Argument against "lacktheism"

[dybmh]

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?

"an understanding of the content or nature of the document would not be required" <--- That's not what I said.

Basically one can assume it's a myth, grant that, and move on from there depending on the claim. In this case, the claim is "There is an objective standard for prophecy in the same way that there's an objectve standard for cyclops."

Originally @Twilight Hue claimed there was no objective standard. That's typical atheist ignorance of the Bible. I pointed it out. It took a few replies to get them to understand that they were wrong. The nice thing to do would be for them to reply and/or acknowledge they made an error. But. That basically never happens on RF, certainly not among the vocal aggressive atheist community.

Along the way, another outspoken atheist, with a pattern of preaching from a virtual pulpit, saw the word "book" in my reply and that triggered their preaching atheism AT me, even though it was completely irrelevant and off topic. It was apparent from the very first words of their reply. I was talking about apples, and they were shoveling out baloney.

 

[F1fan]

What is the criteria and threshold for 'evidence'?

This isn't controversial, and there are accepted standards. More of your defiance against being informed.

And who is deciding this? ...

Rational people seeking truth. You must not be one of them given your resistance.

Based on what? And if I want to see these met, yet I am not seeing them being met, who's responsibility is that?

Your errors are yours, not others just because you rebel against logic and reasoning of evidence. That you protest what evidence is is more of your preference for confusion, as that is how you create your "mystery" that you so love.

After all, I set the criteria, I determined the requirements, and I decided the outcome.

All murky, and all to create the conclusions you want, or to avoid logical conclusions.

So ... how does it become someone else's responsibility to convince me, and their failure when they don't?

Because you are biased, and that is your responsibility. If want to seek truth, you will follow the rules that reveal it, yet you don't. You prefer the illusion that religion creates for your mind. We know this, are you self-aware enough to recognize in yourself? I can't tell.

 

[PureX]

You didn't answer my question again.

The answer is that you alone are responsible for the judgments being passed in your own 'kangaroo court'. When you define "evidence" as "proof", knowing full well that proof of God is not possible for ANY human to objectively achieve, and yet you demand it, anyway, then you are solely responsible for your own verdict. No one else. Not God, not theists, just you.

 

[dybmh]

When you define "evidence" as "proof", knowing full well that proof of God is not possible for ANY human to objectively achieve

Seek and you shall find... If denial is sought, then denial will be found. That's the "magic" of denial. It's a magic trick that one can cast on themself at anytime. It can be really really useful, and also reallly really stupid. It's a blunt instrument, like a bowling ball, or, even a wrecking ball.

Atheists will tell you, even an infant is an atheist by default. That means, it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist. That's not me saying it. That comes from atheists themselves. I think someone even posted that here in this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The answer is that you alone are responsible for the judgments being passed in your own 'kangaroo court'. When you define "evidence" as "proof", knowing full well that proof of God is not possible for ANY human to objectively achieve, and yet you demand it, anyway, then you are solely responsible for your own verdict. No one else. Not God, not theists, just you.

The question was about you.
Do you believe in things for which you've not seen any good evidence for?

And here you are going on about me (And getting it wrong).

 

[Audie]

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

That repulsive freak?

 

[Audie]

.....illusion that religion creates for your mind. We know this, are you self-aware enough to recognize in yourself? I can't tell.

That you ask that question already provides the answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Seek and you shall find... If denial is sought, then denial will be found. That's the "magic" of denial. It's a magic trick that one can cast on themself at anytime. It can be really really useful, and also reallly really stupid. It's a blunt instrument, like a bowling ball, or, even a wrecking ball.

I used to be a Christian believer for many years. I was never seeking "denial." So this doesn't fly with me.

Atheists will tell you, even an infant is an atheist by default. That means, it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist. That's not me saying it. That comes from atheists themselves. I think someone even posted that here in this thread.

Not believing something until it's demonstrated to be true is the default position.

So you wrote all this to say that atheists don't use their brains and are deluding themselves in not accepting things for which their is insufficient evidence. Ho hum, just another attempt to shift the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.

 

[Quintessence]

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

Then that is a very fair point that can be made without drawing incorrect connections to those struggling with substance use (e.g., alcoholics) and addiction. One can instead talk about confirmation bias or other heuristics, for example, which is probably a more accurate term for what it is you were describing? Entrenched thinking patterns are routine in all humans regardless of (a)theistic persuasion, yeah? In some ways, one can't not have this to some degree and maintain any semblance of an individual identity.

 

[Revoltingest]

That repulsive freak?

 

[Audie]

Seek and you shall find... If denial is sought, then denial will be found. That's the "magic" of denial. It's a magic trick that one can cast on themself at anytime. It can be really really useful, and also reallly really stupid. It's a blunt instrument, like a bowling ball, or, even a wrecking ball.

Atheists will tell you, even an infant is an atheist by default. That means, it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist. That's not me saying it. That comes from atheists themselves. I think someone even posted that here in this thread.

Choosing what you wish to find then
seeking confirmation is the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

Implying / claiming others behave as you do
is dishonest.


Saying its binary,-to seek God or deny God
gets two dishonesties into one sentence.
I bet you don't even know why it's dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Saying its binary,-to seek God or deny God
gets two dishonesties into one sentence.
I bet you don't even know why it's dishonest.

