Argument against "lacktheism"

[Revoltingest]

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

I see the typical fundie trick....
Accuse the heathen of having faith cuz
we don't believe. Calling disbelief
a mythology is merely a variation.
It's better done by Pee Wee...

 

[dybmh]

I see the typical fundie trick....

You just came off a thread claiming you don't believe unevidenced claims. And here you are with your own mythology.

 

[Quintessence]

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

*confused blink*

So we've gone from me pointing out that comparing atheists to alcoholics is ill-advised to accusing me of ... whatever it is you're trying to say here? Did... did the main point of...

... you know, just forget about it. Just don't be surprised if I also raise strong objections the next time you compare atheists to alcoholics and show remarkable insensitivity to those struggling with addiction.

 

[MikeF]

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

Well, no, that is what I asked. What you said was:

It depends on the claim.

In response to my suggestion that it was appropriate to evaluate a document used to support a claim. I took your comment to mean that it was sometimes appropriate and other times not necessary depending on the claim. I was simply asking for an example of the latter case.

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."

I wrote in post #279 a critique of your position on the objective standard for prophecy. I would also disagree with the notion of an objective standard for cyclops. Cyclopes are fictional characters that were portrayed by at least three different ancient authors. Being fictional, it makes them subjective. I suppose one could speak objectively about the literal text of a particular author, but not a fictional character. Both the authors portrayal of the fictional character and the readers interpretation of that portrayal are subjective experiences.

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.

If here you are referring to your Biblical example of Samuel and Saul as well as the cyclops, I would also say that they would not fit with my understanding of what might qualify as an objective standard.

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.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[dybmh]

I wrote in post #279 a critique of your position on the objective standard for prophecy.

Oh. I'm sorry. I missed that. I'll check it out and reply.

Being fictional, it makes them subjective. I suppose one could speak objectively about the literal text of a particular author, but not a fictional character. Both the authors portrayal of the fictional character and the readers interpretation of that portrayal are subjective experiences.

I disagree, of course, but I'd like to go back and read what you wrote in #279 before commenting more.

If here you are referring to your Biblical example of Samuel and Saul as well as the cyclops, I would also say that they would not fit with my understanding of what might qualify as an objective standard.

Let me go back and see what you wrote, perhaps there's more detail there.

QUOTE="dybmh, post: 8320691, member: 65725"]
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.

Ah. I see what happened. The quote block is a little wonky, so, I didn't get a notification.

I suppose my first criticism would be that such language is purely figurative and not literal. What objective criteria define the concept of what is in one's heart? Does it refer to loving others? Does it refer to personal goals?

In the story it's literal. Saul is on a mission from his father. Samuel tells Saul about the mission without being told about it. Then Samuel tells him what's going to happen next, and everything that Samuel says turns out to be true. It's all objective. Samuel says, you're here because of X. You're worried about it, but you don't need to worry. X objectively is the reason why Saul is there. Then Samuel says, tomorrow A,B,C,D is going to happen. Then A, B, C, and D all happen in detail, just as Samuel said it would.

It could refer to loving others, it could refer to personal goals. But the way it is described in the story it's detailed. Like I mentioned in my earlier replies, it's a high standard. It's impossibly high. And this is goood beause it will weed out imposters.

I would also wonder to what detail such a reading of another's heart is sufficient to meet the goal of being objective. Is it sufficient to simply declare the other wishes to be famous some day, or must the reader of hearts be very specific about the way one wishes to be famous and explain why?

No. That would not be sufficient. When Saul and his companion ask about the "prophet" in the area, the locals say: "Everything he says is true." So, it's pretty easily falsified. Find something they say that's not true, and they're not a prophet.

I do not equate "expressions of the heart" with all the contents of one's brain. In either case, the next hurdle would be how to objectively verify what might be claimed. It would certainly have to exclude relying on one claimed reading of only one individual. As an aside, I quickly read through the referenced OT section and did not see where Saul actually had his "heart" read.

That's more of a contexual issue about how the author's of the book considered it. I didn't want to go into too much detail or coonjecture on this. Some translations have adjusted the verse, and use the word "mind" in their translation as opposed to heart. But I addressed this by quoting a psalm of King David where he describes "God-level-knowledge" in terms of stuff that is happening in the brain. "You know the words I will speak before I ever move my lips" sort of thing.

Finally, even if "reading of hearts" was somehow objectively possible, we need a way of verifying or confirming a claimed instance which I see as impossible outside of a controlled environment under scientific standards, and maybe not even then.

