True atheists?

[BrianOnEarth]

One doesn't have to strictly limit oneself to empirical knowledge to not believe in any particular God.

Interesting. I observe that the atheist's argument against believing in a god is that it is not supported by empirical evidence. So it follows that anything that is not supported by evidence should also not be believed in. Otherwise, the atheist would be choosing a la carte what ideas to demand evidence for. I haven't come across any atheists who would admit to this.

Every theist I have ever met disbelieves in certain ideas about God and claims of God's but they don't favor strict empiricism.

They just have to believe that the claims for such a God are unfounded.

I think all people who process claims consistently will lack a belief in any particular God.

Yes.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

How can you assume that something can only exist if it can be tested for using a methodology that limits its dealings to just natural phenomena??

I don't. Things might exist I can't test for. And methodological naturalism tests for testable things, not natural things.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I got that. But his claim that 6/7th atheists are committed to pure materialism is unsupported.

Explain to me how an atheist can refuse to believe in god or gods on the basis that there is insufficient evidence and at the same time choose to believe in other ideas for which there is insufficient evidence? Without being hypocritical.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am arguing that atheism, as is being discussed in this thread, has a committed position, or belief. That position is that good evidence is required before a commitment should be made to any idea.

That does not answer the question what God/~God has got to do with ideas about empirical knowledge. At best you are re-affirming that there is some sort of conncetion, but I wouldn't know which this is. I don't see why, if there were a God, we could not use empirical methods (in want of a better term), or vice versa, why if there is no God, empirical methods (still searching) should be all.

 

[Jig]

You can believe in anything you want. But without methodological naturalism, how can you expect to prove it to anyone? You might have an invisible friend living in your closet who can only communicate to only you telepathically but can't interact with the natural world in anyway that we can detect.

Thanks for proving my point about the limited nature of methodological naturalism.

He might be 100% real, but what reason would we have to believe?

Revelation.

 

[variant]

You can believe in anything you want. But without methodological naturalism, how can you expect to prove it to anyone? You might have an invisible friend living in your closet who can only communicate to only you telepathically but can't interact with the natural world in anyway that we can detect. He might be 100% real, but what reason would we have to believe?

There is certainly a difference between convincing the credulous and proving to the skeptical.

The first is enough for religion because there are enough people who want to believe it.

 

[Jig]

Things might exist I can't test for.

Exactly.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Thanks for proving my point about the limited nature of methodological naturalism.



Revelation.

Revelation. Meaning he talks to you in your mind. Now prove that he's real and not just a figment of your own imagination.

 

[variant]

Interesting. I observe that the atheist's argument against believing in a god is that it is not supported by empirical evidence. So it follows that anything that is not supported by evidence should also not be believed in. Otherwise, the atheist would be choosing a la carte what ideas to demand evidence for. I haven't come across any atheists who would admit to this.

One argument for atheism does that.

I am suggesting that all consistent claim processing leads to atheism.

And to answer your other line of thought, being consistent is a virtue in thought as it mirrors the universe, leading more often to the correct conclusions.

 

[quatona]

Check this out:

Theism - lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

So you are a theistic agnostic?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

You are essentially arguing for the truth of your position by arguing that truth doesn't matter.

Empirical truth does not matter except in so far as it matters to a person.

No one here is going to argue that lies aren't sometimes useful, but whether we should believe them is an entirely different thing all together.

Lies are worthless unless you believe them, right?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Metaphors are immensely widespread throughout language. Their usage does not give you the right though to read whatever you wish into a text.

And? You have the liberty to claim that they believed there were four ninety-degree angle corners of a flat earth, and I have the liberty to explain how it is a metaphor/idiom, especially considering that at the very least a 'roundness' of the earth is acknowledged within the texts.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

There is certainly a difference between convincing the credulous and proving to the skeptical.

The first is enough for religion because there are enough people who want to believe it.

Quick note, it's really hard to read your posts without picturing the word coming from the happy cat in your avatar.

But you're right of course. People who know me, my mom for example, would be quick to believe me if I said I heard voices and believed them to be real. She'd probably say they were demons. But almost anyone else would think I'm crazy.

 

[Jig]

Revelation. Meaning he talks to you in your mind. Now prove that he's real and not just a figment of your own imagination.

