Argument against "lacktheism"

[1137]

Thing is, theists have no objective standard whatsoever

What does this even mean? There either is an objective standard or not, one can't have or not have one. What is the standard?

that supports any and all claims aside from objectively demonstrating that this is something completely in the realm of their imagination and fantasy,

So can we see the evidence that demonstrates this, or not?

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.

Well that's kind of my question, where is the belief sources? You say imagination, can you support that belief?

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.

So fideism. And I'm guessing special pleading, because surely if a creationist just repeated "there's no evidence!" you wouldn't reject evolution.

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.

I am, that's why I'm skeptical of people claiming the gods are made up then being unable to provide evidence for their claim.

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.

But can you support this claim?

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.

Special pelading then, only positions that arent yours need to defend themselves.

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?

Make it general.

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.

Fair enough, I will not bother debating atheism with you since you cannot even provide substance defending it. Good tip.

 

[1137]

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.



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?

They don't need to provide evidence for the theists claim but for their own.

 

[1137]

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.

And they believe these things without cause or reason? Beliefs just magically pop into existence with literally zero explanation, not ignorance, or control, or delusion, beliefs are literally uncaused?

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.

Thats just crazy to me tbh, can you provide evidence that beliefs magically manifest with no explanation?

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.

what do you mean by demonstrated, tested, and falsified?

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.

Why would we presume that?

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

If the brain is the reason we believe X then that's the whole point man. So support the claim that the brain created gods.

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 again there is a reason for the belief, it does not in fact magically appear without cause as you suggested. Please support the claim that belief in go is caused by brain chemistry.

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.

Well you both deny and agree that beliefs have reasons for being held, can you please pick one?

 

[1137]

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...

You're right, its not complicated at all. As a Polytheist I like this argument that we MUST BE TAUGHT religion and are BORN ATHEISTS a lot.

1. Humans must be taught spiritual beliefs or they will not be spiritual.

2. Humans are born atheists.

3. Humans are historically spiritual.

4. So humans were taught spirituality.

5. Humans could not have taught themselves spirituality as we couldn't have known about it before being taught (everyone was an atheist).

6. So a consciousness outside of humanity must have taught us about spirituality.

7. We have a clear record of what consciousness taught us spirituality: the gods.

8. Therefore the gods probably exist.

I personally reject 1 and 2 at this time, but a good argument for Polytheism if they are true

 

[1137]

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.

What's funny is you are mocking the quoted user (and yourself if you agree with him). You are literally defending the position that the mind is tricked by the illusion because of literal magic and that there is no reaspn behind it hahahahaha

 

[1137]

By the way, here is my favourite fata morgana.

View attachment 84018

So you believe we see the ship as floating because of magic, since you're arguing there's no reason someone would see the ship as floating.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

^ worthless slop

1. not all reasons are created equal
2. not all evidence has (equal) value

 

[1137]

^ worthless slop

1. not all reasons are created equal
2. not all evidence has (equal) value

Why do you think claims without evidence or reason can be valid?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

^ worthless slop

1. not all reasons are created equal
2. not all evidence has (equal) value

Why do you think claims without evidence or reason can be valid?

Where did I say any such thing? You seem to suffer from a debilitating comprehension problem.

 

[Father Heathen]

What's funny is you are mocking the quoted user (and yourself if you agree with him). You are literally defending the position that the mind is tricked by the illusion because of literal magic and that there is no reaspn behind it hahahahaha

Nah, I was just demonstrating the silliness your goofy logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you believe we see the ship as floating because of magic, since you're arguing there's no reason someone would see the ship as floating.

Wow! Talk about reading in. No wonder you can't do analysis.

For the record, I understand the physics that makes that illusion look so very real. You could learn it, too. Or not...

 

[dybmh]

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

Nothing more.

The objective standard is in the book. You were mistaken that the objective standard does not exist. Hopefully you will have the courtesy to refrain from making false claims about this in the future.

 

[1137]

Where did I say any such thing? You seem to suffer from a debilitating comprehension problem.

You called that the idea that "all positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them" "worthless slop." I don't blame you for backing down from that position, but maybe it's the wrong time to try and criticize ones comprehension.

 

[1137]

Nah, I was just demonstrating the silliness your goofy logic.

Yes, thinking that beliefs have reasons for being held is goofy, but not the idea that beliefs magically manifest uncaused. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer huh.

 

[1137]

Wow! Talk about reading in. No wonder you can't do analysis.

For the record, I understand the physics that makes that illusion look so very real. You could learn it, too. Or not...

Right, so the REASON FOR THE ILLUSION is PHYSICS. R = Physics. The illusion isn't just magically uncaused, the belief doesn't appear without reason. I'm glad you concede.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, thinking that beliefs have reasons for being held is goofy, but not the idea that beliefs magically manifest uncaused. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer huh.

My point *wooshed* right over your head.
You can't believe in something before learning of, or at least the concept of it. Thus non-belief is the default. To believe something without logic or evidence is contrary to critical thinking, thus such a stance is an indoctrinated one. Set agrees with me. I hear his whispers.

 

[1137]

My point *wooshed* right over your head.
You can't believe in something before learning of, or at least the concept of it.

Oh I 100% agree which is why we are ignorant on gods existence at birth, we cant even comprehend the question let alone pick a side.

Thus non-belief is the default.

I agree. Not belief thay gods are real, not belief that gods are fiction, but no judgement.

To believe something without logic or evidence is contrary to critical thinking, thus such a stance is an indoctrinated one. Set agrees with me. I hear his whispers.

So let's see the logic and evidence supporting that gods are fiction. That's the entire point, and I look forward to how you dodge the question (no need to pretend an atheist will actually give support for their faith at this point).

 

[Twilight Hue]

The objective standard is in the book. You were mistaken that the objective standard does not exist. Hopefully you will have the courtesy to refrain from making false claims about this in the future.

There is no objective standard at all in the book.

It's a book of mythology.

That's the actual fact the matter.

If you disagree, tell me what's objective about it, being you seem so sure there is objectivity here.

Point it out then. It's that simple.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh I 100% agree which is why we are ignorant on gods existence at birth, we cant even comprehend the question let alone pick a side.

I agree. Not belief thay gods are real, not belief that gods are fiction, but no judgement.

So let's see the logic and evidence supporting that gods are fiction. That's the entire point, and I look forward to how you dodge the question (no need to pretend an atheist will actually give support for their faith at this point).

I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic, and I don't care what other people believe, as long as they don't act upon their beliefs in ways that victimize or violate the rights of innocent people. Regardless, that's not where the burden of proof falls.

 

[Revoltingest]

You called that the idea that "all positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them" "worthless slop." I don't blame you for backing down from that position, but maybe it's the wrong time to try and criticize ones comprehension.

Yes, thinking that beliefs have reasons for being held is goofy, but not the idea that beliefs magically manifest uncaused. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer huh.

Right, so the REASON FOR THE ILLUSION is PHYSICS. R = Physics. The illusion isn't just magically uncaused, the belief doesn't appear without reason. I'm glad you concede.

Oh I 100% agree which is why we are ignorant on gods existence at birth, we cant even comprehend the question let alone pick a side.

I agree. Not belief thay gods are real, not belief that gods are fiction, but no judgement.

So let's see the logic and evidence supporting that gods are fiction. That's the entire point, and I look forward to how you dodge the question (no need to pretend an atheist will actually give support for their faith at this point).

This all sounds incoherent.
Are things going OK?