Argument against "lacktheism"

[dybmh]

What is actually said is that if atheism is defined as "lacking belief in god/s" then it follows that babies are atheists.

That matches what @SkepticThinker has posted.

What may be meant is that there is no "built in" religious "urge" that is inherent to humans. I kind of doubt that too

Rightfully so. Parents are the first god in which every child instinctively believes. Human's are hard wired for god-belief. I looked it up at one point, there's scientific research supporting this.

Asking for "evidence" for low probability claims is really no more that a statement that I don't consider it worth the effort

If God is, by defintion, never going to be proven, then finding no falsifiable evidence confirms that defintion.

 

[dybmh]

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

I can, but, I really don't care.

Denying denial is when a person is in denial, but is denying it.

I'm taking up your comments, with you.

My comment is "atheists claim about themselves .... " I bought evidence to support it.

William Lane Craig isn't an atheist.

LOL. William Lane Craig is not the author. Typical lack of attention to detail.

 

[dybmh]

@F1fan ,

I see you thumbed up @SkepticThinker's post. Did you notice that William Lane Craig is not the author of what I posted? It seems you are also lacking attention to detail.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Which is completely brainless....

Exactly!
I never needed brain power to not believe in gods.
This is how I was born an atheist, ie, not believing
in gods was unavoidable.
Later on though, I used my brain to consider the
claims made by believers. They were bunk (IMO),
eg, 6,000 year old Earth, resurrection of the dead.

Belief in gods is different in that someone must
be told what it is they're to believe, eg, the
number of gods (often 1, but sometimes more),
creation myths, moral prescriptions & proscriptions.
That requires brain power...not much, but some.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can, but, I really don't care.

Denying denial is when a person is in denial, but is denying it.

Oh that's much clearer now.
I love when other people try to tell me how I think.

My comment is "atheists claim about themselves .... " I bought evidence to support it.



LOL. William Lane Craig is not the author. Typical lack of attention to detail.

Oh pardon me. You posted the top half of a photo, with somebody claiming what atheists say, and then the top half of an article about William Lane Craig. Silly me.

Oh wait, was that the "evidence" you "bought to support" "atheists claim about themselves"?" Somebody else claiming that atheists say something? Sure thing.

That's just my "typical lack of attention to detail" though, right?

 

[dybmh]

claims made by believers.

... some believers ...

 

[Revoltingest]

... some believers ...

The "some" qualifier would be wrong.
I disbelieve in all unevidenced supernatural beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

The "some" qualifier would be wrong.
I disbelieve in all unevidenced supernatural beliefs.

I suppose, but, you would need to know all claims made by all believers everwhere in order to make the all-inclusive assertion about them.

"All unevidenced super-natural beliefs" seems much more reasonable to me. Asserting that all claims made by all believers are in this category is itself an unevidenced super-natural belief in one's own innerant global extra sensory perception.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose, but, you would need to know all claims made by all believers everwhere in order to make the all-inclusive assertion about them.

That's an absurd requirement.
No list is needed to not believe in the countless
deities that humans have invented over millennia.
None have ever been found that have evidence.

"All unevidenced super-natural beliefs" seems much more reasonable to me.

How does that differ from what I said?

Asserting that all claims made by all believers are in this category is itself an unevidenced super-natural belief in one's own innerant global extra sensory perception.

With no evidence to the contrary,
I'm in pretty good shape...far better than
people who leap to belief in sky fairies with
unevidenced but extensive mythologies.

 

[PureX]

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

I don't believe in anything, if I can help it. I see no need for that sort of pretense.

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

I didn't say you got it wrong. I said your choices are your own responsibility. The whole "there's no evidence" shtick is your own doing.

 

[PureX]

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.

What I was describing is the ego's need to protect the idea that we are 'right' even when we're clearly and obviously wrong. And the way that need can blind us. Especially when feeling righteous becomes our psychological 'drug of choice'.

 

[Quintessence]

What I was describing is the ego's need to protect the idea that we are 'right' even when we're clearly and obviously wrong. And the way that need can blind us. Especially when feeling righteous becomes our psychological 'drug of choice'.

This is often not really a problem, in the grand scheme of things. Not just because of the complexity of determining what is "right" or "wrong" (not a fan of such binary either-or thinking myself) but because positive self-esteem is necessary for good mental health and daily life functioning. But maybe things are different where you're from?

 

[PureX]

This is often not really a problem, in the grand scheme of things. Not just because of the complexity of determining what is "right" or "wrong" (not a fan of such binary either-or thinking myself) but because positive self-esteem is necessary for good mental health and daily life functioning. But maybe things are different where you're from?

Or maybe you're just focusing on when ego is not problem so you can avoid admitting that it very often is?

 

[dybmh]

That's an absurd requirement.
No list is needed to not believe in the countless
deities that humans have invented over millennia.
None have ever been found that have evidence.

You made an unqualified claim about a large group scattered around the globe. THAT is an absurd claim.

How does that differ from what I said?

You said:

"Later on though, I used my brain to consider the
claims made by believers. They were bunk"

Then I said: "... some believers ..."

You objected to this qualification. That means you intended:

"Later on though, I used my brain to consider the claims made by ALL believers. They were bunk" They only way to make that claim and be correct is to believe in one's own inerrant global extra-sensory perception.

With no evidence to the contrary,
I'm in pretty good shape...far better than
people who leap to belief in sky fairies with
unevidenced but extensive mythologies.

I have never met anyone who believes in literal "sky fairies".

The notion that theists believe in "sky fairies" is its own unevidenced mythology. Do you see how this works? You have your own unevidenced beliefs about ALL BELIEVERS. You have your own own unevidenced mythology about "sky fairies".

 

[Revoltingest]

You made an unqualified claim about a large group scattered around the globe. THAT is an absurd claim.

Prove me wrong.

You said:

"Later on though, I used my brain to consider the
claims made by believers. They were bunk"

Then I said: "... some believers ..."

You objected to this qualification. That means you intended:

"Later on though, I used my brain to consider the claims made by ALL believers. They were bunk" They only way to make that claim and be correct is to believe in one's own inerrant global extra-sensory perception.



I have never met anyone who believes in literal "sky fairies".

The notion that theists believe in "sky fairies" is its own unevidenced mythology. Do you see how this works? You have your own unevidenced beliefs about ALL BELIEVERS. You have your own own unevidenced mythology about "sky fairies".

I've nothing to add.

 

[dybmh]

Prove me wrong.

Your claim, your burden.

I've nothing to add.

Naturally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your claim, your burden.

Tis no burden to disbelieve in unevidenced things.
Especially things I've not even heard of.

 

[dybmh]

Tis no burden to disbelieve in unevidenced things.

Believers are a large group which is scattered across the world. You made a claim about them. Their existence is evidenced. Shall I go to pew research and obtain the evidence for you?

You don't know what ALL believers believe. You don't know if there's evidence or not. But that didn't stop you from making a claim that you used your brain to consider the claims. But what actually happened is you considered a fantasy.

Especially things I've not even heard of.

You claimed you had considered things you have never heard of.

 

[Revoltingest]

Believers are a large group which is scattered across the world. You made a claim about them. Their existence is evidenced. Shall I go to pew research and obtain the evidence for you?

You don't know what ALL believers believe. You don't know if there's evidence or not. But that didn't stop you from making a claim that you used your brain to consider the claims. But what actually happened is you considered a fantasy.



You claimed you had considered things you have never heard of.

Nothing to add.

 

[dybmh]

Nothing to add.

Nothing to back up your claims. Those claims are just more unevidenced mythology which you seem to have no problem believing.