Argument against "lacktheism"

[1137]

Total failure of logic, trying to look like formal logic/mathematics while obeying the rules of neither.

Your single biggest error, however, is that "not believing" something is not a positive claim of any kind. This is, I've observed, something that theists are congenitally blind to.

Not believing, in other words, is merely the consequence of having no reason to believe. As I discovered early (as did @Revoltingest as he says), just because somebody told me something is NOT a reason for me to believe it. Needs more.

So do you think people can believe something without reason??

Your second error, it's a bit more subtle, is in your notion of a "Reason." The problem, you see, is that such "reasons" can easily be wrong or non-factual. A very good example might be found in the "Heaven's Gate" sect, founded by Marshall Applewhite. Applewhite's followers thought they had a "Reason" in what Applewhite told them. Applewhite, however, simply made the "reason" up, for whatever private purpose he had, which I suppose we can never know, he being dead and all. Along with his followers.

Of course reasons can be wrong, I acknowledge this in the OP by saying for our purposes theism is wrong. There's always a reason, infinite false ones and a true one, do you disagree?

 

[Revoltingest]

Very interesting. So in order to believe in gods we must be taught about them, but we are all born atheists. Who's that leave to teach us about the gods. Themselves?

Children are taught to believe by adults.

So the evidence for your claim is people are the religion of their culture. But this isn't even close to universally true, just look at the diversity here from mostly Christian cultures. So we can discard this, any other evidence?

I never claimed that one's culture is
100% deterministic. But I'm sure
you can see the trend that I see.

How many children growing up in
Afghanistan become Christians?
Negligibly few. It's culture that is
the primary determinant of religion.

So you would equate atheism with ignorance?

Absolutely.
To accept one's own ignorance of things
metaphysical is powerful. it avoids illusions
& delusions.
Leaping to belief in things unevidenced
isn't knowledge.

 

[1137]

What reason or cause is a god? Religion is jam packed with belief without cause.

I don't believe in a god because i have no reason to believe in a god

I'm not asking if you think gods are objectively real, I'm asking if someone can believe anything without a cause for that belief. For instance, do you maybe believe the reason people believe in gods is indoctrination? Or emotional benefit? Or that religion was created for control? Or do you really think people believe in gods magically for literally no reason at all, we are born with it or something?

 

[1137]

Children are taught to believe by adults.

And the adults were taught by who?

I never claimed that one's culture is
100% deterministic. But I'm sure
you can see the trend that I see.

How many children growing up in
Afghanistan become Christians?
Negligibly few. It's culture that is
the primary determinant of religion.

Sure, but so what?

Absolutely.

Fair enough, I would probably agree that atheism and ignorance are deeply tied.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the adults were taught by who?

By other adults.

...I would probably agree that atheism and ignorance are deeply tied.

Ignorance of something is better
than believing something wrong
or not even wrong.

 

[1137]

By other adults.

So there is an infinite regress of adult humans back to the big bang who have believed and taught about gods? I'm sure thats magically not an extraordinary claim, because atheism

 

[Revoltingest]

So there is an infinite regress of adult humans back to.....

.....whoever invented the religion.
Whether it's L Ron Hubbard, some goatherds,
Siddhartha, or other creative person, it all
began with a human.

 

[1137]

.....whoever invented the religion.

Then the source of religion isn't that it's taught but that it's invented, I can agree with this new goal post.

R = it was invented and then spread. Do you have additional evidence of this besides what was already addressed though?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then the source of religion isn't that it's taught but that it's invented, I can agree with this new goal post.

Goal post?
It's simply what happened.

R = it was invented and then spread. Do you have additional evidence of this besides what was already addressed though?

There could be more.
If I think of it, I'll let you know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Shouldn't there be an objective standard?

So "some = all"?

Is it safe to say then that youre choosing to ignore the evidence for theism?

Can we get an objective standard for common sense?

and yet atheists get upset when asked to substantiate the universe being godless, divine experiences being delusions, etc...

If you felt your point was weak enough to warrant this attack, you could have just not shared.

Thing is, theists have no objective standard whatsoever that supports any and all claims aside from objectively demonstrating that this is something completely in the realm of their imagination and fantasy, and yes, it's all of them unless you can show me one that can point out adequately where their belief is sourced from, aside from the imagination and fantasy from which theism is born.

As of now, there is no evidence. None. Just the creativity of their desire exists in form of mental puppets they call God or God's that only live in their minds.

Common sense should tell you to be first skeptical and wary when it comes to the actual truth of things if there is no clear evidences to support it.

Atheists don't have that issue because there is no God there in the first place so it's already established there is no actual God there to prove otherwise.

It's entirely a theists problem. Not an atheist problem. Atheists don't need to do anything at all because God simply isn't where theists say it is coupled by the fact the God in question is completely blind, immobile, deaf, and mute in actual reality.

As for the 'attack' why are you even attempting algebraic notation in the first place? To somehow impress people into thinking theism has substance using mathantics?


I respect people's beliefs, but it's best to not attempt demonstrating it's substantial unless there is actually is something substantial to begin with , of which I would love to see for a change instead of people making it sound as substantial when there is in reality, nothing of the sort that adequately establishes it.

Until then. I'll just keep the tea kettle hot and brewing.

 

[Alien826]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

I think I see where you are coming from. Everyone believes as they do for some reason, right?

