Where is the hope in atheism?

[apogee]

It really isn't.
"a god exists!" = claim of theism
"i don't believe you" = response to the claim of theism.

This is strong theism, I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)

I think God exists, its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with logic, if you want to have that argument, I'm sure logic will indulge you.

 

[gaara4158]

This is strong theism, I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)

I think God exists, its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with logic, if you want to have that argument, I'm sure logic will indulge you.

Well that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it? Couldn’t his argument be against your errant use of logic?

 

[apogee]

Well that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it? Couldn’t his argument be against your errant use of logic?

If he can find any, then by all means, he's completely free to do so. I will check back later, meanwhile I have a 15 month old demanding my attention, that I can't just tell to grow up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is strong theism

It is not.
Strong atheism, is the claim that god does NOT exist.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand the difference between
"I don't accept claim X as true"
and
"I claim that X is false".

I don't think I personally know any theists that are this strong, although I've met a few of Dawkins equivalents (yes I know what number he scores himself)

Then you should also know that Dawkins is also an agnostic atheist.

I think God exists, its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.

Good for you. Completely irrelevant to the point at hand, but good for you nonetheless. I guess.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with logic, if you want to have that argument, I'm sure logic will indulge you.

My argument is with what you are saying.
"I don't accept X as true" and "I claim X is false", are two different positions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If he can find any, then by all means, he's completely free to do so. I will check back later, meanwhile I have a 15 month old demanding my attention, that I can't just tell to grow up.

Your arrogance, is counter productive to the discussion.

I've told you the problem with your point.

You don't seem to understand the difference between not accepting a claim as true on the one hand, and claiming a claim is false on the other.

Wheter gods exist or not, is unknowable. For the simple fact that it is an unfalsifiable claim.

I don't believe the claim that a god exists, because there is no evidence to support such a claim, so there is no rational justification to accept it as true.

It could be that a god exists which is completely undetectable, sure. It could also be that reality is an illusion and that we are all really brains in vats.

But why would you assume/believe such a thing, without evidence?

Do you make the claim that we are NOT brains in vats? Can you support such a claim?

 

[KCfromNC]

Interesting, can I suggest that next time you take a chainsaw to a branch, maybe make sure you are not harnessed to the wrong side.

Platitudes like this don't do much to inspire me to believe there's anything of substance to discuss on this side-topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then perhaps it's terms like "rationalism" and "empiricism" you don't understand in your anti-philosophical zeal.

I'll take this dodge to mean that despite accusing other people of not understanding modern physics you haven't actually passed a modern physics course. You might want to be careful of flinging around accusations like that (or the one above) given than it isn't actually that hard to find people around here who actually have. I mean, sure, it is easy and fun to make grand pronouncements about a field you've never actually studied but it is far from convincing.

Physics has not been purely empirical for quite some time.

That's nice. No one is claiming it was.

What about it? That's not sensory perception, as it's not dealing with things we can touch, see, and hear.

How do researchers get their raw data? Osmosis? Divine revelation? Thinking really really hard?

Your anti-intellectualism really never gets old, does it?

You're confused here. Realizing the emperor has no clothes isn't anti-intellectual in the least.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, I understand that definition. I actually studied portions of Peirce, Dewey, and James in college. So, I get what you're saying.


....well, not the kind that's going to simply get us "what we want."

And what is it we want, besides justification for our beliefs?

 

[KCfromNC]

So, I assume by your response you read through that brain-in-a-vat article and became familiar with Putnam's actual arguments, right?

I provided more substance to the discussion than your initial name dropping. Read up if you feel the need to learn more. Not my job to try and make your point for you.

Ok. So, by our technology, then, we've established that it is "useful" to think that the 'Dark Side' of the Moon is essentially composed of the same surface material as the Light Side, even though we don't see it with the naked human eye, correct?

What makes you ask this?

So, what do we mean by a "useful" belief in this context? What are we going to "do" with this useful belief? Anything? Colonize the Dark Side?

You're the one who asked for a way to observe the dark side. Why are you asking me what you want to do with that information?

And do we really need to have an orbiter to see the so-called "Dark Side" of the moon?

Yes, it is a maximally great orbiter therefore, if I've learned anything from philosophy, it must necessarily logically exist in all possible worlds.

