ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. Where is even the slightest suggestion of the merest hint of the tiniest morsel of objective evidence for any version of theism?.... for theism?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes. Where is even the slightest suggestion of the merest hint of the tiniest morsel of objective evidence for any version of theism?.... for theism?
I don't know, but that is besides the point.So is William Rowe not an atheist?
Yes. Where is even the slightest suggestion of the merest hint of the tiniest morsel of objective evidence for any version of theism?
So #1 or 2?1. "I have not studied Theism enough to be aware of the evidence."
2. "I cannot refute the evidence for Theism so I will pretend it does not exist."
3. "I am confusing evidence with conclusions, what I mean is to reject the conclusion of Theism."
I've been trolled enough thanks, best wishes Luis!I don't know, but that is besides the point.
You do not want to be respectable. You achieved enormous success.... what? Can you answer my question?
I never claimed otherwise, I specifically said criticism is not abuse and never claimed we should be protected from it. Indeed I think we should doubt all. But hey, thanks for providing further evidence of gaslighting theists.
I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha
Properties that define "new atheism": it is epistemologically unfriendly;
I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism;
I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;
Agnosticism refers to knowledge.intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism;
I've not found this to be the case, and in fact, I've found the opposite to be the case: That religious arguments often fall back on emotion rather than on reason and logic. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation with a theist.often falls back on emotion rather than reason;
It is very difficult to prove a negative.relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;”
Such as?utilizes false equivalencies;
Sorry, I don't see this elaboration you speak of.and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)
What makes it different from just regular old atheism?Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism
Well,ah . . . there is a severe contradiction haere. You rant insulting posts do not reflect love. You likely are the one needing an education.I love atheists. That's why I try to educate them all the time; they hate me for that.
I didn't say that. You don't seem to be paying attention. I said I've never seen any evidence. I have obviously not seem every claim of evidence throughout the world and all of history, so I can't say there is definitely no evidence. However, given I've been discussing this for decades, if there was some great evidence for god(s) I'd have expected somebody to bring it up by now. Do feel free to do so, if you have something that everybody else I've spoken to has not bothered to mention.When someone says "there is no evidence for gods"...
Check. In fact they proclaim constantly that "there is no evidence at all" because they define evidence as having to convince them, and of course they have no intention of ever being convinced, so it's all dismissed as non-evidence, in advance.Alright I will repeat myself once more but everyone pay attention haha
1. it ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism.
Check. The theist must prove to them, by their standard of proof, that God exists, while the atheist's position (that no gods exist) is just blindly assumed to be the automatic default. No explanation or proof is necessary.2. holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;
Check. They claim that they don't know if any gods exist while also constantly proclaiming that every god that anyone else has ever chosen to believe exists, doesn't.3. intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism;
Check. They expend enormous amounts of time and energy attacking theists and theism because of a blinding hatred of some particular religion or religious expression.4. often falls back on emotion rather than reason;
Check. "No gods exist unless and until someone else can prove to me that one does! And when they try, I will decide what is 'evidence', not them. And I will decide what kind and amount of evidence can rise to the level of 'proof', not them. Becaue the 'default mode' is that I am right before, during, and after the debate."5. relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism. (Elaboration of all below.)
I tend to think of it as kangaroo atheism. Because it seems to me that the whole point of it is to keep themselves in charge of their own 'kangaroo court'.Note I don't think "New Atheism" is a great term, I didn't make it. I prefer friendly vs unfriendly theism/atheism
It simply distinguishes between knowledge and belief. This isn't hard, surely?"Agnostic atheism" is a pointless term because nobody rational is ever asking you to prove with metaphysical certainty there are no gods.
Well, of course an agnostic atheist would probably think a godless universe seem to be more likely. So what?"well I can't prove gods don't exist" as if this means they don't find a godless universe most likely.
Again, you really should ask for your money back from the mind-reading course....In fact they proclaim constantly that "there is no evidence at all" because they define evidence as having to convince them, and of course they have no intention of ever being convinced, so it's all dismissed as non-evidence, in advance.
Untrue.The theist must prove to them, by their standard of proof, that God exists, while the atheist's position (that no gods exist) is just blindly assumed to be the automatic default.
Untrue.They claim that they don't know if any gods exist while also constantly proclaiming that every god that anyone else has ever chosen to believe exists, doesn't.
This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?
And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?
I myself have asked for evidence many, many, many times.
Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism, but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution. Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."I've not found this to be the case. Do you have an example?
In fact, I've been called out by theists before for not lowering my standards of evidence to accept the claims of theism.
