Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

I guess you've never read any art theory or self-help books "for a better sex life" ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you didn't. "Guess" isn't an accurate way to describe how that response was formulated at all.

Your implication is that you have read some which seek to redefine the word evidence to something significantly different, or which contain discussions about the meaning of evidence which present significantly divergent definitions.

Please provide examples.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its quite simple.

If you accept a certain person as your father and haven't taken to the streets with a telephone directory or had the prospective candidate extensively dna tested you have other tools at your disposal than what is commonly heralded as evidence (for the sake of bolstering the atheist argument)

IOW to suggest that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims is to make a suggestion that is absurd, myopic and necessarily dysfunctional.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

... hence the suggestion your "research of 60 years "on the subject blatantly lame

I'm not sure you understand.

If dragons were reputed to exist in England and if you have never gone to England you are simply accepting someone else's testimony.

IOW your plea of "real evidence" is sidelined

That's a text book example of "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."

and I am not accepting YOUR claim that you are sufficiently informed on the subject to make a valid criticism

Just try and explain what sort of evidence you would accept as authoritative in this matter

So if you can accept as proposal as true in the absence of evidence, what is your particular gripe with theism?

Then you have just recanted your previous statements above - You simply vaccilate between assertions that god id a delusion, theer are no truths in religion et c etc and when someone presses the sore points of such statements you fall back to "I am not making a claim " etc etc.

You can barely stay on track on one stance or the other for more than a paragraph.
:shrug:

You don't understand.

Someone says "god exists"

I am asking you in what way you contextualize that statement to mean something other than what the speaker said.

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

Is the fault sufficient to discredit the phenomena of gravity or does it simply translate into a refinement of process (eg - newton's ideas had faults ... but they worked fine to get the shuttle up in the 60's)

So how do you propose to apply falsification for claims that empiricism (ie simply using the senses without any allowances of the quality/credential of the individual) has no scope to approach?

Actually it might pay to investigate the term.

It would certainly help tie up all the loose ends.

IOW if you say there is no evidence yet are totally dumfounded to define "evidence" you might as well say there is no mooming or some other BS term

Yet you can't even reference a single scriptural commentary?

I think it is more true to say that in the whole history of your life you have never really applied yourself to the subject

I guess the first question you might want to ask is "evident to who?"

Otherwise its a case of any dolt being able to retort "yrfullashit" to any knowledge based claim under the sun.

What a gem!

Feel free to give the details of this one and only method to approaching reality (and then we will see how absurd, myopic and dysfunctional it is)

I think you have to take a break and think about what you are saying.

At the moment you simply say "there is no evidence"

When asked what do you mean by "evidence" you take it as an invitation to go on a tirade about the catholic church and what not.

I"m not really interested in that.

What I am interested in are the general principles you apply to determine evidence (regardless whether we are talking about the the catholic church, physics or china).

So far you have asserted that there is only one way to know reality (which is indeed a tall claim) but you haven't given any clues about it (other than to suggest that it is so grand that it supersedes all issues of epistemology ... which is yet another grand claim).

I never said it didn't produce results.

I said that it was by no means capable of discerning all knowable claims, and to suggest otherwise is to render one's investigation of reality absurd, myopic and dysfunctional.

feel free to explain how one can use logic in an environment bereft of apriori claims

computers certainly aren't the product of an absence of apriori issues (as anyone who has come within 10ft of computer language will tell you)

Any more examples, aside from the grunting?

So far the only thing mystical has been your assertion that one can make knowledge based claims in a complete absence of an apriori foundation

 

Simple it may be. The truth it is not.

 

So you can't pinpoint any evidence, or explain it, just merely state that there are documents that give a clue how to find it? Yet your one attempt to explain further results in you providing a logically fallacious argument. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong - if a theist makes a claim that I consider to be false, I will state as much - with reasoning. If they claim Mt. Everest is in Scotland, I will suggest they are wrong.
But Please provide evidence that I have ever suggested that the core belief in God's existence has ever been false, as you have implied (given your statement was made specifically after reference to this specific matter)?

Wow - so I could claim that the Celestial tea-pot exists... because I make the a priori assumption that it exists?? And you don't see any issue with this? :shrug:
The difference is between a claim being underriden by, and being solely dependent upon the a priori claim. And are generally only accepted within an argument when both sides accept them.

