Argument against "lacktheism"

[dybmh]

Was the book myth?

Maybe.

If a book or other document are referenced and used to support a claim, it would seem appropriate to me to then examine the referenced book or document and make an evaluation as to whether it actually provides the purported support for the claim. Wouldn't you agree?

It depends on the claim.

I would agree that personal attacks and name calling would never be appropriate, should it occur.

I was exaggerating.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, that's only after the crap hits the fan so hard that they could no longer possibly deny it. Even then, more will still find a way to deny it than will actually admit it.

So, they do say it. I used to attend AA meetings with my dad. There were entire rooms full of people - not all at rock bottom mind you - that freely admit to being alcoholics and recovering alcoholics.

What's to defend is the very odd (and illogical) notion that your not seeing something is a reason to presume that it doesn't exist.

This was in response to, "I believe in a lot of things I could defend. I do not believe in god(s). Why? I've never seen anything that convinces me of their existence. What's to defend?"

If I've never seen nor heard evidence of the existence of something, despite seeking and asking around for many years, there's nothing illogical about not believing in that something. I don't see the problem. Do you believe in things for which you've not seen any good evidence for? That's the illogical position.

 

[PureX]

I think it would be much more odd (and hugely more illogical) to assume the existence of things you've never seen. It seems to me that would require you to believe in leprechauns, unicorns, 5 mile-long snakes, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself.

What you are deliberately avoiding, here, is that seeing or not seeing has no bearing on existing or not existing. So that the determination would logically need to rest on something more, or something other then seeing.

 

[PureX]

This isn't just wrong. It's punishingly so.
To dismiss it as ego,

No one is dismissing it.

as though it's merely a
selfish choice is a popular view with harmful
consequences to public policy.

No one is claiming it's merely a selfish choice.

I highly recommend reading up on the
physiology of addiction.

Addiction and the Brain

It is frequently said that addiction occurs when drugs “hijack” the brain. It’s hard to nail down what that means, but it does rightly suggest that there is an involuntary takeover of the brain that compromises decision-making and diminishes freedom of choice, making quitting difficult even in...

www.psychologytoday.com

I know it first hand.

You should note, here, that these objections were invented by you, in your own mind. You were apparently looking for some way to argue with my post, so you just invented these. What a weird thing to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one is dismissing it.

No one is claiming it's merely a selfish choice.

I know it first hand.

Your posts don't comport with those claims.

 

[MikeF]

It depends on the claim.

What would be an example claim that used a document to support the claim, yet an understanding of the content or nature of the document would not be required?

 

[PureX]

So, they do say it. I used to attend AA meetings with my dad. There were entire rooms full of people - not all at rock bottom mind you - that freely admit to being alcoholics and recovering alcoholics.

I will freely admit to being astonishly handsome, but that doesn't make it so, or mean I actually believe it. Also, for every person in that meeting, there are over 30 other alcoholics that will never walk in the doors. Much less admit to being addicted. So let's try and keep some perspective.

This was in response to, "I believe in a lot of things I could defend. I do not believe in god(s). Why? I've never seen anything that convinces me of their existence. What's to defend?"

If I've never seen nor heard evidence of the existence of something, despite seeking and asking around for many years, there's nothing illogical about not believing in that something. I don't see the problem. Do you believe in things for which you've not seen any good evidence for? That's the illogical position.

How does your personal determination of "good evidence" become universally logical, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will freely admit to being astonished handsome, but that doesn't make it so, or mean I actually believe it. Also, for every person in that meeting, there are over 30 other alcoholics that will never walk in the doors. Much less admit to being addicted. So let's try and keep some perspective.

So you're just going to claim I'm being dishonest. Okay, cool.

Well, I guess you need to see something before you'll believe it, eh?

How does your personal determination of "good evidence" become universally logical, exactly?

This was in response to, "If I've never seen nor heard evidence of the existence of something, despite seeking and asking around for many years, there's nothing illogical about not believing in that something. I don't see the problem. Do you believe in things for which you've not seen any good evidence for? That's the illogical position."

I just explained it.
Instead of answering my question, you posed one to me.

 

[Audie]

Your posts don't comport with those claims.

You are so much more diplomatic than I

 

[Revoltingest]

You are so much more diplomatic than I

Chinese women are volatile.
This I know.
Still, you're pretty darn composed.

 

[Quintessence]

Addiction is a self-protecting (ego) delusion.

No, it is not. It's a neuropsychological disorder whereby a human continues a behavior in spite of it being maladaptive and harmful because they have a neurological/chemical dependency on it that is beyond that human's control. It's not something one chooses, nor is it a delusion or self-protecting (in fact, it's explicitly maladaptive and self-destructive).

 

[F1fan]

What you are deliberately avoiding, here, is that seeing or not seeing has no bearing on existing or not existing.

If your car keys are in a place where you don't typically leave them, does that suggest a ghost moved them? Or someone broke into your house and moved them, but not anything else? Or could it be that you were distracted and left them someplace unsual? We follow Occam's razor.

When there was a suspected cause for infection and that was microorganisms that couldn't be seen, the basis for the suspicion was an observed effect, and there must be a real cause for it. The microscope revealed microorganisms exist, and do cause infection. This is how a rational mind solves problems and makes valid conclusions.

For those who claim a God exists what exactly is it they think exists? Do they follow any evidence, or any clear observed effect? No. What is it that any rational mind would assume a God exists at all to solve some problem of how things are? Nothing. The ancient needs for gods to solve "cause" problems are obsolete. The invented problems are not credible as critical thinkers reveal in these debates. Your "mystery" is clearly self-caused because you like it, so invalid as a case to consider.