I've explained why this is a useless term.Agnosticism refers to knowledge.
Atheism refers to belief.
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."I've not found this to be the case, and in fact, I've found the opposite to be the case: That religious arguments often fall back on emotion rather than on reason and logic. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation with a theist.
Can be sure, but so what?It is very difficult to prove a negative.
Such as comparing a dragon in one's garage to deities.Such as?
Sorry this was taken from my larger textSorry, I don't see this elaboration you speak of.
Asked and answeredWhat makes it different from just regular old atheism?
This is a good critique thank you, it should be "when someone says they have seen no evidence for theism." So... 1, 2, or 3?I didn't say that. You don't seem to be paying attention. I said I've never seen any evidence. I have obviously not seem every claim of evidence throughout the world and all of history, so I can't say there is definitely no evidence. However, given I've been discussing this for decades, if there was some great evidence for god(s) I'd have expected somebody to bring it up by now. Do feel free to do so, if you have something that everybody else I've spoken to has not bothered to mention.
Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes. This is why mentioning agnosticism is pointless, all intellectually honest people will avoid claiming absolute metaphysical certainty on most if not all things.It simply distinguishes between knowledge and belief. This isn't hard, surely?
Right, the belief is in the godless universe, you not being "certain" of that isn't at all relevant. If a theist is requiring metaphysical certainty of a godless universe then they are an unreasonable theist, and could not provide the same evidence of their gods either.Well, of course an agnostic atheist would probably think a godless universe seem to be more likely. So what?
Your claim is that, "it [new atheism] is epistemologically unfriendly;"This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.
I've not seen any that I find convincing. And quite often when I ask for evidence, I don't actually get any.And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.
Your claim is that atheists, "holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to;"Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism,
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with theism/atheism.but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution.
Lack of belief, isn't a belief, by definition.Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."
I've disagreed and explained why it isn't. They are separate terms referring to separate things.I've explained why this is a useless term.
I've never seen anyone making this claim.Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."
I don't understand this response.Can be sure, but so what?
In what way? What makes it a false equivalency?Such as comparing a dragon in one's garage to deities.
I don't see a response to how "new atheism" differs from regular old atheism.Sorry this was taken from my larger text
Asked and answered
Oopsy, you've changed it from "knowledge" and "belief" to "absolute certainty" which is a different thing, not under discussion.Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes. This is why mentioning agnosticism is pointless, all intellectually honest people will avoid claiming absolute metaphysical certainty on most if not all things.
Right, the belief is in the godless universe, you not being "certain" of that isn't at all relevant. If a theist is requiring metaphysical certainty of a godless universe then they are an unreasonable theist, and could not provide the same evidence of their gods either.
No. I explained my position and it doesn't fit into any of those. Of course, I guess you could claim that I haven't studied 'theism' 'enough', regardless of how much I have studied it, but that would be a bit pointless. I only have one lifetime, so not nearly enough to know everything about every version of theism in the world.This is a good critique thank you, it should be "when someone says they have seen no evidence for theism." So... 1, 2, or 3?
Actually, I've seen plenty of theists claim absolute certainty of their god, I've also been challenged to prove there is no god, or accused of claiming that I know that there is no god, and other nonsense that implies that unless I'm certain, they must be right (argument from ignorance). Hence I see it as highly relevant to make my position crystal clear. I imagine that's why the term 'agnostic atheist' in such common use.Right, and nobody rational is asking the atheist if they know with absolute certainty gods do not exist, they are asking what the atheist believes.
I once gave a talk on "Black Magic Reverse Engineering" at an IT Conference in Los Angeles. I did the whole presentation -- slides and all -- backwards.Reverse engineering... Bern there, done thst, it's no trick, it just requires knowing of what you are dealing with
This would be when the atheist states something like "one must be a fool to believe in gods," the idea that atheism is the only rational conclusion.
Acknowledge evidence, what evidence?And do you acknowledge the evidence? Note these are general descriptions, I have no clue if you fit or not.
Sure like when someone accepts atheism because they are subjectively unconvinced of theism, but condemns creationists who simply are subjectively unconvinced of evolution. Or the idea that "belief require evidence, except mine."
Atheism and agnosticism are very real beliefs.I've explained why this is a useless term.
No such argument is presented as a rational belief in atheism.Oh both sides absolutely can fall victim to it. I'm specifically speaking of something like "my church abused me therefore theism is wrong."
He did invent the WWW (as i stated), i.e. the protocol you use to make posts dissing the very thing you are using.