Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

Then you are apparently in a situation that is not a genuine option for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What other option is there? Become a hermit?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you read William James' "Will to believe" that I have been refering to all along?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, is there a free download?

 

Yes, I've linked to it many times:
Will to believe

 

Thanks.
I haven't been following this thread that closely.

 

Translation : If a world view demands that I put an end to my nonsense behaviour, I must certainly declare it as nonsense

:shrug:

 

agreed

Outlining the practice simply offers clues how it is evidenced (and which individuals the claims are likely to be evident to)

Now just consider the absurdity of a person who claims "X is false" in a critique and yet can not even indicate any outline of practice that is called upon to evidence it.

Yes its probably a stronger term than evidence since "evidence" can be plagued by the mental mish mash of guess work

yeah, kind of like saying by attending classes on physics and chemistry and practically applying such lessons in a lab one is indeed conducting scientific practices.

IOW if one doesn't have the necessary credentials of belief in the validity/authority/benefit of science, they go nowhere (apart from making crude analogies about "the Particle Accelerator Teapot" (powered by a furnace of grant money) or whatever)

particularly since the only advocates of such are using it as a tool of satire

Its more like belief is integral to any epistemological proposition.

If you don't believe me, just try and explain any high end claim of knowledge while I sit back and retort "yrfullashit"

:shrug:

 

So your answer to the question of evidence is "Oh, I have a book that gives clues to it, but I won't give anything more away"?

Sure - but given that I am not one who says "X is false", this is nothing but a strawman, and doesn't address the point raised. :shrug:

Given that this still doesn't address the issue of the flawed logic, this is yet another strawman and further obfuscation. :shrug:

A flawed argument, yet again, given that the issue of what constitutes chemistry and physics is not debated.
When you try to use such arguments with God you are fallaciously implying an a priori assumption of existence, which is the very question at hand. :shrug:

Which is clearly lost on you. Go figure.
Or do you really expect one to conclude the analogy to be flawed simply because it is known to be an analogy???

You miss the point: your position requires belief in God to be able to believe in God. It might work if one is already in that cycle of "believe to believe", but seems otherwise impotent.

 

Actually its more like " your research can't have been too thorough if you have never stumbled across one"

That's good news
Glad to hear that you are no longer suggesting that the claims of theists are false these days ...

:shrug:

Actually its spot on since any epistemological claim is under-ridden by apriori claims.

If you disagree, please provide an example.
(granted you might be able to get away with animal grunting or the pursuit of base needs like eating and such)

I mean its clear that persons who call upon it are not candidates for it being a "genuine option", as further explained by wynn.

If you don't believe me, just try and explain any high end claim of knowledge while I sit back and retort "yrfullashit"

 

lightgigantic

"if you have never encountered a scriptural commentary your research musn't have been very thorough ..."

Almost 60 years of experience and study is pretty thourough. But then, I haven't read any commentaries about the attributes of dragons, but I think I'm safe in saying that in all probability they do not exist. Apologists simply create complicated arguements that at base say nothing about the central fact that no valid evidence exists for any god

"Kind of like saying you have concluded all pregnant women are virgins, except for the single occasion that landed them pregnant."

There is much scientific and statistical evidence that women seldom become pregnant after one practice session, so no, it is not like that at all.

"Yet the moment you try to explain the "actual truth" of religious claims (according to atheism) is the moment you establish a knowledge based claim that automatically renders theism false."

I have yet to find any "actual truth" in any theists claims about god's existence, desires, commands, thoughts, etc. That's why I am an Atheist, I don't accept such claims without supporting evidence. Funny how gods always seem to conform their thoughts to the prejudices of the one making the god claim.

"IOW you are prohibited from the onset from ever having the hope of approaching the subject due to your own values."

Ah, mysticism. You can't know anything about a subject until you drink the Kool-Aide. And what values(other than valuing that which has supporting evidence)have I put forward. I just don't believe any of the fairy tales I've heard so far because no theist yet can show even a scintilla of valid evidence that such claims are true. At this point in my life I'm not holding my breath, thus Atheism.

 

"Glad to hear that you are no longer suggesting that the claims of theists are false these days ..."

He and I are saying that the one making a claim is the one who has the burden of evidencing that claim. The default is that the claim is not true UNLESS such evidence is forthcoming(we call it not supported by the FACTS(not a priori claims that are themselves not supportable by evidence).

 

Next comes a discussion of what constitutes 'valid' evidence and how embracing a different epistemology can redefine such things.

 

Feel free to reference the works

On the contrary, the claim (of their non-existence) is well documented in commenatries

Atheists simply make poorly thought out philosophical assertions about the parameters of "valid evidence" to drive home their party line about claims of god being unfounded.

I guess the next question is "Did I say that?" ...

and here you are making a claim ....
:shrug:

IOW the moment you try to explain why "religious truths' are something other than true is the moment you are calling upon an epistemological framework that prohibits genuine inquiry.

Just try and explain what you think "religious truths" actually are.

I dare you.

Funny how atheists cling to secondary precepts of religion in order to discredit it

Actually its epistemology.