I get that. You seem to be focusing entirely on the words "in the heart" instead of the details of story. And I didn't emphasize the previous assertion by the villagers, "Everything he says is true." So, there's three criteria:

1) knows the contents of the heart
2) accurately predicts what is going to happen in detail
3) whatever they say is true

There is defintion in Deuteronomy, we could use also, but I like 1 Samuel because there is a story where these prophetic powers are demonstrated. In this way, if they can do what Samuel can do, then they're a prophet. If not, then, I vote no. Or perhaps they have some form of lesser prophecy. But using "Samuel" as the objective standard should work.

If you want to read it yourself here's a few links. It will probably take maybe 20 minutes to read it. Maybe less. It's a story; it's not evangelical or anything. If it is too much to read, for some reason, and you'd like, I'll go ahead and rip out the verses that are important.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15838/jewish/Chapter-9.htm

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15839/jewish/Chapter-10.htm

Being fictional, it makes them subjective. I suppose one could speak objectively about the literal text of a particular author, but not a fictional character. Both the authors portrayal of the fictional character and the readers interpretation of that portrayal are subjective experiences.

OK. So going back to this comment now. To me, it doesn't soung like your objection is about it being fictional at all. It sound like the objection is, the words "tell you what's in the heart" were too vague? If so, there's more to it than that. That is included in the story. Yes, there's details that are as sharp and objective as a cyclops with 1 eyeball. And I think, I hope, we agree that having 1 eyeball and a unibrow is an objective standard.

 

[F1fan]

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.

It's amazing how so many theists will deny that logic and evidence applies to their religious beliefs. It is about magical thinking, that the whims of ego can be self-verified because reasoning was not learned, or is a skill, but not applied. We see @PureX able to debate political issues objectively, but completely fail when the topic is religion. It's like Jeckl and Hyde.

Atheists will tell you, even an infant is an atheist by default.

Yes, in the sense that atheism means non-theism, which is the most basic definition. Our dogs and cats are non-theists too. Theism is learned, mostly in the same way that cultural norms, tastes, and language is acquired through social interaction. By the time a person can question concepts religious ideas have been ingrained into identity, and social cohesion.

That means, it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist.

That would be true if most people in cultures worldwide weren't heavily influenced by religions. I would be curious how many people would ever ponder religious thoughts if not taught so readily everywhere. It does take brain power to actually assess and examine religious concepts, and then reject them as being unfounded and non-rational.

That's not me saying it. That comes from atheists themselves. I think someone even posted that here in this thread.

Being an atheists myself it takes no brain power once the work assessing religious ideas is done. It doesn't take long to realize there are no credible arguments for any religious belief. We still see creative claims, but they fall into familiar invalid patterns. It's apparent that is someone had come up with substantial evidence for any of the many god concepts then that would be used by theists all over the place. There is none. Even the arguments like Kalam fail because they rely on assuming a God exists, and isn't really convincing because it offers bo actual evidence for a God. Too many "if's".

The only real challenge in debate is seeing how individuals behave, and what their creative skill brings to the forum. It's interesting to see how resilient some are, and how frail others are.

 

[dybmh]

It's amazing how so many theists will deny that logic and evidence applies to their religious beliefs.

Nah, I think thats something you're imagining in your "brain-places".

Yes, in the sense that atheism means non-theism, which is the most basic definition. Our dogs and cats are non-theists too.

Great!

Theism is learned,

Or not.

It does take brain power to actually assess and examine religious concepts, and then reject them as being unfounded and non-rational.

I have seen no brain power devoted to this. Just ignorance.

Being an atheists myself it takes no brain power once the work assessing religious ideas is done. It doesn't take long to realize there are no credible arguments for any religious belief.

Unless you have ESP you don't know "ANY" and all religious beliefs. But it appears that you have made a chioce to deny them all. Based on our past interactions, you really only had knowledge of Christianity, and shallow knowledge at that. You said {paraphrasing} "It wasn't working for you." Then you found buddhism, and it "worked for you". It's not really much of an investigation. But "magically" you think that this qualifies as excluding any and all religious thought.

The only real challenge in debate is seeing how individuals behave, and what their creative skill brings to the forum. It's interesting to see how resilient some are, and how frail others are.

If that floats your boat...

 

[Audie]

You just came off a thread claiming you don't believe unevidenced claims. And here you are with your own mythology.

Ha! I knew it.

 

[dybmh]

Ha! I knew it.