You got many different types of revelation. Such as special and general revelation. General revelation includes philosophy and reasoning. Special revelation are things such as the Bible.

 

[Greg1234]

You're right. You don't have to show me anything. But if you want me to believe your positive claim that God exists and that the Bible is his word, you will have to show me some proof before I'll believe it. I on the other hand am not making any claim.

Whether or not you can see the man is no skin off my back chief.

The burden of proof is on you. Again, you don't HAVE to produce evidence, and that'd be fine. I'll just be on my way and continue not believing something that I don't have any reason to believe.

You'll be on your way believing the bible is not credible, believing the man can be assembled through chance, believing.

I do. Probably more than most people. You see my wife is getting her phd in anthropology so I understand myths and legends and why they came about quite well.

Good. The poetic Eddas references Giants and Heroes. This is not one of the more difficult to dissect.

Ok! Awesome! Now we're on the right track. Now you're talking ABOUT evidence. Now, present it. What other credible sources corroborate the bible?

Man was created as man. This is as far as we get.

No.

Yep.

But of a god exists and he interacts with creation, we should at least see the effects of that in the form of events that can't be explained in natural terms.

With the understanding of what God is the "interaction" is fulfilled. The greatest supernatural event is still the man on earth. If you want to see how interrelated the supernatural and the natural are,interact with a man.

Mankind has a natural origin that is very well understood.

There you go.

Because your'e not making sense. You're becoming a victim of all these convoluted metaphors. Speak plainly.

This should help a little.

Yep. As I said before, i DO have a positive statement of belief about the Bible and the particular God described within. I positively believe none of it is true.

Good that we've established that. So far we have the belief that they are not credible, more likely to be written by desert nomads (indicative of sub state), the belief that it is not true.

And in fact, I think Cthulhu might be real although I doubt he's actually a god. It's more likely that he is just a hugely powerful cosmic creature that has come to earth to revel in madness and suffering

Replacing the man with Cthulhu is not applicable either. This had to have originated from an atheist.

The God described in the Quran, the gods described in the Eddas, etc. You know what I mean.

Ok.

What are you talking about? I never concluded that radio waves don't exist.

Can't say I didn't see that coming.

 

[variant]

Empirical truth does not matter except in so far as it matters to a person.

Truth often matters to people regardless of weather they wish to believe it.

Lies are worthless unless you believe them, right?

Lies are worthless unless someone believes them.

Your argument is that utility is more important than truth, but that gives us no bearing on what we should believe, because the utility of a lie depends on the perspective and situation.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

You got many different types of revelation. Such as special and general revelation. General revelation includes philosophy and reasoning. Special revelation are things such as the Bible.

But the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible falls under things that need to be proven too. Just like you COULD be lying or crazy when you tell me about the voice in your head, the authors of the Bible COULD be telling the truth or they could be lying/crazy. The only way to determine for sure is methodological naturalism, limited as it is. But if claims in the Bible contradict well known historical fact, then it's credibility is suspect.

On the subject of reason, there's no reason to believe that our reasoning abilities have a divine origin. They come about from observation, or, methodological naturalism.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Interesting. I observe that the atheist's argument against believing in a god is that it is not supported by empirical evidence. So it follows that anything that is not supported by evidence should also not be believed in. Otherwise, the atheist would be choosing a la carte what ideas to demand evidence for. I haven't come across any atheists who would admit to this.


Yes.

Only if you assume that the atheists sole argument against gods lies in their lack of evidence.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

That does not answer the question what God/~God has got to do with ideas about empirical knowledge. At best you are re-affirming that there is some sort of conncetion, but I wouldn't know which this is. I don't see why, if there were a God, we could not use empirical methods (in want of a better term), or vice versa, why if there is no God, empirical methods (still searching) should be all.

I am not sure I am following you, sorry. I think empirical knowledge is independent of belief or non-belief in god. It should be as independent of individual opinions as possible.

 

[Jig]

Ockham was one of yours. Ask him. Practically speaking, I cannot decide what assertions to accept and adjudicate between without evidence. Why bother?

What objective evidence do you have to prove that the purpose of life is to end suffering? Why bother, right?