Argument against "lacktheism"

[1137]

This all sounds incoherent.
Are things going OK?

I'd ask how it's incoherent but why waste my time, if you could say why you would have.

 

[Heyo]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

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

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here.
There is the positive claim that gods exist and a positive claim needs a reason. So far, so good.
But then you get confused - or I get confused. Not making a positive claim doesn't need a reason. Rejecting a claim needs a reason but "I'm not convinced' is sufficient.
But at the same time you seem to switch from arguing the claim to arguing the meta claim of the claim being made for a reason. That's a different animal altogether.
I can agree that a theist made a claim and has stated a reason without accepting the original claim or being convinced by their reason. I don't make or have to make a positive claim that their reason is a lie and they have a hidden reason.

Can you clarify for me what the claim is you want to debate?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not asking if you think gods are objectively real, I'm asking if someone can believe anything without a cause for that belief. For instance, do you maybe believe the reason people believe in gods is indoctrination? Or emotional benefit? Or that religion was created for control? Or do you really think people believe in gods magically for literally no reason at all, we are born with it or something?

Yes i know what you are asking, the n such a way that you thought "ah, gotcha atheists"

Your several mistakes have been pointed out throughout this thread.

Yes most religion was created to control the masses and most people believe what their betters tell them

 

[SalixIncendium]

As for being "born" an atheist, let's not go down the nonsense rabbit hole of projection it takes to compare the intellect of one's position to a baby.

Let's grow the baby a bit into a child. This child has never had any exposure to the concept of gods. Is the atheism that child holds a positive position?

The only way atheism can be a positive position is if one understands the concept of gods and rejects that concept.

It's rejection that makes atheism a positive position, not merely the lack of belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Dead wrong. I don't believe what I'm seeing, despite the R reason. Quite the opposite, physics permits me to know, not believe, that it is illusion.

 

[Audie]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

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

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

Theism is a response to the lack of something.
Some speak of a god shaped hole.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Very interesting. So in order to believe in gods we must be taught about them, but we are all born atheists. Who's that leave to teach us about the gods. Themselves?

Some basic knowledge missing here I suspect. Where would any advances (or not) affect the human species other than from one or more individuals during their life pass on such to future generations? It is hardly surprising, for example, that our predecessors found benevolence from the sun that does actually enable life on Earth, but if they might have ascribed agency to this, they might have rather varying beliefs as to lightning, thunder, earthquakes, and many other such phenomena. And given that we know some earlier civilisations did worship the sun, I suspect that religious origins, and the one God, did evolve from such earlier beliefs. So not 'God-given' but 'god evolved' as being more likely an explanation. Which might be true or not, but we are still born without such orientations until educated/indoctrinated into them.

So you would equate atheism with ignorance?

Nah, it is more like religious beliefs do this (YEC and such), given the variety and the constant problems and conflicts they cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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 , it is apparently way past time to to simply add you to my ignore list. You seem to intentionally fail to understand what you fail to understand.

Have a good day ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes i know what you are asking, the n such a way that you thought "ah, gotcha atheists"

Your several mistakes have been pointed out throughout this thread.

Yes most religion was created to control the masses and most people believe what their betters tell them

If an argument is made complicated enuf,
a couple mistakes can allow "proving" anything.

 

[PureX]

I'd ask how it's incoherent but why waste my time, if you could say why you would have.

Yeah, you're going to get nowhere with this. The atheists attachment to the axiom that: 'we get to judge you but you don't get to judge us' has become a chronic addiction. And they will not give it up, or even recognize it for what it is under pain of death. It's why they fight so hard to maintain that "lacktheism" nonsense (the phantasm of 'unbelief').

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, you're going to get nowhere with this. The atheists attachment to the axiom that: 'we get to judge you but you don't get to judge us' has become a chronic addiction.

No atheist says that.
Perhaps you lash out because you feel victimized
by our dismissal of your unevidenced sky fairies?

 

[PureX]

No atheist says that.

Of course they don't SAY it. Alcoholics never SAY they're alcoholics, either. Because they both need to believe in their own delusions.

Perhaps you lash out because you feel victimized
by our dismissal of your unevidenced sky fairies?

Or perhaps you're lashing out because deep down you know what I'm saying is true. By always pushing that you don't believe you can avoid having to defend what you do believe. Because you know you can't defend it any more than the theist can.

 

[crossfire]

So you think people can believe something without a reason, without cause? Can you explain how?

No doubt. (Please pardon the double entendre.)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Alcoholics never SAY they're alcoholics, either.

Those that are being honest with themselves do. Others know that they are and can admit it to themselves but are simply too embarrassed to vocalize it.

If you're going to make analogies, please make sure they're accurate.

 

[ChristineM]

Because you know you can't defend it any more than the theist can.

And still there is no evidence for a gods existence. That is a pretty good defence that no theist can counter

 

[Revoltingest]

Or perhaps you're lashing out because deep down you know what I'm saying is true. By always pushing that you don't believe you can avoid having to defend what you do believe. Because you know you can't defend it any more than the theist can.

You fundies get it totally wrong.
I don't have to defend what I don't believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

And still there is no evidence for a gods existence. That is a pretty good defence that no theist can counter

Careful there.
To say why you don't believe childish superstitions is "lashing out".

 

[PureX]

And still there is no evidence for a gods existence. That is a pretty good defence that no theist can counter

All of existence is evidence of God's existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

All of existence is evidence of God's existence.

Why not other gods, eg, Zeus, Cthulhu, Lakshmi.
You fundies see that only your god, ie, God, can
be god.
In a way, you're like us heathens.
There are many gods you don't believe in.
You're almost an atheist.
Just one more god to give up.

 

[ChristineM]

All of existence is evidence of God's existence.

Evidence please?