For theists, the reason is that certain ideas have been presented to them and they accept those ideas as true. For atheists, the same (I don't think anyone can escape religious indoctrination in this world), but they don't accept them as truth. The thought processes will vary from person to person of course, but that's about it. That seems to be pretty obvious, but I'm not sure what viewpoint it supports, if any.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

You lose me here. I don't think any atheist would claim that theists don't have some reason to believe as they do, though your claim that they need to provide evidence for the theist's beliefs is odd to say the least. That would be the theist's responsibility, wouldn't it?

 

[dybmh]

How is R irrelevant?

That depends on R.

Let R = "eternal salvation"; it is irrelevant if the individual wants to save themself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So do you think people can believe something without reason??

Of course reasons can be wrong, I acknowledge this in the OP by saying for our purposes theism is wrong. There's always a reason, infinite false ones and a true one, do you disagree?

Of course I do. I'd be blind not to, since history tells me that humans have believed all sorts of bizarre nonsense, and been totally unaware of the cognitive dissonance most of their beliefs required.

I don't understand your second question at all, since as I just said, I think people perfectly capable of believing all sorts of rubbish for no particular reason at all. I can say this: I know of no reason for anyone to believe in a god that can be actually demonstrated, tested and falsified. I have never seen nor heard of a single one. I've been told that some people have had some sort of direct "revelation" from God, but they've never been able to demonstrate it, and it is amazing how different such "revelations" are from each other, if we are to presume they are from the same deity. And I know something about how the brain can fool us -- I know that people can be easily fooled, by a decent stage magician, by a mirage on a hot highway, by a "fata morgana" which was seen by thousands in 1894 (seeing Toronto actually in Buffalo, NY, 90 km distant). The great Toronto mirage of 1894

I've known people who thought they were being spoken to by angels, or by Satan, or by "spirit guides" long dead. I've read the books by neuroscientists about how the brain actively invents a reality to explain what it otherwise cannot, and how hard it is to make people realize that it was in fact invention. (See the books of Dr. Oliver Sacks.)

So, while sometimes it may be the case that there are infinite false reasons for some beliefs, I do not accept that there is always a true one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

By the way, here is my favourite fata morgana.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Very interesting. So in order to believe in gods we must be taught about them, but we are all born atheists. Who's that leave to teach us about the gods. Themselves?

I take it, from that, that you are unaware that your parents were born before you, and their parents before them, and so on back for a considerable length of time? And also that parents teach their children what their parents taught them -- muddied of course by the stuff they learned and heard from the time they were taught by their parents to the time they teach their children?

This is not too complicated...

 

[Father Heathen]

By the way, here is my favourite fata morgana.

View attachment 84018

Those who believe this to be an optical illusion do so only because they're indoctrinated, wheras those who are rational and objective will naturally conclude that this is Lord Neptune's magic.

 

[dybmh]

theists have no objective standard whatsoever that supports any and all claims

LOL. You clearly haven't read the Hebrew bible:

1 Sam 9:19​

​

ויען שמואל את־שאול ויאמר אנכי הראה עלה לפני הבמה ואכלתם עמי היום ושלחתיך בבקר וכל אשר בלבבך אגיד לך׃​

​

And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer; go up before me to the high place; for you shall eat with me today, and tomorrow I will let you go, and will tell you all that is in your heart.

​

That's an objective standard. This is what it means when someone has an indirect prophetic connection to our version of a god. They can tell you all that is in your heart. And that is precisely what Samuel does next. It's a very high standard, and that's good. We can easily weed out any imposters pretending to be "holy". Here's King David describing our god.

Psalms 139:4​

​

כי אין מלה בלשוני הן יהוה ידעת כלה׃​

For before a word is in my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it all.​

That's an objective standard. A very high standard, which is good. It easily weeds oout imposters claiming to be "God" a "reflection of All", an "Avatar of God", "God in the flesh" or any other of the human monikers used throughout history to deceive and manipulate.

 

[Quintessence]

As for being "born" an atheist, let's not go down the nonsense rabbit hole of projection it takes to compare the intellect of one's position to a baby.

Aw, come on... we haven't had one of those atheist babies debates in way too long!

(oh gods, those used to be such a pet peeve of mine)

 

[1137]

Goal post?
It's simply what happened.

There could be more.
If I think of it, I'll let you know.

Please do!

 

[Twilight Hue]

LOL. You clearly haven't read the Hebrew bible:

1 Sam 9:19​

​

ויען שמואל את־שאול ויאמר אנכי הראה עלה לפני הבמה ואכלתם עמי היום ושלחתיך בבקר וכל אשר בלבבך אגיד לך׃​

​

And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer; go up before me to the high place; for you shall eat with me today, and tomorrow I will let you go, and will tell you all that is in your heart.

​

That's an objective standard. This is what it means when someone has an indirect prophetic connection to our version of a god. They can tell you all that is in your heart. And that is precisely what Samuel does next. It's a very high standard, and that's good. We can easily weed out any imposters pretending to be "holy". Here's King David describing our god.

Psalms 139:4​

​

כי אין מלה בלשוני הן יהוה ידעת כלה׃​

For before a word is in my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it all.​

That's an objective standard. A very high standard, which is good. It easily weeds oout imposters claiming to be "God" a "reflection of All", an "Avatar of God", "God in the flesh" or any other of the human monikers used throughout history to deceive and manipulate.

Your 'objective standard' is just an old mythological book that says stuff that just isn't objective at all.

Nothing more.