As has been explained to you we don't assume things exist without some observed effect, or some evidence. Believers have nothing to offer, so we reject the propostions of any supernatural.

So that the determination would logically need to rest on something more, or something other then seeing.

And you believers offer nothing. I ask believers if they have some sort of extra sensory perception that allows them a special ability to sense a God, and thus far only one believer has ever said yes. Of course he was pretty deep down in the illusion hole. But the rest offered no reason why they can detect a God while critical thinkers can't. We "just don't get it", or do we? So we have no reason to trust them, and it is more likley that they adopted an illusory belief from others, and failed to apply critical thinking to the ideas they adopted.

 

[F1fan]

I don't know if this is the place or if I'm going too far off a tangent but we need to discuss this sometime somewhere.
If logic is unambiguous and we both have the same information, we should come to the same conclusion. So, either logic isn't the right tool to deduce truth from true premises, or one of us is making logical errors if we come to different conclusions on the same premises.
Theists and philosophical Atheists can't be both rational if they claim their conclusion to be true. (I think they both are irrational.)

They may have reasons to believe (i.e. subjectively assign a believability threshold to their premises) but that doesn't mean they know.

And to get the bow back to the topic, lacktheists don't face that problem and are therefore (probably) right. There just isn't enough information to come to a rational conclusion. At least not enough to reach their threshold of believability.

This IS the real crux of it. Not all people are skilled thinkers. Even those who are may still be motivated by social pressure to adopt religious norms in their life experience, which is a non-rational process. These debates assume all are rational to a similar level, and that all are motivated to seek the truth. We aren't. Creationists, terrorists, Trump supporters, all share a state of mind that has adopted untrue ideas, and these ideas have integrated so heavily into their identity that they are unwilling to examine them without also questining who they are. This is how the human brain evolved, and it is not a perfect organ. Those who have taken the time to learn critical thinking, and also learned to be introspective to avoid identity being built on dubious ideas, have a huge advantage in making sound conclusions. Our dilemma is those around us who haven't, like MAGAs who will vote and affect our politics. The more rational thinkers argue their positions the more the dogmatic will retreat into their beliefs. That is their animal brain in fight or flight mode, and their frontal lobes play no role in the debate.

 

[Audie]

If your car keys are in a place where you don't typically leave them, does that suggest a ghost moved them? Or someone broke into your house and moved them, but not anything else? Or could it be that you were distracted and left them someplace unsual? We follow Occam's razor.

When there was a suspected cause for infection and that was microorganisms that couldn't be seen, the basis for the suspicion was an observed effect, and there must be a real cause for it. The microscope revealed microorganisms exist, and do cause infection. This is how a rational mind solves problems and makes valid conclusions.

For those who claim a God exists what exactly is it they think exists? Do they follow any evidence, or any clear observed effect? No. What is it that any rational mind would assume a God exists at all to solve some problem of how things are? Nothing. The ancient needs for gods to solve "cause" problems are obsolete. The invented problems are not credible as critical thinkers reveal in these debates. Your "mystery" is clearly self-caused because you like it, so invalid as a case to consider.

As has been explained to you we don't assume things exist without some observed effect, or some evidence. Believers have nothing to offer, so we reject the propostions of any supernatural.

And you believers offer nothing. I ask believers if they have some sort of extra sensory perception that allows them a special ability to sense a God, and thus far only one believer has ever said yes. Of course he was pretty deep down in the illusion hole. But the rest offered no reason why they can detect a God while critical thinkers can't. We "just don't get it", or do we? So we have no reason to trust them, and it is more likley that they adopted an illusory belief from others, and failed to apply critical thinking to the ideas they adopted.

Winner frub

 

[Audie]

Chinese women are volatile.
This I know.
Still, you're pretty darn composed.

Me? Volatile?

 

[MikeF]

By adding "in my opinion" to a statement or prefacing it with "I believe", one admits that their conclusion contains arbitrary elements of subjective assumptions.
Without those, the statement is a truth claim and an invitation to debate. You should be prepared to defend your premises and your reasoning.

Why must an opinion contain arbitrary elements? Can't an opinion be made up entirely of pertinent elements?

 

[Revoltingest]

Me? Volatile?

I'd have channeled Alfred E Newman...
"What me volatile?"

 

[PureX]

"If I've never seen nor heard evidence of the existence of something, despite seeking and asking around for many years, there's nothing illogical about not believing in that something. I don't see the problem. Do you believe in things for which you've not seen any good evidence for? That's the illogical position."

What is the criteria and threshold for 'evidence'? And who is deciding this? ... Based on what? And if I want to see these met, yet I am not seeing them being met, who's responsibility is that? After all, I set the criteria, I determined the requirements, and I decided the outcome. So ... how does it become someone else's responsibility to convince me, and their failure when they don't?

 

[PureX]

No, it is not. It's a neuropsychological disorder whereby a human continues a behavior in spite of it being maladaptive and harmful because they have a neurological/chemical dependency on it that is beyond that human's control. It's not something one chooses, nor is it a delusion or self-protecting (in fact, it's explicitly maladaptive and self-destructive).

I was discussing the power of denial. Not the physiology of the craving.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is the criteria and threshold for 'evidence'? And who is deciding this? ... Based on what? And if I want to see these met, yet I am not seeing them being met, who's responsibility is that? After all, I set the criteria, I determined the requirements, and I decided the outcome. So ... how does it become someone else's responsibility to convince me, and their failure when they don't?

You didn't answer my question again.