But thanks for highlighting how weak you think your own position to be.
"Believe in God and I can provide evidence that you believe in God, and that you believe God exists!"
Yay for circular arguments.

So you avoid the actual initial criticism of your argument with further obfuscation. :shrug:

 

If that statement is other than empty rhetoric or an outright lie, you will be able to give a description of what the truth is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting .....)

 

Actually none of the above.

He said he had researched the topic.
I said words to the effect that he hasn't.

As for citing a reference, usually that requires citing a document, no?

So you are prepared to say they are wrong but not false
:crazy:

IOW you don't say "there is no god " but say "When anyone says there is god they are wrong because the truth of the matter is yada yada yada"

Please provide evidence where you have ever suggested that claims of God's existence are anything less than delusional

Actually I was talking about how apriori issues form the foundation of all knowable claims ... as opposed to how the presence of an apriori foundation renders any claim true/knowable etc.

But as for the celestial teapot, that is a good example of approaching the issue by person's who don't have a "genuine interest" in the subject, as explained by wyn's post.

that's fine but all you are raving on about is that religion begins much with an apriori assumption (which, I have pointed out, is much like any other knowledge based claim you care to mention).

By that logic any claim becomes circular since any dolt can have recourse to "I don't believe you because yrfullashit" ... which is no doubt an entertaining position to be in for persons ignorant of the issues of application that come afterwards ....

I don't see how that comment suddenly renders you capable of approaching the subject in the correct manner ..


In fact the more you talk around this subject, the more clear it becomes that you are not in a category to have a genuine interest in approaching the subject :
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.

 

And the one you cited as giving evidence was clearly demonstrably fallacious reasoning on your part. Hey ho.

Where on earth did you reason this from??? If this is a demonstration of your reasoning ability then no wonder you come up with the drivel you do.

Yet you can not provide ONE example where I have said they are wrong. Either support your claim or apologise, please.

Where to start:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2892356#post2892356
"Most atheists don't think it is delusional. "Delusion" generally requires there to be evidence to the contrary, whereas most atheists merely hold that there is zero evidence for God."

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2650538#post2650538
"I would hesitate to use the word "delusional" - as to me that word generally requires there to be evidence to the contrary of what is being believed. e.g. believing you will win the lottery is not delusional - but to do so when you have not bought a ticket would be."

sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1045308l#post1045308
".... lack of evidence for is NOT the same as evidence against.
As for the terms you use:
- it would be delusional to hold something as true when there IS evidence AGAINST.
- it would be irrational to believe something as true when there is no evidence FOR.

All that can be said about the existence of anything is (a) the thing exists (when there is evidence to support the existence) or (b) it is unknown if the thing exists or not (when there is no evidence to support the existence).

It is irrational to say something does not exist when there is no evidence at all."

sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=879574#post879574
"A delusion is believing something to be true inspite of invalidating evidence. With regard to God, there is no evidence either way. So this can not be delusional."

Just a smattering of times that I have explicitly stated or implied that belief in God is not delusional (or at least with regard how I understand the term).

So either withdraw your accusation or post evidence where I have said otherwise!

Yet this simply does not address the issue of begging the question that your arguments seem to rely on.

Ah, so now you need to have a "genuine interest" to be able to see the evidence... which is more question begging.

I'll take this as your admission that you only have your circular "believe to believe" argument.

Not circular at all... most may start from a priori assumptions, but they don't try to argue the truth of those assumptions merely by requiring one to hold those assumptions.

Because that was not its intention - but rather to point out your continued obfuscation and delaying tactics, etc.

"Waaah... you don't hold it as a genuine interest.... waaah!"
Whether one holds it as a genuine interest or not should not impact the acceptability of an argument. I have an interest in X, but when someone spouts drivel about it am I obliged to accept it?
This merely smacks of another case of "believe to believe", by limiting the applicability of an argument only to those who will accept it... and to everyone else it is "Waaah... you don't hold it as a genuine interest.... waaah!"
:shrug:

 

@LG. I agree that trying to find a God is a exercise in losing your mind. But a God which matters to us must pass the "so what" test.

Gravity is real.
So what?
You cannot fly without fluid dynamics.
Gravity passes the test. It is relevant for us.

