Help for the Atheists?

[Vigilante]

if i come to an atheist and ask him to explain his belief to me

If you've got an atheist explaining "his belief" to you, you've got a gullible atheist on your hands. Atheism is the absence of a belief, not a belief per se. It's you who have the burden of proof in that discussion, so hopefully you'd be explaining your belief to him. Otherwise talk about pizza?

 

[Nathan45]

If you've got an atheist explaining "his belief" to you, you've got a gullible atheist on your hands. Atheism is the absence of a belief, not a belief per se. It's you who have the burden of proof in that discussion, so hopefully you'd be explaining your belief to him. Otherwise talk about pizza?

The atheist might have a belief, as long as it doesn't involve god. He might be a humanist, or a communist, or something.

Or even if he's a complete nihilist you could have him explain to you how morality basically arises naturally from game theory and natural selection.

 

[quatona]

i am of the opinion that omnipotence and omniscience do not necessarily deny free will. that's kind of a theme in the matrix. i'm sure it's been discussed somewhere. i'm not gonna go into it. however, I think God does indeed show himself if we ask him, and that we do need some proof.

I don´t need "proof" for the existence of an entity. I just need ordinary evidence. After all, there´s no single person who complains about me denying their existence. I´m pretty easy to convince in that respect, and since gods are said to have an interest in me acknowledging their existence it should be no problem for them to see what I need.
As long as gods do not do that I can´t help concluding that they either don´t exist or aren´t interested in me believing in their existence. Everythng else wouldn´t make any sense or - even worse - point to gods that play silly games (and that´s not what gods are typically said to do).
"Freewill" is completely irrelevant for the question at hand (just like "freewill" is irrelevant for the question whether I acknowledge the existence of my girlfriend - unless you presuppose that I have an interest in denying the existence of god (or my girlfriend) despite knowing better - and, being an intellectually honest guy you wouldn´t make such assumptions about me, would you.

you've heard his next part a million times i'm sure,

Yes, indeed - and I´m sure you´ve heard all possible responses before.

 

[quatona]

if i come to an atheist and ask him to explain his belief to me

Which belief?

 

[Vigilante]

The atheist might have a belief, as long as it doesn't involve god. He might be a humanist, or a communist, or something.

I get the impression that the poster was referring to the theism/atheism dichotomy. If not, he didn't make his diversion very clear.

Which belief?

He agrees.

 

[Suggestion Box]

@Nathan45

I can't actually listen to those now, yesterday i stepped on my headphones and now i have no sound. LOL. Do you have a print version? i'd prefer that, anyway.

alas, i don't think they have print versions, they just record them. i did find a link where you can see brief summaries of many of them... but in order to get all of it you'll need sound.
www .vintage21. com/studies/


i gotta go now i'll try to get on later and discuss some of this other stuff, but i got a busy week ahead so it may be awhile.

 

[Suggestion Box]

ok new day.

quatona,
as far as whatever an atheist might believe, i mean i'm not implying that his 'belief' is atheism, but that hypothetical me is inquiring of some unmentioned belief that this person may have. the point of my example is to try to change the perspective on the whole 'convincing someone by thinking you can prove them wrong' idea.

forgive my apparent presumptuousness in the free will statement. i skipped a step in my logic. to me, it seems like, if humans somehow have free will (and that's a big if) that would be a hindrance to God's desire to just magically convince them. i think that maybe he has the ability to just magically convince us, but that seems controlling, and i don't think God would want to control us. why the heck not, you ask? well, if you were an omnipotent creator who made a bunch of stuff you could control (i.e. everything physical), and then one day decided you wanted to make something that you would let think for itself (i.e. the human mind), why would you then turn around and control that which you made specifically to have free will?

again, that's if we have free will.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[quatona]

ok new day.

quatona,
as far as whatever an atheist might believe, i mean i'm not implying that his 'belief' is atheism, but that hypothetical me is inquiring of some unmentioned belief that this person may have. the point of my example is to try to change the perspective on the whole 'convincing someone by thinking you can prove them wrong' idea.

