Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Because per the atheists' idea of God, atheists have a better chance to know the truth about God than theists (who only believe in "man-made religion").
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And I have no problem with that. But when claims are made, especially in a philosophy forum, they are up for critical examination. That's all that is going on here.

    You're somehow missing the fact that it is not me who is trying to 'have the say' on what God is. I don't claim to have any definitive information about that. Rather, I have been questioning the veracity of the claims that theists typically try to force upon everyone else as the truth, and offering up alternative possibilities for the purpose of demonstrating that they exist.

    Ok, I'll address it directly, even though I feel I have already touched on some relevant points. Demonstrate that it is impossible for your 'atheist in abstracto' to stumble upon something that could in fact qualify as 'God' in some way.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    If there is a truth to be known about a hypothetical god figure, yes, atheists probably would be more receptive to it, as our position is not based on dogmatic beliefs. We allow evidence to change our minds whereas theists do not (at least not when it pertains to their faith), so yes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Force?

    Or perhaps they just put forward a position that you can't withstand, so you end up feeling forced?

    Why do you think that discussion about God should be a peaceful, comfortable event?

    Not saying that it shouldn't, but I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why is should.


    The atheist in abstracto has no interest in God; because he is an atheist.
    As soon as something would appear that he could consider "God," he would reject it; because he is an atheist.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    That's like saying
    "I refuse to learn Chinese from language textbooks, other language learning materials and the people who speak Chinese, as this would be dogmatic. Instead, I will rather be open-minded and just let Chinese come to me, to change my mind. And then I will be fluent in Chinese."

    You're right, this is theoretically possible. The practical effectiveness of this approach is about zero in 100 years, but it gives you all the freedom that you want ...
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, that's not at all correct. You're assuming that the holy texts of today's theistic religion have some insight into the true nature of this hypothetical being. I'm saying that they do not. They have been thoroughly deconstructed and debunked, and have no value in this context.


    Well, immersion is the best way for an adult to learn a new language, so I would reckon the principal of "letting Chinese come to me" is probably much higher than that.
     
  10. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I said 'try to force'.

    All I can say is that I think that such discussion is often inherently challenging no matter what position any participants may take. So it's kind of like you're asking me why I think that something that is typically challenging should be peaceful.

    (by 'challenging' I mean the tendency for such discussion to cause participating parties to examine their own position and arguments more carefully)

    I've lost interest in this one, because I don't see the point in abstracting atheism to the point where it no longer resembles an actual philosophical position held by anyone. It wasn't completely clear to me until this moment just how far you were removing the definition you were working with from reality.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The texts tend to define God as omnipotent and omniscient, for example.
    And you think you can debunk that God is omnipotent and omniscient?


    You'd still be among people for whom you believe are fluent in Chinese.
    That's like going to live among theists in order to learn about God.
    But this latter you do not believe to be a valid option.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    We have to work with abstractions / idealizations, lest we run the danger of getting mislead by anecdotes.

    If you insist on the anecdotal approach, it would be more correct to simply name the people whom you are talking about, instead of typifying them as "atheists" when in fact what is relevant about them to the discussion is a lot more than just their professed atheism.
     
  13. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    How so?
     
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, because the idea isn't falsifiable. Neither are any of the qualities of Zeus. I'm talking about debunking the texts themselves, you know that.

    That's because theists are not "fluent" in god. As I've said, I reject this idea that any religion on this planet has any insight into the true nature of existence, and therefore their texts have no value in this context. You essentially want me to learn about medicine by studying alchemy.
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And you would only acknowledge a falsifiable God, right?


    Which suggests that you are?


    Which suggests that you believe you do have insight into the true nature of existence?


    You are the one saying that, not I.
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    A verifiable god, yes.


    Of course not. What could have possibly compelled you to ask such an inane question?

    Oh I see. You're deflecting now. I've defeated your points, you're out of ammo, but you not going to admit it. Hence, this drivel.

    Yes you are. You're saying that the only way I can "know" this hypothetical god figure is by reading outdated texts already debunked as fiction. That's like the saying the only way I can know medicine is to read a book about alchemy.
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Well, aren't you a bundle of joy and daisies!


    I already said:

    Provided you'd live long enough, your free-style approach would bear fruit.


    Who debunked them, by what methods?
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Or not. There's every chance that a god figure isn't even possible. Anyway, there is no other approach to take, since the god of the bible does not exist.

    Oh please.
     
  19. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    If that's all you were doing I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But there is a difference between working with an idealized template and an idea that is fundamentally inaccurate.

    Atheism is not a commitment to reject any and all realities that one might be confronted with that might bear some sort of resemblance to any of the many philosophical ideas about what God may be.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And yet that's the only way the word "atheist" makes sense.

    Phrases like "Atheistic about the Christian God" is a PC embellishment.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You're not nearly as open to discussion and new findings as you suggest to be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You offer neither discussion nor any new findings, you deflect or altogether ignore direct questions, and you constantly attempt to derail the conversation by requiring sources for broad generalizations. Your lack of intellectual integrity is not my problem.
     
  23. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Your commitment to such a narrow and inaccurate definition of a philosophical position that is, in reality, greater in scope, is not going to lend itself very well to any attempts by you to actually understand the people with whom you choose to converse.
     

Share This Page