Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

Actually the problem with specifics is that that is where you will get the most incorrect reasoning, appeals to authority, misdirected arguments, and so forth. The insistence on specifics is actually a giveaway that people do not have very good arguments for atheism, in the first place; this is actually obvious, but it has occurred to me, that perhaps most atheists were not very knowlegeable about their previous theism /if they were ever theists/, in the first place.

The funny thing is that you are accusing people who beilive in Atheism/people who are Atheist of doing the arguments that Theist usually make.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I feel his pain. I applied his reasoning for God to Lars, and I'm still waiting myself.

okay, i will run with this, just once mind.
If it is a squirrel, which is all you said, it would be dead as life cannot live on Mars. Secondly, I would have to question how it got up there in the first place. So on the balance of things, I would say that should be convincing enough. Theism, on the other hand, relates to something metaphysical. It is not therefore as easy to dismiss, but it is a good answer to everything....intelligence rather than luck

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am Agnostic in knowledge (implies get that I do not have knowledge about wether or not deity exists)

But I am an Aethiest by beileif.

If there is no evidance that Bigfoot exists so I say, he COULD exist but probably not.

Since their is no evidance that a god exists so I say, he COULD exist but probably not.

Agnotics, Ignostics and Atheists all don't believe. Atheism takes it further. they are the ones that argue and therefore think they know and therefore can be said to have a belief. No one surely thinks Dawkins religious ministry is based on him believing nothing...do they?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am interested as to why you keep referring to how atheists use of the word "atheist" generally. It seems like you are pointing out that "atheist's" get to hide behind a vague term, while no one goes by "theist". Their classification that they identify with is far more specific as to what their worldview is (Muslim, Christian, Orthodox/Reformed Jew, Hindi, Buddhist, etc.).

But, that merely speaks to the term "atheism" itself being vague (just as you have shown "theism" to be with this thread), or, at the very best, a semantical argument.

But, if my assumptions about the beliefs in question in the OP are incorrect, forgive me, as you have repeatedly refused to state, specifically, what those beliefs are (beyond "theism in general", of course).

I find it interesting so far that no one has attempted to answer it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

My point is that assuming that those who identify as "atheist" are "materialists" is a foolish practice. Atheism is evolving constantly, just like every other world view has. Like "theism" it should not be used to stand for anything other than a lack of belief in the existence of God/gods. I'm sure that, over time, the present classes of "strong, weak, and agnostic/gnostic" will gain popularity, but, until then, we should be respectful and refrain from assuming the worldview specifics. At least treating the term "atheism" with the same caution as we all do with "theism".

A lack of belief in God or gods though is a belief system in itself as an atheist. think about it. To argue with someone you have to have some form of belief that you are right. So not believing in gods leaves them in a position of blind-faith (as they can't prove it) and yet claiming to be right, so a belief

 

[Robert.Evans]

I agree on the meaning of the term, and I disagree that "most atheists are materialists". But, that being said, my real issue is with people automatically adding materialism to any claim of atheism. I think that is disrespectful, personally. Just ask about specifics.

If they are not materialists, what are they?
Are you saying they believe in metaphysical things? Like what? Things they can't see nor hold, BUT not God. Is that it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nope, gnosticism has to do with whether the answers to things can be known (rather than believed). No detail is required to be an atheist, for example there are certainly a large number of proposed deities that I have never heard of, my position on those deities is one of atheism as I lack belied in their existence just as I lack belief in the existence of the Abrahamic God or the Hindu deities.

It can't be one of atheism, if you are being technical. You would have to be ignostic, a play on the word ignorant, which is what they are to you. It does depend on ones definition of the words however.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sheesh! Thank you. You are right, we each have our own idea of what the Bibilical God is (and I am sure other readers can find the right arguements based on what your post). It is not that we cannot prove you wrong, it is because we have different definitions of what the biblical God is that we will be talking past each other. So, it's not enough to say "I am Jewish. I am Christian. I am Muslim." The believer (or nonbeliever, whomever is on the spotlight) has to at least tell us how he or she defines the God they believe in so the other party they are debating against knows (at least a little more) about what that believer believes and not what the other party wants to belieive about the believer. Gosh. Tongue twister.

Instead of a Christian saying "I am Christian. I believe in the Biblical God" he needs to say something like "I follow Christ. He is my God. He is love and all the above" and the other party can rule out using non-trinitarian argurements on a trinitarian believer. The more specific a person states his belief, the less the other party is able to conteract those believes with his own bias.

You make some good points but I don't think you need to know who or what his God is. Everyone knows the basic idea.

That's why I ask about details. Nothing about semantics or anything like that. To your OP, after all this, I cannot disprove your theism. I don't believe in the Abrahamic God in any other extent than concepts and personifications of our psychological wants and needs for spiritual growth and development.