Yes, metaphysical claims are by their very nature unfalsifiable (cannot be proven wrong) - I guess I will never understand why people regard that a pro. For me it´s one of their weakest spots. That´s one reason why I am an atheist and don´t make any such claims (and keep those metaphysical beliefs that I hold to myself).
So, yes, theists cannot be proven wrong. There are other non-theistic metaphysical beliefs that are unfalsifiable. And yes, if an atheist - beyond merely not believing in theistic claims - should happen to hold such non-theistic metaphysical beliefs, he cannot be proven wrong either.

Still not entirely sure why this is so important to you.

forgive my apparent presumptuousness in the free will statement. i skipped a step in my logic. to me, it seems like, if humans somehow have free will (and that's a big if) that would be a hindrance to God's desire to just magically convince them.

I did understand that this was your argument, and I meant to refute this very argument.
You are presuming people need to be "magically convinced". People just need to be ordinarily convinced, and it doesn´t take people a lot to be convinced of the existence of something they are simply being demonstrated to exist. Assuming that people need to be magically convinced and that their "freewill" (which I think is a nonsensical concept, btw.) needs to be somewhat bypassed or paralyzed in order to convince them, must be based on the assumption that people are unwilling to acknowledge that which they are meant to be convinced to exist.

i think that maybe he has the ability to just magically convince us, but that seems controlling, and i don't think God would want to control us.

Excuse me, but that´s nonsense. I don´t know a single person who doesn´t believe they have two legs, ten fingers, hair, thoughts, feelings, fellow humans etc. They needn´t be magically convinced and god needn´t control them in order to have them acknowledge the obvious.
Thus, the actual question is: What´s god´s point in not making himself obvious (and being obvious doesn´t equal control nor infringing on "freewill", else god would control us and violate our freewill all the time by making things obvious, anyways).

why the heck not, you ask?

No, I don´t. It´s more like I think your premises are flawed, to begin with.

well, if you were an omnipotent creator who made a bunch of stuff you could control (i.e. everything physical), and then one day decided you wanted to make something that you would let think for itself (i.e. the human mind), why would you then turn around and control that which you made specifically to have free will?

Again: Being obvious or making something obvious doesn´t equal control or violation of "freewill".
Alternatively, if your concepts "control" and "violation of freewill" include obviousness, god (if such exists) must be said to control us and violate our "freewill" all the time - with everything that´s obvious to us and the existence of which nobody would ever question.
Thus, this entire "freewill" and "control" stuff doesn´t answer the question why god plays hide and seek instead of making its existence obvious just like everything else.

again, that's if we have free will.

Well, as I said, "freewill" is a nonsensical concept, imo. But for arguments sake I assumed it wasn´t.

 

[Suggestion Box]

well i'm glad we agree that free will is a silly concept.

i feel like i'm arguing with a fencepost.

if the fencepost would like to quit arguing with people who have already admitted that they will never offer a convincing argument, and don't have free will, about imaginary beings, then let him.

betcha ten bucks ya can't stop thinking about God for the rest of your life.

MUAHAHA. *knocks over the proverbial checkers board of argumentation in the usual ignorant-Christian fashion* now NO ONE wins!

 

[quatona]

well i'm glad we agree that free will is a silly concept.

i feel like i'm arguing with a fencepost.

Talking about me?
Seeing that you haven´t even bothered to address my argument (obviousness isn´t control), I tend to think that your feelings mislead you.

if the fencepost would like to quit arguing with people who have already admitted that they will never offer a convincing argument,

Talking about yourself? I don´t recall you admitting that you will never offer a convincing argument. I only remember you admitting that you can´t prove your god concept accurate.
However, at this point we weren´t discussing the existence of your god - we were discussing a very distinct point.
If however it is true that you feel you can never offer a convincing argument for anything you say, I would agree that discussing with you is pointless.

betcha ten bucks ya can't stop thinking about God for the rest of your life.

Yes, there are thousands of gods in store that I can´t stop thinking about.
Anyways, the discussion so far has proven your assertion "atheists presuppose the non-existence of gods" wrong. The existence of a god or gods was the hypothetical premise all the time.

Cheers!