The Atheist could be wrong for many good reasons

[Anguspure]

Top kek

You're projecting your own presupposition.

How so?

 

[Skavau]

How so?

You look at the world and assume absurdity without God and then simply assume that atheists must think the same way.

 

[Anguspure]

Atheism is not a truth claim.

LOL I agree with you. The position of the atheist is decidedly not true. Theism is on the other hand a truth claim and the Theist claims that it is true that God exists. If, in your estimation, an atheist does not make a truth claim, theism is uncontested.

I make no such assertion. I only look for accurate descriptions of reality.

An accurate description of reality would express truth about reality. As "Atheism is not a truth claim" it can not be part of an accurate description of reality.

How does "God did it" explain anything?

The explanatory power of a space-less, timeless, all powerful, knowledgeable person in respect of the universe, life and everything is almost too obvious. Just as the explanatory power of Henry Ford in the creation of the model T-Ford is much more obvious than trying to explain its existence in terms of metallurgy, chemistry and physics. The sciences are very important for revealing the works of the creator and how we might follow in His foot steps but do nothing to take away from the fact that Godunnit.

Why are these things that are so obviously in support of belief only obvious to those that already believe?

I can only think that the state of ones heart and the assumption we make on that basis plays a strong role in ones ordering of the evidence.

Bizarre question. "If you were presented with convincing evidence for something, would you be convinced?"

I think you might misunderstand my point here, its not really all that bizarre when you consider that men like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins expect that they will be in a position to tell God how He should have done things if they ever meet Him. The arrogance of this sort of thinking makes me wonder whether they would find some reason to maintain that the Creator is not divine at all but quiet mundane.

And if God was a bit like Slarty Bartfast when we meet Him, would that make Him any less divine?

Perhaps ironically this very claim to creative divinity was made by Jesus of Nazareth who, it is recorded, was for the most of His life a pretty mundane sort of a character and was rejected by most for the same reason.

Furthermore the ability of people to continue to believe in the face of contrary evidence because they do not want to believe something else is a human failing that is well identified by and in everyone from scientists to the religious, it would not surprise me if some people would take this to the point of meeting their creator in person.

How so?

Atheism affirms (makes a truth claim) that creative intelligence does not form a part of the origin of universe and all that is within it, which is after all the central claim of Theism. Therefore Atheism denies creative intelligence.

 

[Anguspure]

You look at the world and assume absurdity without God and then simply assume that atheists must think the same way.

How does an Atheist think?
Thinking by my estimation involves creative intelligence.
If atheism is true then one thing that is also true is that we are not thinking at all. We are merely dancing to our DNA so to speak, a puppet on some chemical string.
I have often wondered why an Atheist who believes this stuff would even bother to make an attempt to alter the thought processes of another when their so called thoughts are simply an expression of environmental conditioning and chemical evolution.
I wouldn't after all try and convince a fire to "think" anything differently from what it does.

 

[Locutus]

I just don't like when people doubt God. He is not that hard to find. His creation alone speaks volumes

Do you doubt any of the other gods? If so, why doesn't your own doubt upset you?

 

[Locutus]

Christ unchained you from the Law by being beaten and crucified as the perfect Lamb of God.
What more extraordinary, mighty God could you ask for?

This is what I don't get about atheists.

.

A guy voluntarily agreed to be 'dead' for three days (and was a scapegoat at that), and you don't get why we dismiss it? There is nothing remotely extraordinary about that. Mere humans have actually died - as in, permanently - for similar and better reasons. And plenty of prophets and assorted holy men have done it, too - without getting a reprieve after three days. Allowing yourself to be killed for the sake of others, knowing it would be permanent, is considerably more extraordinary.

 

[Locutus]

Well as I have said before , atheists say there is no God ,not that they hav'nt arrived yet , that they have doubts , that they are seeking . There is no God they say . This is a very ignorant position , as all it means ,is that for some reason they have been denied access .

May I ask, you do ever say 'there are no other gods'? I'm guessing you do. Consider - the infinite number of potential gods makes belief in only one, the practical equivalent of non-belief - which you claim is ignorant. How do you resolve your own 'ignorance' in this regards?

 

[Locutus]

Since you are sure that Christians are wrong why do you need us so much ,we can't
get rid of you parasites on our forums

Charming

Meanwhile .... I'm wondering if you're at all aware that we're here to stay (in the world .... and on the interwebs). Soon it will be as difficult to avoid us, as it has been for us to avoid religion these past 1700 years. If you're not at least partially aware of this, that tells us we need to keep posting!

 

[Locutus]

You are probably correct ,that you are unteachable . Unlike some christians I have studied very widely ,but I would not cast my pearls before swine .

I wish I had a dollar (or seven) for every Christian who has encouraged me to examine their 'pearls', then turned on me when I did.

 

[Locutus]

I can only think that the state of ones heart and the assumption we make on that basis plays a strong role in ones ordering of the evidence.