Where is the evidence that we have ''psychological wants and needs'' other than from an atheist psychologist who looks for answers as we all do.

If I had enough knowledge, I can share how belief in God is psychological rather than purely supernatural based.

This is a common mistake. The word ''supernatural'' is misleading. Everything is understood in the mind, even if we see something it has to be understood in the mind, the brain. So it is wrong to think you will see something that is not of this world that we can't explain. It will have to be part of this world as it is in the physical world.....that is why the metaphysical God cannot be seen.

I could also share repeated statements of people believing in multiple Gods and each person saying their God is the right God and yet each God is influenced and shaped by the culture and group of people that believe in him or her.

If God existed (if your theism is correct), God would be universal. There would be no "this is my god and this is yours". Religion would not be based on the person but based on the fact that a Creator does exist. Since it is just a belief it can't be proved true. Since I don't believe in a God as a being, I can't prove something that doesn't exist, does not exist

There are many realities that we live in responding from many gods. The gods are the lower replication of God and we are the lower representation of the gods. Thus we all have a god and each would be right for each one of us. Without this knowledge, people would clearly think there's right and another's wrong..... to go against one's own mind would make one insane.
So your hypothesis is one answer, that there would be one universal God, but it does not work. You probably have some cognitive bias, the very thing you accuse theist of, that makes you think that, probably to do with your own lack of belief and trying to explain it in physical terms.
Also, you not believing does not mean it does not exist. It just means you don't believe.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sorry for the long post. My point. There is only one good arguement I know for atheism and its just by its definition, lack of belief in God. The theist makes the claim. The atheist disbelieves it. The problem is, the theist believes his beliefs are facts. Atheists know they are disbelieving in claims and most don't consider them facts...if that be the case, they would believe it.

The friction lies in the fact verses claim stance. An atheist propes a theist about the claims he makes, the theist is offended because he believes his claims are facts/true--so it becomes personal. When a theist questions a stable atheist on his claims, the atheist is like "well, I just don't believe what the theist believes in. If you didn't make the claim, I wouldnt be an atheist." type of thing. Atheism depends on theism. That's why theism holds the burden of proof and that is why theists are always asked more questions. To ask an atheist to disprove his disbelief in God is illogical. That's like asking me, "do you believe in God," and I say "No, he does not exist" and you say "proof it" and I think "how? when there is nothing here. What measurements can I use to measure nothing? What tools should I use? Questions I should ponder over? Is it Zen? A Koran? Give me a hint, theist."

Yet your answer is somewhat simplified and in favor of atheism.
If you confidently affirm that the largest part of the planet is wrong, then you must have an answer as to where everything comes from, ultimately. We have intelligence. You have luck. If you don't look at your own position, you won't see how absurd it is. You have to have an answer.
Saying that you don't believe is one thing, but most atheist don't just do that, and you know that full well. Luck is not a good substitute for intelligence, unless you can show me evidence where it is?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes. Athiesm does depend on theism, I'll say...since there are different atheist and theists who believe in different things yet keep their prefered label. Maybe that is why many atheists have multiple beliefs because they realize that atheism is not a belief system...so maybe needing a label is a big thing these days, who knows.

Though, if you can answer your own question and find that people can't answer your question correctly, why do you ask it? It seems like you already knew the thread will fail beforehand.

Atheism is a belief system. You believe in it don't you?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is like a student saying that: "Can any teacher convince me that i'm incorrect in my answer to one question from those many thousands millions of questions in the examinations which can be found since the begin of the history of school? Here is the thing though, i won't specify which question i'm refering to, every teacher have to simply randomly pick one question from all those questions and guessing what my answer is, then present their argument why my answer is wrong, or realize that they don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge."

What is this challenge about?
To see which teacher is the most accurate psychic/fortune-teller? To see which teacher have the best luck to randomly guessing the right question and right answer which is being keeping secret by the student?
...

If some theist makes the claims that their God exists, then the burden of proof is on those theist to prove their God exists, not on atheist to prove their God doesn't exists.
Even if any atheist fail to prove any theist's God doesn't exists, it in no way helps to prove that any of those God indeed exists.

To prove that any God exists, it needs to have convincing evidence/reason/argument that prove any of those God indeed exists.

Some theist explain/present their evidence/reason/argument that proves their God exists to atheist.
If atheist think those evidence/reason/argument is convincing to them, then they may accept it as correct and may join the specific theism.
If atheist think those evidence/reason/argument is unconvincing to them, they then explain why it's unconvincing to them using their reasoning/logic.

