who
Dwells in me and the church. The reality of this simply does not leave open the possibility of nonexistence. By contrast Zeus is just a story that is theologically dubious, historically improbable, location and time specific with no personal presence.

So, you are an "extreme s[k]eptic against all other pretenders". Are you agnostic about other deities?

KCfromNC · Apr 28, 2017

dcalling said:
So because you all do/think the same, hence you all must be right.

When the question is what pattern of beliefs can be used to distinguish atheists from other groups, I think it is a relevant fact.

Non sequitur · Apr 28, 2017

mindlight said:
Pascals wager is an argument that could be used at any time. Since An unbeliever does not know for sure it is less of a risk to live for God than not. There is no ban on the use of this argument that I have ever read. If it is banned then I will delete my references to this and I have disobeyed site rules inadvertently. I do not see why the argument would be banned though.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Which god?

(Are we really doing this.)

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Non sequitur said:
Which god?

(Are we really doing this.)

Here we go; more atheist banter about the deficiency of Pascal's Wager........................ oops, did I say that?

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

Wait. There are two of you in the debate section that find Pascal's Wager a convincing argument? I'm legit surprised by this.

Non sequitur · Apr 28, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Here we go; more atheist banter about the deficiency of Pascal's Wager........................ oops, did I say that?

Right?!

I thought that was long ago thrown in the trash can for being shown to be an argument from inconsistent revelations.

But here it is, again!

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Non sequitur said:
Right?!

I thought that was long ago thrown in the trash can for being shown to be an argument from inconsistent revelations.

But here it is, again!

Since this thread isn't specifically a Pascal Target thread, I'm not going to elaborate here. But, in short, I'd say that many Christians misrepresent Pascal's Wager and it's purpose, and thereby atheists then attack the misrepresentation that Christians have put out there. The truth of the matter is that Pascal's Wager is contextualized by various layers of propositions and often extricated from this onion like contextual cocoon--it is then strung up by its heals and beat like a piñata until it's guts fall out.

The problem is that Pascal's Wager is not a form of faith or a replacement for faith. It's a "prompt" to those who might consider the veracity of the Christian faith, as far as it might depend on human effort........

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
Here we go; more atheist banter about the deficiency of Pascal's Wager........................ oops, did I say that?

Remember, he was replying to this:

mindlight said:
Pascals wager then springs to mind. Since you have no reason to deny God, don't!, it is too big a risk!

Non sequitur did not define it that way. His theist interlocutor did.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
Remember, he was replying to this:

Non sequitur did not define it that way. His theist interlocutor did.

Ok. Thanks for the correction, Gene. I'll look at it again.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
Remember, he was replying to this:

Non sequitur did not define it that way. His theist interlocutor did.

p.s. I do disagree with Mindlight as to how he portrays the purpose of Pascal's Wager. So, something of what I said is correct.............some Christians do misrepresent the Wager and it's purpose.

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
p.s. I do disagree with Mindlight as to how he portrays the purpose of Pascal's Wager. So, something of what I said is correct.............some Christians do misrepresent the Wager and it's purpose.

Yeah. A lot of nuance of his thought process is cut out and oversimplified. My problem has always been when Pascal suggests a "fake it till you make it" approach to belief in God. That's the part I find particularly insulting.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
Yeah. A lot of nuance of his thought process is cut out and oversimplified. My problem has always been when Pascal suggests a "fake it till you make it" approach to belief in God. That's the part I find particularly insulting.

....well, I can understand the frustration, but I think there's a bit more to what Pascal said, and as to why he said what he said, than what is typically acknowledged. Regardless, I know everyone has their own way to process all this "religious stuff"....

bhsmte · Apr 28, 2017

mindlight said:
Science can demonstrate the realities it affirms by repeatable experiments and calculations. Grand theories on origins, remote cosmology, aspects of human nature, the existence of God etc cannot be demonstrated scientifically by its own methods. What is done in these cases is Speculative, analogous and unprovable. In other words it is not proper science.

Do you consider yourself an expert, on determing what is true science?

Dave Ellis · Apr 28, 2017

mindlight said:
Pascals wager is an argument that could be used at any time. Since An unbeliever does not know for sure it is less of a risk to live for God than not. There is no ban on the use of this argument that I have ever read. If it is banned then I will delete my references to this and I have disobeyed site rules inadvertently. I do not see why the argument would be banned though.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

There's no ban on the argument, I think he was referencing the fact that Pascal's Wager is a ridiculous argument that's so full of holes that not many people fall back on in anymore. It's likely been well over a year since I had anyone try that one on me, and haven't seen it commonly used in a long, long time.

Dave Ellis · Apr 28, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
Yeah. A lot of nuance of his thought process is cut out and oversimplified. My problem has always been when Pascal suggests a "fake it till you make it" approach to belief in God. That's the part I find particularly insulting.

I've always found that line of thought utterly bizarre.... Why would someone fake believing in something they think is not true, in order to eventually believe in something they think is not true?

Makes no sense to me at all.

On that note:

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
I've always found that line of thought utterly bizarre.... Why would someone fake believing in something they think is not true, in order to eventually believe in something they think is not true?

Makes no sense to me at all.

On that note:

View attachment 195483

And your comment shows that you're not taking into consideration most of what Pascal had to say about his Wager (but, that isn't to say that if you did you'd then think better of it than you did before, except that then you'd disagree with it for other or additional reasons.).

Dave Ellis · Apr 28, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
And your comment shows that you're not taking into consideration most of what Pascal had to say about his Wager (but, that isn't to say that if you did you'd then think better of it than you did before, except that then you'd disagree with it for other or additional reasons.).

My point is "fake it until you make it" is an inherently intellectually dishonest position. What nuance am I missing that would change that point?

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
View attachment 195483

I'm so glad somebody around here knows Arrested Development. :bow:

2PhiloVoid · Apr 28, 2017

Dave Ellis said:
My point is "fake it until you make it" is an inherently intellectually dishonest position. What nuance am I missing that would change that point?

I'm not going to turn this specific thread into a Pascalian showboat, even though there is an aspect of Pascal's thought that seems relevant to the OP, a point that no one ever seems to discuss.

However, for the moment, I'm not going to get into that. What I will say, in brief, is that it might be a misrepresentation of Pascal to say that he was implying a person should "fake it." No, I think Pascal was indicating that for those who genuinely would like to believe but have a difficult time doing so, then he suggests the Wager as a prompt to eventually arriving at faith with the help of God and the Church. His Wager isn't really directed toward those who have decided that such a tenuous act is nothing short of an attempt toward the preposterous.

2PhiloVoid

Dave Ellis · Apr 28, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not going to turn this specific thread into a Pascalian showboat, even though there is an aspect of Pascal's thought that seems relevant to the OP, a point that no one ever seems to discuss.

However, for the moment, I'm not going to get into that. What I will say, in brief, is that it might be a misrepresentation of Pascal to say that he was implying a person should "fake it." No, I think Pascal was indicating that for those who genuinely would like to believe but have a difficult time doing so, then he suggests the Wager as a prompt to eventually arriving at faith with the help of God and the Church. His Wager isn't really directed toward those who have decided that such a tenuous act is nothing short of an attempt toward the preposterous.

2PhiloVoid

That doesn't really change anything. If someone wants to believe, but they still think it's not true..... well, my point still stands.

Why would someone fake believing in something they think is not true, in order to eventually believe in something they think is not true?

It doesn't matter if they want to believe it's true or not, it's intellectually dishonest.

Scientific Atheism is dishonest

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Contributor

Similar threads