• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Argument against "lacktheism"

PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
That is, as usual, quite untrue. The atheists on this forum have been at great pains, over and over and over and over again, to explain why we do not believe in deities and demons
Click to expand...
Except that when they are asked to explain (logically defend) why they believe these entities do not exist, they lie and claim that they don't believe that these entities don't exist, they only believe that all theists are wrong to believe that they DO exist. And the whole conversation becomes a shell game where the atheist's actual belief keeps switching labels so as to stay hidden. Their belief is that the theist's beliefs are wrong, yet somehow that's not supposed to mean they believe the alternative: that no gods exist. Even though it's very, VERY clear that this is what they in fact believe.

So why all this subterfuge? Why not just admit that they believe no gods exist? Because they know they cannot logically defend it, even as they insist that every theist they encounter must logically defend their belief that a God does exist. The purpose of all this silly "unbelief" (lacktheism) subterfuge is so they can attack the theist's beliefs without ever having to defend their own.
Evangelicalhumanist said:
-- not why we don't believe anything, as you put it. In fact, we all believe many things, usually for good reason. But the reason for not believing in deities and demons is really quite simple -- there is precisely zero reason to suppose that they exist that we can see.
Click to expand...
Since when is not seeing something a reason to believe that it doesn't exists? And who appointed you the decider of what is reasonable to suppose? All I'm seeing in this comment is a lot of groundless arrogance in support of a personal bias.
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Now, you may see a tree and say, "there! That's a reason to believe in God!" We do not. We have some idea of how that tree came to be, how it's parents came to be, how their parents came to be, and it's all quite natural, requiring no supernatural intervention whatever. And because we see no need for supernatural intervention, we don't invent any!
Click to expand...
Again, all I'm seeing here is groundless arrogance, and a desire to diminish the thoughts of others. But no explanation at all as to how you could possibly discern what is natural from what is supernatural, or even from what is not natural. Or what is invented from what is observed (perception is conception). You seem to think very highly of your own intellect and yet what I am seeing here doesn't bear any of that out. It's just the repitition of standard atheistic jargon.
 
Last edited:
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Heyo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. A simple illustration I think would be:

"Theists believe in god because they were indoctrinated." This is a positive claim. If one makes this claim they must defend it, same as one who says "Theists believe in gods because they objectively interacted with them."
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point man. Say that the illusion is god, there has to be a cause for that illusion right?
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
1137 said:
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.
Click to expand...
An extremely illogical and nonsensical argument.

1) A theist believes in god(s) because of reason (R)
In this case R can be religious indoctrination or psychiatric disturbances or possibly "personal experience". It could be all three.
So R in all these cases, is unreliable evidence of the existence of deities.

2) A positive claim is asserting that something is the case, or is saying that it is true. With or without evidence.

3) Anyone who rejects a prior assertion, that God(s) exist, is NOT making a positive claim, because there was never any assumption that God{s} ever existed, in the first place.

4) Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something. Negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false.

5) Atheists believing that X or Gods do not exist is therefore a negative claim.

6) The onus is on the positive claimant to back up their claims, with evidence or they will be dismissed as mere opinions.

Or in the language of court, there is no case for the atheist to answer.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Little Dragon said:
An extremely illogical and nonsensical argument.

1) A theist believes in god(s) because of reason (R)
In this case R can be religious indoctrination or psychiatric disturbances or possibly "personal experience". It could be all three.
So R in all these cases, is unreliable evidence of the existence of deities.
Click to expand...
Exactly, R might not be that gods exist. But whatever you claim R is, you have to defend that claim. We aren't talking about evidence for deities in any way.
Little Dragon said:
2) A positive claim is asserting that something is the case, or is saying that it is true. With or without evidence.
Click to expand...
Right but hopefully one will have evidence yes?
Little Dragon said:
3) Anyone who rejects a prior assertion, that God(s) exist, is NOT making a positive claim, because there was never any assumption that God{s} ever existed, in the first place.
Click to expand...
Right but since gods dont exist the experience of then must be cause by ~gods. What is it caused by?
Little Dragon said:
4) Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something. Negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false.
Click to expand...
Okay?
Little Dragon said:
5) Atheists believing that X or Gods do not exist is therefore a negative claim.
Click to expand...
Right so what is the reason people believe in gods since they don't actually exist?
Little Dragon said:
6) The onus is on the positive claimant to back up their claims, with evidence or they will be dismissed as mere opinions.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so like if someone says S believes theism because of mental illness the onus is on them to prove their claim, QED.
 
Last edited:
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Quintessence said:
Sorry if that was a bit on the long side. The short of it is, gods exist the same way any label we use for the territory does. It's a word we use to describe things out there in existence, though gods are a bit of a special case in that it's also a response to the spectacle and grandeur and mystery of the universe.
Click to expand...

I think that applies to a more developed form of religion that requires those that have the leisure to think about such things. I'd like to run another explanation past you to see what you think.

I believe primitive religion is a response to fear and lack of control over the environment. Someone sees a lightning strike and notes its power and destructive ability. Maybe he sees a person actually killed by lightning. The natural reaction is to determine how to avoid the danger. A little reflection establishes that there is no physical defense possible. So he tries to relate it to something familiar. It's like someone throwing a spear at someone else. That brings in the ideas of a conscious thrower and selection of the target. So maybe there is some powerful being that is throwing the lightning at people he doesn't like. Now he has an approach. Maybe he can make friends with this being so it doesn't throw the lightning at him! Based on powerful humans, flattery and gifts seem to work. And so it goes.
 
L

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
1137 said:
Exactly, so like if someone says S believes theism because of mental illness the onus is on them to prove their claim, QED.
Click to expand...
No, because atheists are not attempting to disprove the evidence for God(s) existing. Since none of it is testable. None of it can be disproved.
The so called evidence. Holy books, personal experiences and other things, cannot be verified, with any kind of scientific methodology.

Atheists may instead suggest various hypothesis for why people do believe in God(s). Which if they wish to prove, they will need evidence.
For example the evidence that people are indoctrinated into a religion, and that is why they believe in God(s), can be demonstrated with the simple fact that religious identity statistically correlates with geography, if you're from Iran, you're were likely raised a Muslim. The God(s) you believe in, and the theologies they come with, vary, depending on what culture you're from. This reveals a) People are indoctrinated by parents and community and b) The religion they indoctrinate you with determines how many Gods you believe in and how they interact with humanity and nature.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
crossfire said:
How and why do some children come up with invisible friends while other children don't?
Click to expand...
Probably many reasons. Loneliness, trauma, dead parent, maybe their family encourages it. I don't think they just magically or without cause have the friends right? There's an explanation for the belief?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top