True atheists?

[Greg1234]

Interesting. I observe that the atheist's argument against believing in a god is that it is not supported by empirical evidence.

The atheist believes that the bible writers are unreliable without empirical evidence.

They believe that life can be assembled through stochastic processes without empirical evidence, and lo and behold, that life cannot be assembled through chance is an everyday, empirical fact.

It was never about empirical evidence. Just the will for materialism.

 

[Normski]

Christians believe in their god, but disbelieve in the gods of other religions - denying any proof of existence (and a lack of belief).

By then stating that athiests are wrong to deny christianity on the basis of lack of evidence (and a lack of belief), are they not being rather hyprocritical?



"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

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.

Now all you have to do is show that they are, in fact, revelations. Merely claiming that status for them is insufficiently convincing.

 

[Jig]

Christians believe in their god, but disbelieve in the gods of other religions - denying any proof of existence (and a lack of belief).

I have a belief on other gods. I believe they don't exist.

[/quote]

 

[variant]

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

Entirely intentional. I wouldn't want to be taken too seriously when I am trying to encourage critical thinking and skepticism.

MEOW!

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.

Indeed.

It is not religion that is the atheists opponent but rather but thoughtless credulity.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And? You have the liberty

What you do with the text, is your problem not mine. I live in a world, where it is not enough to say "It is a metaphor" to make problems, or better "problems," go away. Most likely meaning counts a lot.

to claim that they believed there were four ninety-degree angle corners of a flat earth,

You might be confusing me with somebody else.

 

[variant]

Christians believe in their god, but disbelieve in the gods of other religions - denying any proof of existence (and a lack of belief).

By then stating that athiests are wrong to deny christianity on the basis of lack of evidence (and a lack of belief), are they not being rather hyprocritical?

Indeed. Consistent claim treatment always leads to atheism.

At least in my experience.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Christians believe in their god, but disbelieve in the gods of other religions - denying any proof of existence (and a lack of belief).

By then stating that athiests are wrong to deny christianity on the basis of lack of evidence (and a lack of belief), are they not being rather hyprocritical?



"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus)

rem acu tetigisti

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

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.

Close. It's a lack of evidence combined with an abundance of evidence for an alternative. The God of the gaps is shrinking. Meaning things that used to be explained with "goddidit" now have natural explanations. Rainbows are not divine. Disease is not cause by demons but by germs. The earth is not 6,000 years old. Humans are apes and share a common ancestor with other apes etc. Now, none of that is proof that God doesn't exist, it's just that many of the things that used to be unexplainable and therefore divine are now well understood. It's better to assume a natural explanation for everything that we don't understand because if we just say "Goddidit" and leave it at, we'll never learn anything new.

 

[Greg1234]

Christians believe in their god, but disbelieve in the gods of other religions - denying any proof of existence (and a lack of belief).

There is only one force, and its manifestation throughout. Theism already accommodates that basic substrate, or God.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I have a belief on other gods. I believe they don't exist.

[/QUOTE]

In other words, you're a strong atheist; a position you claim is irrational.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I have a belief on other gods. I believe they don't exist.

[/QUOTE]

Well then you're a 99.99% strong atheist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Then we agree on this.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

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

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.

I agree. However, I think it may open ones eyes to doing a proper scientific study of the utility of beliefs rather than assuming a particular position is superior and hurling abuse at the other party. I am critical of Dawkins for not taking a scientific approach to this.

I can find pages and pages of testimonies by Christians of the utility they get from their beliefs. And Christians love to share this with one another and with non-Christians, presumably as an act of generosity, although some atheists interpret this as a threat. I have found it much harder to find atheists providing utility arguments about atheism to anyone. The usual line is "science says your belief is false so throw away its utility", but this is a rather feeble sales pitch. And I am not at all convinced that eliminating religion would eliminate acts of terrorism.

 

[Greg1234]

Close. It's a lack of evidence combined with an abundance of evidence for an alternative. The God of the gaps is shrinking. Meaning things that used to be explained with "goddidit" now have natural explanations. Rainbows are not divine. Disease is not cause by demons but by germs. The earth is not 6,000 years old. Humans are apes and share a common ancestor with other apes etc. Now, none of that is proof that God doesn't exist, it's just that many of the things that used to be unexplainable and therefore divine are now well understood. It's better to assume a natural explanation for everything that we don't understand because if we just say "Goddidit" and leave it at, we'll never learn anything new.

There's another belief. This one is fundamental. You come into an argument where life cannot be assembled through chance and we have an explanation for life( God), and your argument is men used to... So one day we will find a naturalistic explanation Seriously? Thats not even a scientific conjecture. While the fact that the man cannot be assembled through chance is clearly observed. We are the ones who actually deal with science.

Oh and No it isnt. Shuffling through the annals of history and finding "dirty cops", is not an explanation for how the police force started. Or that one day we will discover that police are actually drug smugglers because policemen before used their authority to smuggle narcotics. You could choose to remain there, and present it as evidence for your "one day we will" assertion or go to the origin.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I agree. However, I think it may open ones eyes to doing a proper scientific study of the utility of beliefs rather than assuming a particular position is superior and hurling abuse at the other party. I am critical of Dawkins for not taking a scientific approach to this.

I can find pages and pages of testimonies by Christians of the utility they get from their beliefs. And Christians love to share this with one another and with non-Christians, presumably as an act of generosity, although some atheists interpret this as a threat. I have found it much harder to find atheists providing utility arguments about atheism to anyone. The usual line is "science says your belief is false so throw away its utility", but this is a rather feeble sales pitch. And I am not at all convinced that eliminating religion would eliminate acts of terrorism.

Personally, I'm much happier now after my "de-conversion". That's the utility side. I don't promote non-belief to people in real life because I know some people are happier believing in God. Now, if they try to "re-convert" me, I'll speak my mind. But most people don't even know that I'm an atheist because I keep it to myself. It's a non-issue.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have a belief on other gods. I believe they don't exist.

In other words, you're a strong atheist; a position you claim is irrational.

That is not true. Strong atheism is not belief, i.e. there is no wiggling room at all. The charge ought to be: Belief => not sure => agnostic. Or some such.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

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

What other reason would they have other than prejudice?
I guess I should include counter evidence as well as lack of evidence, for completeness.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The atheist believes that the bible writers are unreliable without empirical evidence.

We have excellent evidence that the authors made many false, inaccurate, or misleading statements.

They believe that life can be assembled through stochastic processes without empirical evidence, and lo and behold, that life cannot be assembled through chance is an everyday, empirical fact.

False. Your ignorance is not evidence.

[quoteIt was never about empirical evidence. Just the will for materialism.

Nope. No matter how many times you claim this of atheists, it's not true.

 

[Greg1234]

We have excellent evidence that the authors made many false, inaccurate, or misleading statements.

I'm not asking about your ability to analyze text though or apply evidence. Just indicating that your assertion that they embodied incompetence is your belief.

False. Your ignorance is not evidence.

By ignorance you are probably referencing Darwinism. If you are then move along. Don't bother.