It happens all the time. The atheist has their own faithful unevidenced beliefs while simultaneously criticising others and feigning superiority.

 

[Revoltingest]

It happens all the time. The atheist has their own faithful unevidenced beliefs while simultaneously criticising others and feigning superiority.

No need to feign superiority when the
faithful arrive to demonstrate it for us.
You're hurting your your own cause.

 

[dybmh]

No need to feign superiority when the
faithful arrive to demonstrate it for us.
You're hurting your your own cause.

If y'all would be consistent and hold yourselves to the same standards as those you criticize there would not be a problem.

 

[PureX]

*confused blink*

So we've gone from me pointing out that comparing atheists to alcoholics is ill-advised to accusing me of ... whatever it is you're trying to say here? Did... did the main point of...

... you know, just forget about it. Just don't be surprised if I also raise strong objections the next time you compare atheists to alcoholics and show remarkable insensitivity to those struggling with addiction.

I don't even know what you think you're arguing about, or why.

People become just as addicted to the righteousness of their ideologies as any alcoholic becomes addicted being drunk. Go visit a Trump rally if you doubt it. But for some reason you're fixated on this association. And honestly, I really don't care that you can't seem to grasp the similarities. Or the fact that ego plays a major role in it.

 

[Petmenor]

It happens all the time. The atheist has their own faithful unevidenced beliefs while simultaneously criticising others and feigning superiority.

I think he has every right to do that

 

[PureX]

I think he has every right to do that

That's a weird response. I suppose we do all have the right to be self-deluded hypocrites. But I can't quite see that as an excuse, or a justification. Seems to me that we should at least try to be honest with ourselves and each other. Even if we do fail most of the time.

 

[MikeF]

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".

I get that. You seem to be focusing entirely on the words "in the heart" instead of the details of story. And I didn't emphasize the previous assertion by the villagers, "Everything he says is true." So, there's three criteria:

1) knows the contents of the heart
2) accurately predicts what is going to happen in detail
3) whatever they say is true

For my benefit, I'll reiterate what we are talking about. You are proposing that there is an objective standard by which to evaluate whether someone has an indirect prophetic connection to a claimed entity. The standard is that the prophet should be able to read a subjects mind, accurately predict the subjects future, and that they never make a mistake over multiple subjects.

This begs the questions of what are the objective standards to verify a mind has been accurately read and the objective standards that the future has been accurately predicted?

Let's simply consider the whole notion of a Seer, a fortune teller, or Shaman who provide their services as an intermediary between a client and some entity for a fee. Practitioners were quite prevalent throughout the ancient world and arguably in every culture. Even in the story of Samuel and Saul that you reference, there are multiple prophets described as being a "band of prophets". Now, this industry still exists today, yet it has all but collapsed in modern Western culture. Why do you think that is? Might it have anything to do with objective criteria or more specifically, the inability to meet any objective criteria?

There is a lot to be incredulous about in a story like this. For example, why an entity would have to go through a Seer, connive a set of unique occurrences to give credibility to the Seer (10:3 And you shall go on forward from there, and you shall come to the plain of Tabor, and there will meet you there three men, going up (to bow) to (God), to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and one carrying three loaves of bread, and one carrying an earthenware jug of wine.) when the entity presumable could just as easily let the individual know his expectations for him directly. Or better yet, the entity could simply tell everyone in the tribe it's plan to have Saul lead Israel, right?

I acknowledge that your point is not about this story specifically, but about what criteria might provide an objective standard by which to judge a professed prophet. All I am saying is that for such verification to be done objectively, there is a whole lot more that is required than is implied by you or in your referenced story.

Here's King David describing our god.
Psalms 139:4כי 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.

Yeah, I'm not getting the objectiveness of this. Someone hears a voice inside their head that anticipates everything they are going to say? How does that not possibly describe the ideations of a schizophrenic?

 

[Audie]

For my benefit, I'll reiterate what we are talking about. You are proposing that there is an objective standard by which to evaluate whether someone has an indirect prophetic connection to a claimed entity. The standard is that the prophet should be able to read a subjects mind, accurately predict the subjects future, and that they never make a mistake over multiple subjects.

This begs the questions of what are the objective standards to verify a mind has been accurately read and the objective standards that the future has been accurately predicted?