So if a God were to be important for us, he would have to be working, doing something, answering prayer, performing miracles - for him to be relevant to us. And these are things that can be tested and if they occur beyond chance and beyond the power of placebos, that is evidence for god. But if there is not such difference, such a God might as well not exist. Even if such a god may be relevant after death, there is nothing we can do or know about it, except that no one else could, either.

 

There is nothing clear or demonstrable about what you have said .. and even then, technically speaking its not even a scriptural commentary so your comments are getting even hazier

You : ...if a theist makes a claim that I consider to be false, I will state as much

You previously : .... but given that I am not one who says "X is false",


Yup, crystal clear reason at work there ....

Oh boy where to start ...

next sentence : Whether people attribute evidence to "God" or not is something for which we are responsible.

So an assertion about god can never be anything more than a mental concoction - nice!

If one has an argument that there is no evidence for god, do you suppose they accept a claim to the contrary

the problem is that in your summary of the nature of evidence (which you must surely be using to discredit claims to the contrary) you effectively prohibit yourself from approaching the subject

The problem is that you already have negating tools at work when you are presented with claims about approaching the subject of god

You have simply trumped up the word "delusion" to relegate claims of god's existence to mental concoction (since there is never any question, in your mind, of the subject approaching issues of evidence).

IOW instead of outwardly declaring that there is no god, you work overtime to relegate claims of "how one come's to know god" to myth, sheer belief or fantasy

You make a big show of stating how calling something delusional requires evidence while simultaneously downplaying theistic claims by insisting that they never approach any issues of evidence.
Go figure ....

all you have done is indicate an apriori claim in the argument (namely based on the assumption "god exists' one can then potentially venture into issues of application to validate the claim)

If you are trying to suggest that the existence of an apriori assumption renders a claim invalid you certainly have bigger epistemological issues on your hands than the question of god ... since practically all claims of knowledge have an apriori foundation

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

all we are seeing from you is more and more cynicism, dismay or other negativity

If you think the presence of an apriori issue renders an argument into "believe to believe" I'm afraid you have just trashed over 95% of high end knowledge claims

unless of course one deals with issues of application with cynicism, dismay, negativity etc ....

Pointing out precisely what you lack and why seems pretty direct and to the point

Then feel free to convince me of any claim of knowledge while I deride the necessary requirements of application

What to speak of being obliged to accept it, you prohibit yourself from that possibility from the onset

There was more to being "genuinely interested" and you know it.

Your editing out and complete reluctance to address the few key points (what to speak of the article) explaining exactly what prevents an individual from being "genuinely interested" is conspicuous by its absence

 

But it does. Because "acceptability" is a subjective criterion, and dependent on a particular person's interest.


You didn't read James' essay, did you?

 

I think before one can address questions about the relevance of god one has to firstly ask themselves what is the relationship one has with this world. If one views it as the be all and end all of existence, then yes, god will not be relevant ... which then makes the inherent (unsolvable) problems of this world relevant (in short : over bearing attachment to things that will shortly cease to exist) ... or relegates the relevance of god to his ability to mitigate these problems (through healing, miracles etc ... all of which are temporary reprieves since things will still continue to shortly cease to exist).

This then leads to the second level of questioning : What is my relationship with god.

IOW if we are beginning to talk about god it should be clear from the onset that simply analyzing the problem of existence in terms of one's (immediate) needs, interests and concerns may not be sufficient to encapsulate the broadness of the issue at hand

 

Even if such a god may be relevant after death, there is nothing we can do or know about it, except that no one else could, either. Since we are all just as ignorant, what do you propose that we do? How exactly is a person supposed to believe in God and why is belief necessary at all? Is a believing radical clearly in the wrong [bin laden] better in the eyes of god than a good-doing non-believer [bill gates]?

Why can we not believe until proven otherwise and just be good people? Why do we need the believe in god, whether or not he exists? Surely NOT for morality. Not at these risks as a cost for belief and unproven belief at that.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm confused - you gave an example of scriptural commentary... and are now saying that technically the example you gave wasn't even a scriptural commentary???
I call you out for blatant intellectual dishonesty!!

FFS, LG, you're deliberately confusing comments between theistic claims such as "God exists" and claims made by theists such as "Mt. Everest is in Scotland" (as a hypothetical example).

Which unfortunately still speaks nothing for whether God actually exists or not... which is the question in hand. Your rebuttal is thus overturned.