Furthermore the ability of people to continue to believe in the face of contrary evidence because they do not want to believe something else is a human failing that is well identified by and in everyone from scientists to the religious, it would not surprise me if some people would take this to the point of meeting their creator in person.
.

1) what exactly do you mean by 'state of ones heart'? the heart is a blood pump - what role does it play in gatekeeping god belief, and how? and when you say 'ordering of the evidence', are you suggesting that if you're disposed to believe, then you'll believe?

2) how do you think the average Christian would respond to Jesus, if he were to return tomorrow? Keeping in mind he'd be a regular guy, claiming to be the son of a god.

 

[Davian]

LOL I agree with you. The position of the atheist is decidedly not true.

That would be misrepresenting what I said.

Theism is on the other hand a truth claim and the Theist claims that it is true that God exists.

But for all practical purposes, we can define theism as "believes in things imaginary". It's not like there is any direct evidence for the existence of gods, ghosts, afterlife, souls, spirits, devils or the like, is there?

If, in your estimation, an atheist does not make a truth claim, theism is uncontested.

Not at all. If you were here claiming to have discovered a workable cold fusion concept, I need not take the contrary position to critically examine your claims.

I do not have to prove that the forests of western Canada are incapable of hiding a genetically stable population of large primates for me to critically examine your claimed Bigfoot encounter.

An accurate description of reality would express truth about reality.

It could, but conceptually, the big difference is that it would always be subject to review, testing, change, and falsification with the introduction of additional evidence.

As "Atheism is not a truth claim" it can not be part of an accurate description of reality.

Sure. Atheism only speaks to what I am not. I am not a theist (see above).

The explanatory power of a space-less, timeless, all powerful, knowledgeable person in respect of the universe, life and everything is almost too obvious.

How do you get to "almost"? The first two only tell me what it isn't.

All-powerful only begs additional questions. Why does it need to be powerful? Is it subject to entropy? Where does the power come from? Will it run out?

Knowledgeable? How do you get there, without working backwards from the conclusion you are starting from?

Person? Define what you mean by "person". The only "persons" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms that depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "person" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "person").

Just as the explanatory power of Henry Ford in the creation of the model T-Ford is much more obvious than trying to explain its existence in terms of metallurgy, chemistry and physics. The sciences are very important for revealing the works of the creator and how we might follow in His foot steps but do nothing to take away from the fact

..not a fact..

that Godunnit.

The sciences reveal the works a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Are we talking about the same "God"?

I can only think that the state of ones heart and the assumption we make on that basis plays a strong role in ones ordering of the evidence.

That sounds like an approach that is wide open to error. Have you considered a methodology that would reduce bias and error?

I think you might misunderstand my point here, its not really all that bizarre when you consider that men like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins expect that they will be in a position to tell God how He should have done things if they ever meet Him. The arrogance of this sort of thinking makes me wonder whether they would find some reason to maintain that the Creator is not divine at all but quiet mundane.

You seem to use the word 'divine' here as 'morally beyond reproach". They obvious do not use the word as you have tried to define it.

And if God was a bit like Slarty Bartfast when we meet Him, would that make Him any less divine?

Slartibartfast was a planet designer, more of a technician. That he worked on a larger scale than we would typically imagine, I do not see that Adams portrayed the character as 'god-like'.

Perhaps ironically this very claim to creative divinity was made by Jesus of Nazareth who, it is recorded, was for the most of His life a pretty mundane sort of a character and was rejected by most for the same reason.

Furthermore the ability of people to continue to believe in the face of contrary evidence

What is this "contrary evidence"that you allude to?

because they do not want to believe

Belief is not a conscious choice. Even if I wanted to, there is no virtual switch in my brain that I can flip and say, "today, I will believe in gods".

something else is a human failing that is well identified by and in everyone from scientists

Not according to the modern philosophy of mind. Belief is not a conscious choice.

"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"

From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger

to the religious, it would not surprise me if some people would take this to the point of meeting their creator in person.

Of course the religious need to believe that belief is a conscious choice. To admit otherwise would be to concede that their theologies are morally bankrupt, that people are condemned for reasons beyond their control.

Atheism affirms (makes a truth claim) that creative intelligence does not form a part of the origin of universe and all that is within it,

Or, it is simply the position of "I am not convinced".

which is after all the central claim of Theism.

Theists, as in those that believe in things imaginary. I'm glad I 'm not a theist.

Therefore Atheism denies creative intelligence.

Therefore theists only imagine it.

 

[Davian]

How does an Atheist think?

Best to turn your mind-reading hat up to "11".

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Thinking by my estimation involves creative intelligence.

I dunno. It seem that the same on canards are dragged through these forums on a regular basis.

If atheism is true

"I am not convinced" is not a truth claim.

then one thing that is also true is that we are not thinking at all. We are merely dancing to our DNA so to speak, a puppet on some chemical string.
I have often wondered why an Atheist who believes this stuff would even bother to make an attempt to alter the thought processes of another when their so called thoughts are simply an expression of environmental conditioning and chemical evolution.
I wouldn't after all try and convince a fire to "think" anything differently from what it does.