No, because there really isn't a permanent Dark Side, just a (far) side that we don't see. So, is our belief that the Dark Side of the Moon is the same as the Light Side "useful" because the orbiter saw it and confirmed it for us, or is it because the Far Side is indeed the same as the Near Side and this idea was already "useful" before we sent the orbiter?

Speaking of questions, is this going anywhere?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what is it we want, besides justification for our beliefs?

...typically what we want today--but don't usually get in the way we want--is this thing called, "answered prayer." BUT, not just any ol' answered prayer, we tend to specifically want the kind where it just so happens that, empirically speaking, we get what we want from the Divine Vending Machine.

By contrast, the kind of pragmatic application Jesus speaks of, as is seen from the overall context supplied in the gospel of John, suggests that if we will to put God's Will into effect in our lives by "abiding" in Christ (i.e. through pragmatic application via our appropriate response and obedience), then we'll gain more substantial understanding of God's truth as it manifests in the world, and we'll see our prayers answered; once we see God's truth in the world and in our lives, we'll know the true nature of Jesus' teaching, that it doesn't come from "man," and that Jesus isn't just speaking from his own human mind as a mortal philosopher.

Of course, this isn't the pragmatism, or "pragmaticism" of Peirce, that many of us are desiring or looking for ... But then again, the writers of the Bible aren't giving us a scientific treatise about the world by which we can make pragmatically inclined scientific predictions (despite however many Christian Fundamentalists might try to say otherwise ...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I provided more substance to the discussion than your initial name dropping. Read up if you feel the need to learn more. Not my job to try and make your point for you.

So, you "know" then that Hilary Putnam, was wrong? And you "know" this how?

What makes you ask this?

You're the one who asked for a way to observe the dark side. Why are you asking me what you want to do with that information?

Yes, it is a maximally great orbiter therefore, if I've learned anything from philosophy, it must necessarily logically exist in all possible worlds.

Speaking of questions, is this going anywhere?

No, because pragmatism always has its limits ... despite the claim to the contrary.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, you "know" then that Hilary Putnam, was wrong?

What leads you to ask that?

No, because pragmatism always has its limits ... despite the claim to the contrary.

Who says there's no limit to pragmatism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I asked if you know if Hilary Putnam is indeed wrong because you don't seem to have given Hilary Putnam much of a reading, if any. It's not like the guy was a "mere" philosopher, right?

So, have you read any Peirce or Dewey lately?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I provided more substance to the discussion than your initial name dropping. Read up if you feel the need to learn more. Not my job to try and make your point for you.

Yeah, from the brevity and superficiality of most of your responses here on CF, I suppose a full-blown, bilateral discussion with you is out of the question. And the true reason as to why you're even here, other than to troll Christians, remains beyond me. I've noticed that you're one of the few here with whom I can never have a real discussion.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok. And I am the one who actually doesn't believe a god exists and I'm telling you that I don't consider my life to be meaningless at all.

So what now?

Have you read the first post? The question was quite specifically what an atheist would say to someone else who thought that life and existence were futile and not worth living. There is no real answer to that for someone whose disinterest in life is tied to an atheistic worldview itself instead of temporary problems.

This is an impossible task, because you believe this stuff as an extension of your religious beliefs. It's quite clear that you are dogmatic about this. Indeed, there's nothing I can say to you. Not because I have nothing to say, but simply because there's nothing you will accept. Because you will dissmiss anything that doesn't include your god-view.

I don't have religious beliefs. Everything I'm saying is an extension of my former atheistic belief system, which is to a certain extent still very intact. Surprisingly so, all things considered.

There you go again, for the upteenth time, pretending that atheism and nihilism are the same thing.

Is this some sort of reading comprehension problem? I thought it quite clear that I meant that once a person such as myself hits nihilism, there is nothing you can say.

Good grief.... atheism is not something that is "true" or "false". Because atheism is not a claim. It is the response to a claim.

This seems to be a case of rhetoric getting in the way of actual conversation. There is a word for a worldview in which God does not exist, and it is atheism. In this sense, atheism is something that can be true or false.

If you would like to use the word "atheism" in other senses as well, I can't stop you, but this definition is still very valid as well. It is not a claim--it is a potential fact about reality.

 

[Silmarien]

I'll take this dodge to mean that despite accusing other people of not understanding modern physics you haven't actually passed a modern physics course. You might want to be careful of flinging around accusations like that (or the one above) given than it isn't actually that hard to find people around here who actually have. I mean, sure, it is easy and fun to make grand pronouncements about a field you've never actually studied but it is far from convincing.

