True atheists?

[ivebeenshown]

I have a belief in radio waves BECAUSE of the voice in the radio among other things. The voice in the radio constitutes proof of radio waves. But no one has ever produced sufficient proof of unicorns, chupacabras, superman, or gods for me to believe in them. And no, the Bible's statement that the world is proof of God doesn't count because the Bible is not credible as the infallible word of God until someone proves that God exists.

Instead of seeing it like 'the God of the bible' or 'the God of Hindus' or 'the God of the Quran' or 'the God of necronomicon' and whatever else you should consider what God is in the first place. God is the I AM, YHWH... do you know what YHWH means? It means 'was, is, and is to come.' It means infinite, boundless, no limits, no restrictions, nothing is greater than it. So if you can at least understand that such a being is, and that there is a YHWH, regardless of whether or not you accept the Quran or the bible take on it, you have something to start with.

Hindus call it Brahman, Muslims call it Allah, Christians and Jews call it YHWH, and honestly that's most of what I know about other cultures' names for it.

Especially considering the fact that the Bible describes the world as a flat disc with edges, set upon pillars, with a sky like a hard mirror of cast bronze. That seems like something that an infallible text wouldn't get wrong. It seems more like it was written by bronze age desert nomads than someone who had special divine access to God.

The bible does not say 'the earth is flat' anywhere in it. 'Corners/ends of the earth' is a metaphor for N/E/S/W, 'disc' is closer to what is said (though the word used is translated 'circle', not disc, and that same Hebrew word is interchangeable with 'sphere') the 'pillars' are also a metaphor (in Job it says darkness is the 'swaddling band' of the earth, as in, space/vacuum) and I don't believe I have seen the verse about the sky being like a hard mirror. But it sounds like it would be a metaphor also.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The belief that 86%-atheists do have is a commitment to the idea that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge that should be committed to.

What has God/~God to do with ideas about empirical knowledge?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Do you have actual source for that 86% number? And it's not a belief in the theistic sense. It's a recognition of pragmatic utility. We have no good reason to believe in immaterial entities. So we don't bother do.

The God Delusion: 6 divided by 7.

I argue that taking the position that committing strictly to empirical knowledge is the best way for humans to think is a belief.

This case has to be made. You may claim that it optimises utility for individuals and societies but you have to demonstrate that. You should not just assume it does in general because it sometimes does. Just because it suits reliable transportation to employ scientific knowledge in the design of aircraft does not imply that employing scientific knowledge in all human matters is suitable.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What good reason is there? How is it possible to prove only the natural realm exists? Methodological Naturalism is self-limiting. It cannot and does not account for the supernatural and therefore cannot and does not determine if the supernatural realm exists or not. You must be basing this assumption on philosophical grounds.

Not really. We note that if the supernatural can be tested, then it's not supernatural. If it can't, it's meaningless. In fact we have no reason to accept that anything exists beyond our ability to test it.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I don't think you read my post correctly. I said I "lack a belief" in the NON-existence of God.

You are just using double negatives to be perverse.

 

[variant]

I argue that taking the position that committing strictly to empirical knowledge is the best way for humans to think is a belief.

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

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.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

'Corners of the earth' is a metaphor ... the 'pillars' are also a metaphor ... But it sounds like it would be a metaphor also.

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

 

[Greg1234]

so this is just a game to you?

And here comes the "TE" to defend the materialist. Hi

 

[Jig]

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

"Four corners of the Earth" is actually an idiom.

It's best translated to mean "everywhere on Earth". And my opinion has nothing to do with this translation.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

You believe that it is illegitimate. I don't have to show you anything except that studied and derived accordingly. See then, the man. Thats what you are "shown".
Thats nice. Reading text and understanding it are two different things. Romans 1:20 is clear enough.

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. 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.

Understand the Eddas.

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.

What has been given in the bible spans through multiple sources. That represented in text are studied and interpreted accordingly.

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?

Well you see, thats the conundrum. Texts like the bible show that God is invisible made known through that which is created.

Convenient. Please continue.

The atheist says that God should be visible, and man is not evidence for God (invisible).

No. 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. Mankind has a natural origin that is very well understood.

By George...
You again attempt to replace the voice on the radio (man) with unicorns (chupacabras). You dont seem to get it.

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

First of all, calm down.

Haha ok. There were no exclamation points or CAPITAL LETTERS to make you think I'm anything other than relaxed, but ok. I'll calm down

I'm actually sitting on my couch, listening to fever ray, and eating a snickerdoodle. Nothing more relaxing than that on a beautiful sunday afternoon.

Secondly I am aware of your beliefs regarding the bible. The belief that its "not credible", its unreliable, its goat herding on paper etc. I do not adhere to them. See the above? That was a statement of belief. You have exemplified the fact of this thread.

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. But that doesn't mean that I have a positive belief about all possible gods. 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

What is a "God of the Quran"? Understand what God is, then grasp texts like the Edda, the Quran, or the bible. Youre just reciting atheist doctrine now.

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

You have positive beliefs regarding the voice on the radio. The concluding belief is that radio waves don't exist. Before you get to the radio waves, you skip over radar, you dodge voices on the radio and squirm under voices on the cell phone. Then you say you have a lack of beliefs in radio waves. Before you continue, look behind you, and see what you've just circumvented.

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The God Delusion: 6 divided by 7.

I argue that taking the position that committing strictly to empirical knowledge is the best way for humans to think is a belief.

This case has to be made. You may claim that it optimises utility for individuals and societies but you have to demonstrate that. You should not just assume it does in general because it sometimes does. Just because it suits reliable transportation to employ scientific knowledge in the design of aircraft does not imply that employing scientific knowledge in all human matters is suitable.

I think you're arguing a point that noone is making. You're arguing that we should examine whether society is better served by holding false beliefs. Feel free to make that case, but to claim that 6/7 of atheists are committed to pure empiricism is unfounded. That's what I'm looking for.

 

[Jig]

Not really. We note that if the supernatural can be tested, then it's not supernatural. If it can't, it's meaningless. In fact we have no reason to accept that anything exists beyond our ability to test it.

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??

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Four corners of the Earth" is actually an idiom.

Here is your guy:

'Corners/ends of the earth' is a metaphor

But that aside, metaphor and idiom are hardly exclusive.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

but to claim that 6/7 of atheists are committed to pure empiricism is unfounded.

He is not talking about 86% of atheists. He is talking about people who score 6 out of 7 on scale that is apparantly used in Dawkins' book: 86%-atheist. Watch the hyphen.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

What has God/~God to do with ideas about empirical knowledge?

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.

Theism has a committed position. That position is that God exists/loves them/is active in their lives/etc. And that this commitment does not require good evidence.

What is the evidence for the relative utility of these two belief systems?

Dawkins' simplistic mantra that "truth matters" needs to be validated. Because what matters in this context is judged by humans. The universe does not make a judgement - it does not matter to the universe what we believe or don't believe. Any truth is only important in so far as it is important to people. So before we criticise one position or the other we had better do our homework and properly evaluate the consequences.

 

[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??

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

He is not talking about 86% of atheists. He is talking about people who score 6 out of 7 on scale that is apparantly used in Dawkins' book: 86%-atheist. Watch the hyphen.

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

 

[variant]

Dawkins' simplistic mantra that "truth matters" needs to be validated. Because what matters in this context is judged by humans. The universe does not make a judgement - it does not matter to the universe what we believe or don't believe. Any truth is only important in so far as it is important to people. So before we criticise one position or the other we had better do our homework and properly evaluate the consequences.

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

Think about it.

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.

 

[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?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

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??

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?