I don't see dishonesty, ie, attempt to deceive.
I call it "wrongo pongo".
Religions tend to impose simplistic views on
complicated situations, so complexities must
be pared away, ie, unseen. This doesn't seem
to be consciously done.

 

[Heyo]

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

Oops, you are right. I was imprecise. I should have said "one admits that their conclusion may contain arbitrary elements".

I'm not perfect in my application but I try not to debate statements of faith. Everybody has the right to be wrong. It's only when you make a statement of fact, that I will engage you if I think that you are wrong.

 

[dybmh]

I used to be a Christian believer for many years. I was never seeking "denial." So this doesn't fly with me.

That would be called denying denial.

Not believing something until it's demonstrated to be true is the default position.

Which is completely brainless....

So you wrote all this to say that atheists don't use their brains and are deluding themselves in not accepting things for which their is insufficient evidence. Ho hum, just another attempt to shift the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.

No. I wrote it because it's true. Atheists make the claim about themselves. It's not me. If you exclude yourself, which is perfectly natural, that has nothing to do with me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would be called denying denial.

Huh?

Seek and you shall find... If denial is sought, then denial will be found. That's the "magic" of denial. It's a magic trick that one can cast on themself at anytime. It can be really really useful, and also reallly really stupid. It's a blunt instrument, like a bowling ball, or, even a wrecking ball.

Which is completely brainless....

It's how logic and reason works. I assure you, it requires a brain.

No. I wrote it because it's true. Atheists make the claim. It's not me. If you exclude yourself, which is perfectly natural, that has nothing to do with me.

You don't get to shift your burden of proof because you can't meet it. Sorry.

 

[dybmh]

Huh?

Seek and you shall find... If denial is sought, then denial will be found. That's the "magic" of denial. It's a magic trick that one can cast on themself at anytime. It can be really really useful, and also reallly really stupid. It's a blunt instrument, like a bowling ball, or, even a wrecking ball.

If you cannot understand what it means to deny denial, that is not my problem.

It's how logic and reason works. I assure you, it requires a brain.

If a baby is an atheist, it does not require anything that a baby doesn't possess. Take it up with your fellow atheists who are making the claim if you disagree.

You don't get to shift your burden of proof because you can't meet it. Sorry.

The atheists are making the claim not me. Please read:

God’s Funeral – Medium

Nietzsche said that God is dead. Here’s the philosophical eulogy, as we gather around the digital campfire, in modern angst, wondering what comes after we outgrow our stale personifications of nature.

medium.com

 

[Audie]

I don't see dishonesty, ie, attempt to deceive.
I call it "wrongo pongo".
Religions tend to impose simplistic views on
complicated situations, so complexities must
be pared away, ie, unseen. This doesn't seem
to be consciously done.

True...tho choosing as i said is
in fact intellectualctual dishonesty.
Self deceit is not being honest with self.

I did allow for completely ingenuous intent
with " bet you dont...:

 

[Revoltingest]

True...tho choosing as i said is
in fact intellectualctual dishonesty.
Self deceit is not being honest with self.

I did allow for completely ingenuous intent
with " bet you dont...:

I prefer to avoid the term "dishonest"
unless there's clear intent to deceive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you cannot understand what it means to deny denial, that is not my problem.

And it's not my problem you can't explain yourself.

If a baby is an atheist, it does not require anything that a baby doesn't possess. Take it up with your fellow atheists who are making the claim if you disagree.

I'm taking up your comments, with you.

The atheists are making the claim not me. Please read:

View attachment 84144

View attachment 84145

God’s Funeral – Medium

Nietzsche said that God is dead. Here’s the philosophical eulogy, as we gather around the digital campfire, in modern angst, wondering what comes after we outgrow our stale personifications of nature.

medium.com

William Lane Craig isn't an atheist.

 

[Alien826]

Atheists will tell you, even an infant is an atheist by default. That means, it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist. That's not me saying it. That comes from atheists themselves. I think someone even posted that here in this thread.

What is actually said is that if atheism is defined as "lacking belief in god/s" then it follows that babies are atheists. I agree with what (I think) you are saying, which is that this is not particularly useful, as babies lack the capacity to believe lots of things, and gain that capacity later in life.

What may be meant is that there is no "built in" religious "urge" that is inherent to humans. I kind of doubt that too, as I remember being told as a child that it was "unlucky" to step on a crack in the pavement. I felt that was unlikely, but avoided cracks anyway. That, and all superstition, I see as a primitive form of religious belief, being summed up as doing something seemingly unrelated to influence the outside world.

Now, whether a lack of such belief is a "default" position is interesting. I would say that the decision to default to a lack of belief is not a universal. One should start with "I don't know", then when investigation fails to provide anything convincing, to believe the negative pending further information. It's a matter of probability. We investigate until the probability becomes small enough not to warrant further effort. Believing in the non-existence of black swans was perfectly reasonable until someone went to Australia and actually saw one.

Asking for "evidence" for low probability claims is really no more that a statement that I don't consider it worth the effort to conduct a low level investigation into the claim (sometimes "again" is appropriate here) and asking for a reason to do so. It shouldn't be considered to be insulting or inappropriate, if the way it is phrased is polite.