Atheism is not incompatible with all forms of free will.

But then, perhaps you just want to continue telling me how I think.

 

[quatona]

How does an Atheist think?

As to the "how" - just like everybody else.
As to the "what" - apart from not believing in Gods atheists can think pretty much everything everybody else does.

Thinking by my estimation involves creative intelligence.

Ok.

If atheism is true then one thing that is also true is that we are not thinking at all.

Doesn´t follow.

We are merely dancing to our DNA so to speak, a puppet on some chemical string.

Well, this is not a tenet of atheism.

I have often wondered why an Atheist who believes this stuff would even bother to make an attempt to alter the thought processes of another when their so called thoughts are simply an expression of environmental conditioning and chemical evolution.

These aren´t tenets of atheism, to begin with.
But even if we assume determinism, the answer is simple: These are attempts at altering the environmental conditioning.

I wouldn't after all try and convince a fire to "think" anything differently from what it does.

That´s probably because a fire doesn´t think, in the first place.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The explanatory power of a space-less, timeless, all powerful, knowledgeable person in respect of the universe, life and everything is almost too obvious. Just as the explanatory power of Henry Ford in the creation of the model T-Ford is much more obvious than trying to explain its existence in terms of metallurgy, chemistry and physics. The sciences are very important for revealing the works of the creator and how we might follow in His foot steps but do nothing to take away from the fact that Godidit.

Ok....how did god create the universe?

Since, to you, god's explanatory power is "almost too obvious" ...answering this question should be a slam-dunk for you. Please go into as much detail as possible...no one sentence answers like "He used magic." Answers like that have an explanatory power that's almost too obvious lol... in other words, none.

 

[quatona]

I like the idea of "being wrong for a good reason" better than being right for a poor reason.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If atheism is true then one thing that is also true is that we are not thinking at all. We are merely dancing to our DNA so to speak, a puppet on some chemical string.

Atheism takes no position on that. I'm an emergentist who doesn't think that we are just "puppets on chemical strings". DNA leads to the capacity for thought, but doesn't determine the outcome of thought. I see human mental function as involving the possibility for agency, even if we are at a deep level of analysis "chemical" entities.

And I don't see how having a soul solves that challenge except by special pleading. Do we dance to our soul-stuff, a puppet on some spiritual string?

I have often wondered why an Atheist who believes this stuff would even bother to make an attempt to alter the thought processes of another when their so called thoughts are simply an expression of environmental conditioning and chemical evolution.

I have often wondered that too. Atheists don't all share the same views. *shrug*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are right; the Dolphins don't need a whole lot of technology and war to tell them that the creator exists. BTW Deep thought got it wrong as well. An abstract does not stand in causal relationship to anything.

I was referring to the "fairies at the bottom of the garden" quote.

What have the claims of religion got to do with anything? I am discussing whether the atheist is correct or not in denying the existence of Theos.
Nevertheless two arguments from increased knowledge that provide evidence for the existence of the Creator are the Cosmic fine tuning argument (that the fine tuning of the universe for the presence of life might be accounted for by chance, necessity or design; that chance and necessity are discounted thus design is the explanation remaining), and the argument from biological information (that because the only known source of specific and complex information in the universe is intelligence; that the presence of information in biological forms may be best explained by reference to a designer). At pretty much every point where these things have been studied in recent times a further confirmation of the premise of the arguments has been revealed.

Bad arguments. Look up the threads in which they have already been discussed.

Come to think of it, the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument (that the universe had a beginning) was also confirmed in 2004.

It depends on what that premise is taken to mean.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all theistic and thus all agree on the subject.

They don't all agree on the subject. If they did, they would be the same single religion, not three seperate religions.

The problem is that if Atheism is true, all arguments for anything fail. That the consistent assertion of atheism undermines any form of reason. For an atheist to assert that anything can be known in truth he must make reference to appealing to realities that only theism can explain.

I have yet to see theism explain any realities.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are probably correct ,that you are unteachable . Unlike some christians I have studied very widely ,but I would not cast my pearls before swine .

And yet here you are, wasting our time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does an Atheist think?
Thinking by my estimation involves creative intelligence.
If atheism is true then one thing that is also true is that we are not thinking at all. We are merely dancing to our DNA so to speak, a puppet on some chemical string.
I have often wondered why an Atheist who believes this stuff would even bother to make an attempt to alter the thought processes of another when their so called thoughts are simply an expression of environmental conditioning and chemical evolution.
I wouldn't after all try and convince a fire to "think" anything differently from what it does.

Since when does atheism entail denying that intelligence exists? I don't mean to offend, but it seems as though you are very new to all this.

 

[newhopeinHim]

Do you doubt any of the other gods? If so, why doesn't your own doubt upset you?

I'm not worried about other gods... only concerned with the ONE TRUE GOD