Let's simply consider the whole notion of a Seer, a fortune teller, or Shaman who provide their services as an intermediary between a client and some entity for a fee. Practitioners were quite prevalent throughout the ancient world and arguably in every culture. Even in the story of Samuel and Saul that you reference, there are multiple prophets described as being a "band of prophets". Now, this industry still exists today, yet it has all but collapsed in modern Western culture. Why do you think that is? Might it have anything to do with objective criteria or more specifically, the inability to meet any objective criteria?

There is a lot to be incredulous about in a story like this. For example, why an entity would have to go through a Seer, connive a set of unique occurrences to give credibility to the Seer (10:3 And you shall go on forward from there, and you shall come to the plain of Tabor, and there will meet you there three men, going up (to bow) to (God), to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and one carrying three loaves of bread, and one carrying an earthenware jug of wine.) when the entity presumable could just as easily let the individual know his expectations for him directly. Or better yet, the entity could simply tell everyone in the tribe it's plan to have Saul lead Israel, right?

I acknowledge that your point is not about this story specifically, but about what criteria might provide an objective standard by which to judge a professed prophet. All I am saying is that for such verification to be done objectively, there is a whole lot more that is required than is implied by you or in your referenced story.



Yeah, I'm not getting the objectiveness of this. Someone hears a voice inside their head that anticipates everything they are going to say? How does that not possibly describe the ideations of a schizophrenic?

Someone is said to have said a voice said something
to them.

What could be less objectively verifiable than that?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't even know what you think you're arguing about, or why.

People become just as addicted to the righteousness of their ideologies as any alcoholic becomes addicted being drunk. Go visit a Trump rally if you doubt it. But for some reason you're fixated on this association. And honestly, I really don't care that you can't seem to grasp the similarities. Or the fact that ego plays a major role in it.

I understand just fine.

I've also done sensitivity and ally training to help support those struggling with substance use - I work on a college campus, so this is important for me to do my job as many students struggle with newly-developed substance use issues. I'm in a position where I need to be an empathetic ear and helper to students who need aid. As such, I recognize the comparison you are making is not appropriate because I have empathy and understanding towards those struggling with addiction.

It's apparent that you probably have not done such trainings, and do not understand how hurtful this comparison is. That's unfortunate, and I hope some day you develop more understanding for those who are suffering with these issues. But if you don't want to, you do you, I guess.

 

[Audie]

It happens all the time. The atheist has their own faithful unevidenced beliefs while simultaneously criticising others and feigning superiority.

Have you any reading comprehension at all?
I figured what @Revoltingest said went over your head.

"Ha", I said when your clueessly irrelevant retort
showed you didn't get what was said.

And to my 'Ha", you respond with a spray of irrelevant bigoted / stereotyping calumny.
Like you've no idea what's going on but feel
you must lash out.


Are you a typical Christian?

 

[PureX]

I understand just fine.

I've also done sensitivity and ally training to help support those struggling with substance use - I work on a college campus, so this is important for me to do my job as many students struggle with newly-developed substance use issues. I'm in a position where I need to be an empathetic ear and helper to students who need aid. As such, I recognize the comparison you are making is not appropriate because I have empathy and understanding towards those struggling with addiction.

It's apparent that you probably have not done such trainings, and do not understand how hurtful this comparison is. That's unfortunate, and I hope some day you develop more understanding for those who are suffering with these issues. But if you don't want to, you do you, I guess.

Dude, I AM one of the people you trained to be so sensitive to. And I understand the hard facts of addiction intimately. I've been sober for 30 years and have sponsored and helped many others to get and stay sober as well. Addiction is a disease, but not just of our biology. If it were, we'd have a pill for it. But it's also a mental and emotional illness, as well as a biological compulsion. And our ego plays a big part in the wall of denial that addicts create for themselves. In fact, "hitting bottom" is largely about breaking down that wall of denial and self-delusion so the addict can finally see what they have become. And that they are powerless to fix it. That insane ego has to finally be crushed so that the addict can learn, again.

 

[Audie]

Dude, I AM one of the people you trained to be so sensitive to. And I understand the hard facts of addiction intimately. I've been sober for 30 years and have sponsored and helped many others to get and stay sober as well. Addiction is a disease, but not just of our biology. If it were, we'd have a pill for it. But it's also a mental and emotional illness, as well as a biological compulsion. And our ego plays a big part in the wall of denial that addicts create for themselves. In fact, "hitting bottom" is largely about breaking down that wall of denial and self-delusion so the addict can finally see what they have become. And that they are powerless to fix it. That insane ego has to finally be crushed so that the addict can learn, again.

And now you've become something else that
you deny, defend, and from which you attack
anyone not in the hole you are in.