Which unfortunately still speaks nothing for whether God actually exists or not... which is the question in hand. Your rebuttal is thus overturned.

Yet at no time do I claim that God does not exist, or that claims that God exists are false, which was your assertion of me, and which I have amply disproved despite your efforts rebuttal.

Which unfortunately still speaks nothing for whether God actually exists or not... which is the question in hand. Your rebuttal is thus overturned.

Which unfortunately still speaks nothing for whether God actually exists or not... which is the question in hand. Your rebuttal is thus overturned.

Getting the picture?

I consider it to require evidence TO THE CONTRARY OF THE BELIEF for it to be considered delusional. If you want to provide such evidence that is contrary to your belief, feel free, but I've not seen any to support God's non-existence.
And I certainly don't downplay such theistic claims - given the amount of time spent debating the acceptability of such evidence on these forums I would have thought you would have realised that such matters are actually given high priority.

But one that is relied upon as proof of the conclusion.

And the conclusions reached of any arguments that are based on such assumptions are limited to the accuracy of those assumptions.
But ANY argument that relies on the accuracy of the premise to prove the premise is circular and question begging.

Sure - and as I have stated before in response when it was first raised, I have no issue with people taking their "genuine option". I DO take issue, with cynicism etc, with certain arguments that people use to support their position.
You do spot the difference, I take it?

Strawman argument, given that this is not what I have said. An a priori assumption is only circular when it is used in trying to prove itself.

The comment in question did no such thing, though, and was merely more obfuscation and deflection etc.
Your following comment might have been an effort to point out what you think I lack and why, but the one to which I referred did not.

You exist.

You make the claim, you have the burden.

 

Maybe "acceptability" was the wrong word to use for the reason you state.
I meant it as (objectively) acceptable as an argument in the grand scheme of arguments given that it is valid etc.
Whether one wants to accept it personally... :shrug:

I did, eventually, thanks.

 

I didn't say I was opposed to such discussion.

The fundamental issue is, as I have outlined already, that embracing the sort of epistemology that is typically prescribed by a theist puts one in a situation where one is likely to accept the truth of whatever claims are in play at the time, and in many cases to deny the validity of other religious teachings. So you can have two people who have embraced the same sort of epistemology but disagree about what God is, who God is, what God wants, how we should be living our lives, and what the valid sources of knowledge are that help to answer such questions.

This problem thoroughly discredits any claim that such prescribed epistemologies are reliable methods of gaining any sort of specific knowledge of actual realities.

 

lightgigantic

Character is something you should have, not something you should be.

Brain in a jar? Matrix? Or metaphysical BS? This is actually more of a problem for you as England actually exists(I've been there), your claimed deity, not so much(evidently).

There's a party?:m:

I'll certainly disabuse you of your ignorance on that matter, or at least point it out.

I leave that to navelgazers, but generally I'm an externalist(IE valid evidence must be external, available to all who look, confirmed by multiple independent sources, repeatable and falsifiable. Karl Popper is a good source if understanding is truly your goal.

Not can't, more won't waste my time citing metaphysical claptrap. When the basis for scripture is unevidenced any commentary on that unevidenced basis is apologetics(apologizing for the fact that the original claims are not evidenced, in great detail and ad nauseum). Show evidence for the god claim and it will become much more valuable to study anything based upon that claim. I loved Anne McCaffrey's world of dragons, but no matter how much I know about the dragons in that world it cannot be called knowledge of the real world. The same goes for gods.

I have made no such assertion, do you have some kind of reading comprehension disability or is it just a need to distort what others say to create a strawman to argue with?

I said I have never seen a "religious truth", not that there is no truth in religions. A subtle but important distinction you obviously are having trouble understanding(or you are again stuffing straw). I have seen religious claims, but sans evidence they are not religious truths. And there are truths in most religions, truths not based on unevidenced claims. Those truths in no way validate the religious claims simply because they are coexistent within the same tome. Just because I read Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven(the "hardest" of science fiction writers IMO)and all the science within their books conforms with what we know about the world does not mean their books are the truth, they are still fiction.

I'll type slower so you don't lose the train of thought I ACTUALLY am putting on the track, ok?