My interest is in the history and philosophy of science, and yeah, I do know a thing or two about that. If you don't want to give the impression that you came out of the 19th century, perhaps you ought to put more consideration into the way you present yourself. Jump on someone for pointing out how far modern physics is from a common sense perception of reality and you're going to not only look like you have no idea what you're talking about, but also like you're spreading false information about modern science for your own agenda. That's really nobody's fault but your own.

You're confused here. Realizing the emperor has no clothes isn't anti-intellectual in the least.

You know, I could ask you how many upper level philosophy courses you've taken to reach this conclusion. But autodidacticism actually does exist, so that's probably not appropriate.

 

[bhsmte]

Round and around we go..................

 

[Silmarien]

Round and around we go..................

Well, there's a really clear problem here, and it's a double standard. A lot of the atheists around here will flip out if they even suspect that you're attributing any view at all to them, and then they'll turn around and say that you as a theist only believe certain things as an extension of your religious beliefs. It's wildly hypocritical.

If some of the atheists stopped insisting that theists treat them with consideration they refuse to return, there would be less problems. Speaking of which...

It is not.
Strong atheism, is the claim that god does NOT exist.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand the difference between
"I don't accept claim X as true"
and
"I claim that X is false".

@apogee very specifically said that the claim "a god exists" would be strong theism, not strong atheism. Strong theism would be the claim that God does exist. This would be comparable to the strong atheistic claim that God does not exist.

The point is that most theists would not be making claims like this either. "I believe that God exists" would be a more appropriate claim, and unless atheism is now defined as the belief that theists do not believe that God exists, which would be really wild, it doesn't make sense to say that atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim.

The problem is that you do not want theists to tell you what you believe, and then you turn around and not only tell them what they're believing, but define your own position as a response to this potentially imaginary claim.

 

[gaara4158]

By contrast, the kind of pragmatic application Jesus speaks of, as is seen from the overall context supplied in the gospel of John, suggests that if we will to put God's Will into effect in our lives by "abiding" in Christ (i.e. through pragmatic application via our appropriate response and obedience), then we'll gain more substantial understanding of God's truth as it manifests in the world, and we'll see our prayers answered; once we see God's truth in the world and in our lives, we'll know the true nature of Jesus' teaching, that it doesn't come from "man," and that Jesus isn't just speaking from his own human mind as a mortal philosopher.

What I'm seeing here is that you can't make any concrete predictions that could be falsified by any particular outcome. The prediction you've provided amounts to "If you perform action X, the results you observe will aid your understanding of the one who instructed you to perform action X." This can be applied to absolutely anyone. Instead of predicting exactly what will happen, your prediction pertains to our understanding of the very thing that is being tested. Whatever happens and whatever conclusion I come to about God, that's what you define as God's will, God's truth. This isn't so much a way to test the truth of a god-claim as it is a way to test how well a certain lifestyle suits you. To be fair, you did already acknowledge that this wouldn't be a truly pragmatic test for God's existence. I'm OK with you choosing a metaphysical belief-system that comforts you - in a way, that's something we all do. I just don't think "truth" is a term that can be meaningfully applied to anything metaphysical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I'm seeing here is that you can't make any concrete predictions that could be falsified by any particular outcome. The prediction you've provided amounts to "If you perform action X, the results you observe will aid your understanding of the one who instructed you to perform action X." This can be applied to absolutely anyone. Instead of predicting exactly what will happen, your prediction pertains to our understanding of the very thing that is being tested. Whatever happens and whatever conclusion I come to about God, that's what you define as God's will, God's truth. This isn't so much a way to test the truth of a god-claim as it is a way to test how well a certain lifestyle suits you. To be fair, you did already acknowledge that this wouldn't be a truly pragmatic test for God's existence. I'm OK with you choosing a metaphysical belief-system that comforts you - in a way, that's something we all do. I just don't think "truth" is a term that can be meaningfully applied to anything metaphysical.

True enough. But what I'm getting at here, since this is the Christian Apologetics forum and not the "let's just talk about the truth or error of just any ol' general metaphysics or epistemology" forum, I'm attempting to explain how the epistemic indices within the Bible, such as this one single example in the gospel of John, indicate how a person is to proceed IF he/she wants to have any opportunity at all to possibly realize the manifestation of "Christian truth."