I could hazard a guess (there's not too much variety in atheists values to drive home claims) but I think I will leave it to you to explain exactly why you think there is no evidence for god (aside from your never having personally had the claim evidenced to you ... I assume you are not also willing to discredit the claim of china because you have never been there - or some such similar claim)

The simply reason is that you have falsely assumed you are capable of approaching it in a correct manner

From a previous posters contribution :

When people are acting on a genuine option, there is no reason for cynicism, dismay or any other negativity.

It's when we do things that
1. we don't actually consider all that important to us (ie. they are not momentuous for us, but trivial),
2. when we experience them as avoidable (ie. we believe that we will probably do just as well if don't do or get that thing),
3. when those options are not actually available to us, or are available only to a very limited extent,
that we end up bitter, negative.

ditto above

 

But the obvious problem is that you are talking about evidence in a very limited and myopic and arguably dysfunctional manner.

IOW if you want to talk of "pure" evidence being bereft of apriori claims you can trash over 95% of art, science, literature and philosophy and be left with animal grunting and the pursuit of base bodily needs like sleeping, eating and mating.

:shrug:

 

lightgigantic

No, I don't do busy work and I am not responsible for your edification.

No claim of non-existence can be evidence of non-existence. You just haven't looked in the right place yet. That would be the same for gods, therefore I make no claim that gods do not exist. The most one can say is no valid evidence has yet been presented of their existence. Given that lack I am safe in saying they PROBABLY do not exist. That goes for both dragons and gods or any other supernatural phenominum.

I find most Atheists are much more thoughtful and informed than most theists. Read "The God Delusion" for some very thoughtful and informed arguements on the subject.

No, I am simply not accepting YOUR positive claim, as you are totally unable to provide the least bit of evidence of it's truth. I do not KNOW religious claims are false, but it seems entirely within reason to conclude that, pending the production of such evidence. Again, the burden is on the one making the positive claim, not on the one you have failed to convince of the truth of the claim.

No Kool-Aide for me, thanks. I do not claim religious claims are not true, they are, however, unsupported by any evidence and the default position of any claim is it is not true until evidenced. Claims are not evidence of the truth of the claims, we call that "circular logic".

I've never seen any "religious truths". Sounds like an oxymoron like Jumbo Shrimp or Military Intelligence to me. That's the point, there is now and has never been any "religious truths" for which evidence of their truth can be found other than through faith(accepting without evidence). IE I must accept(through faith)the existence of god to find evidence(also accepted through faith)of god's existence. Again, circular.

If just one of the "precepts" of Einstein's Relativity was found to be false the whole theory would have to be discarded and replaced with a theory that has no false precepts. We call that "Falsification". It is a core principle of science. We have higher standards than all the religions I have studied so far and my opinion or belief has nothing to do with it.

Call it mooming for all I care, I call it BS because it doesn't matter how hard you try, there will still be no evidence at it's base. We could argue about whether dragons can breath fire but it is all fantasy without evidence that dragons actually exist. Ditto epistemology.

In the whole history of man there has been no valid evidence for any god presented, if it had been there would be no need of faith or apologetics. How does one go about explaining a LACK of evidence, anyway. The most likely explanation is that there is none available. If you say there is evidence give it your best shot, one valid piece will do. There is, however, a lot of repeatable, valid evidence of China's existence, god, not so much as the first bit.

You falsely assume there is more than one valid approach to examining reality. There's no special way of examining truth claims just because they are made about a deity. Such claims either can be supported by evidence or they cannot. It is the only method we have ever found that works, repeatedly and available for all to experience, examine, experiment and either confirm or falsify. That method has been the foundation of human knowledge and the banishment of superstition and ignorance. Even the Catholic Church has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into acknowledging it's validity, even while clinging to the ragged vestiges of it's former paradigm of mysticism.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"

It is the ONLY functional manner available and it is of course limited and to some extent myoptic. We call that limit and myopia Scientific Rigor. It is called the Scientific Method and it produces real results. Mysticism does not.

Non-sense. While nothing in science can be certain, limiting(see above)original assumptions and applying stringent laws of logic to evidence gave us the modern world you see around you, even the computer you use yourself came from just such principles. No grunting needed. You seem to think there are certainties or there is nothing, when nothing could be further from the truth that nothing is absolutely certain(IE no knowledge is absolute)but the proof is in the pudding and science is the only method of actually knowing anything with any degree of certainty. Mysticism is ignorance of reality, faith in things unknown where science brings real results and knowledge.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People are generally willing to discuss and redefine what constitutes valid evidence for all kinds of things - for science, art, cuisine, sex, politics, ...

But not when it comes to religion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If that statement is other than empty rhetoric or an outright lie, you will be able to give a description of what evidence is, and how that definition of evidence can be shown to have ever helped anyone to establish whether something is real or not.

Or you could dispense with the convoluted rationalisations and admit that you don't care what evidence is, and you'll still believe what you believe because of how it makes you feel.

 

Like who? The illiterate? People with some kind of axe to grind and a dearth of intellectual integrity?

People are categorically not generally willing to change the meaning of a particular word just because someone wants to implant a particular assumption in their minds to manipulate their beliefs. At least not if they know it's happening.