True religious claims, not truths contained within the religion.
"God exists"-religious claim for which no supporting evidence is put forward, therefore not a religious truth. It may or may not be true, without evidence it is most likely the latter.
"Do unto others as ye would have done unto you" Truth contained within religion for which we have ample evidence as to it's efficacy, having learned it in Kindergarden through practical application.

Einstein presented relativity in the 20s, I'm pretty sure the engineers on the Shuttle were aware of them. And without Einstein any space probe launched at Mercury would miss, your GPS would have you driving into a lake instead of the Seven 11 parking lot and gravitational lensing would be unknown and unexplained. Einstein did not refine Newton, his work replaced Newton's, totally.

You sure do abuse definitions for your own purposes, don't you. Observation is only one leg of the search for knowledge, the second is logic and the last is testing. Observe a phenomina(the empirism), develop a hypothesis(the logic), test the hypothesis(the falsification). You really need to study Popper.

That's the point, evident to everyone who examines the subject, not just the one who hears voices in his head(or says he does)or any other personal experience you interpret as the divine.. There are many more mundane and known explations for such voices(tumor, lying, mentally ill)than a god claim for which no valid evidence is put forward.

Name a single thing not discerned(or discernable)through the Scientific Method that is true. Just one will do. You will quickly find that there are none. Claims, yes...truth, no.

I have made no such assertion. Do you have some issues regarding your obvious infatuation with men of the straw persuasion. But such a priori assumptions should be kept to a bare minimum. Assuming the Universe is as it appears to be is a minimal assumption, assuming a god exists is not.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm talking about research and general guidelines for rendering it valid or acceptable

Just the tip of the iceberg for your dragon claim.

My point is to simply to make it clear it clear that "the evidence" for it is completely shrouded in the opinion, experience and work of others

There's a dogma

I have - you say you have done research (for 60 years no less) yet you can't offer a single reference
:shrug:

The problem with such an outlook is that the powers of "looking" is not equal in all so the process you advocate is that it ultimately falls victim to authority. Not to say that respecting certain authorities is necessarily wrong, merely that there is anotehr process at work that you are neglecting to mention
For instance you say that dragon s and god apparently don't seem to exist on account of evidence, yet you haven't really engaged in "looking" for them (but rather testify on account of historians or Dawkins or whatever)

Its becoming blatantly clear that you are simply speaking of your bias.

The basis for evidencing claims of scripture lies in scriptural commentary, since that is the nuts and bolts of "how to".

It you can't even mention what you have encountered, much less what you have tried to apply, it comes as no surprise that your "60 years of research" has amounted to naught.

What are you talking about?
Just last post you made it clear that "The God delusion" is a source of excellent arguments ... or are you trying to say that Dawkins is not really saying it is a delusion?

I know
Thats why i am asking you in what ways do you deconstruct the "religous truths" - IOW in what ways to you contextualize the claims to be something else

It would help if you wouldn't claim there are no truths in religion and then follow with a paragraph you are making no claims

I am talking about primary truths of religion, not secondary ones.

When an individual says "god exists" (or even whole cultures divided by impenetrable barriers of culture, geography and language) what do you think actually led them to such a statement.

IOW what are they "really" talking about IYHO?

Its well documented that they made calculations based on Newtonian physics

Refinement is usually characterized by a series of superseding processes.

IOPW it is incorrect of you to say that the presence of a fault suddenly renders teh said process completely futile - more often than not the discovery of fault paves the way for further refinement

Then why talk of a singular manner to investigate reality?

If that's the case why don't they save money and call on janitor's instead of forensic scientists for the collection of evidence at crime scenes?

So that's your professional, well researched opinion?
That people who claim god exists speak on the authority of voices in their head?

Actually I am talking about how the scientific process is relevant to one sphere of inquiry but not all sphere's of inquiry.

To say otherwise is to render one's investigation absurd, myopic and dysfunctional.

I am not saying anything about the axiomatic apriori aspects of science, which arguably are borrowed from religion anyway (eg : "the universe has order" etc etc)

read it and weep

You : 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).

then you have to explain why some apriori claims are tenable and others are not.

IOW "keeping it minimal" in regards to what precisely?

 

This is so only if we take for granted the idea that all people, at all times, in all situations must have the exact same stance on God, or they are all, or all but one, wrong.

It's not clear why we should take that idea for granted.
Can you explain why?