It doesn't actually work like that. God proves, not man. If he opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are. You are foreknown. That is not to say you do not have freewill....it is just hard to use. We follow who we are you see....hard to change that.

 

[Koldo]

Any argument is acceptable, that has already been stated.

Great.

1) The place where you are born and live is a major factor on determining your religion - This means that people inherit their religion, just like the local culture, from their surrounding society. The generic theism is part of a long western tradition.

2) We already reject other ( beliefs in ) gods - It is not like there is only one kind of belief in god. Most people reject multiple pantheons and treat them as fiction, merely because they weren't raised in an environment where those gods are treated as actually existing.

3) Dubious miracles - One thing that sets apart Moses, Jesus, etc. ( prophets ) is their ability to perform miracles. However, it is impossible to determine whether those miracles actually happened.

4) No need for God - God is not required to explain any event that we know to have transpired.

5) God has not been proven to exist - This should go without saying.

In other words, religion is a cultural phenomenon that doesn't depend on establishing the truth of its claims to exist. I hold that if we are unable to substantiate the existence of said God, then there is no justification, within the realm of reason, to believe in it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism?

No. I can't even convince you to hold that the basics of logic are correct.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Great.

1) The place where you are born and live is a major factor on determining your religion -
This means that people inherit their religion, just like the local culture, from their surrounding society. The generic theism is part of a long western tradition.

Yes. But there is a reason for that, and though it could be interpreted that their specific god is false, that does not have to be the answer. It might well be one you would look for if you were an atheist however.

2) We already reject other ( beliefs in ) gods - It is not like there is only one kind of belief in god. Most people reject multiple pantheons and treat them as fiction, merely because they weren't raised in an environment where those gods are treated as actually existing.

Ultimately, there is only one God, one Singularity that everything comes from. But each is determined by his/her own reality, their own divine principle.

3) Dubious miracles - One thing that sets apart Moses, Jesus, etc. ( prophets ) is their ability to perform miracles. However, it is impossible to determine whether those miracles actually happened.

the NT means ''mighty works'' and the lord spoke in parables.
The OT miracles have mostly been explained now in what we would call natural answers. The mistake we make is to think that it would have to be something supernatural just because we speak of God

4) No need for God - God is not required to explain any event that we know to have transpired.

Fair point... but it would depend on how deep you were going. Some speak of a multiverse for which there is little evidence. I might add that i don't need to know how the mechanics of a combustion engine work to drive the car.... but should that stop us wondering how it does and looking for answers? There has to be one after all.

5) God has not been proven to exist - This should go without saying.

But this a common mistake. God proves to the individual now not to atheists, otherwise you would not be atheists. It is no different than keeping private a PIN number to a CC

In other words, religion is a cultural phenomenon that doesn't depend on establishing the truth of its claims to exist. I hold that if we are unable to substantiate the existence of said God, then there is no justification, within the realm of reason, to believe in it.

Cultural to a degree yes.
It is an individual internal thing, yes.
But your final point relies specifically on materialism, as there is plenty of evidence to say he does. But one should not think that they will find some physical evidence of a God who says plainly that he is Invisible.

 

[Desert Snake]

Great.

1) The place where you are born and live is a major factor on determining your religion - This means that people inherit their religion, just like the local culture, from their surrounding society. The generic theism is part of a long western tradition.

Although this can be true, as in, for me personally, I do follow a traditional theistic religious paradigm /to an extent/, this is not actually an argument against theism. It might be, at best, an argument against exclusivism, however exclusivism seems rare at least on the forums, so, it's not like you would be convincing anyone to change their beliefs. Note, I have a thread or threads about salvation, /a common Xian religious theme/, and very few people who responded actually thought that it was ''Xians only'', in this aspect of religious belief, or Xian belief.

2) We already reject other ( beliefs in ) gods - It is not like there is only one kind of belief in god. Most people reject multiple pantheons and treat them as fiction, merely because they weren't raised in an environment where those gods are treated as actually existing.

Sort of. I reject certain ideas about gods, or such, not really just rejecting a deity because it goes by a different name. Yes, this is a tradition, for many, but so what, this again is not an argument against the existence of deity, merely a semantic belief that is cultural, linguistic, and specific, when related to different holy books, etc.

3) Dubious miracles - One thing that sets apart Moses, Jesus, etc. ( prophets ) is their ability to perform miracles. However, it is impossible to determine whether those miracles actually happened.

Not sure. You can't prove anything either way, so they only remain ''dubious'' to an individual, ie it's an opinion.

4) No need for God - God is not required to explain any event that we know to have transpired.

Actually, a creator is needed if you want to get past the glaring non-argument of things poofing into existence from nothing.

5) God has not been proven to exist - This should go without saying.

True. But many things have not been proven to exist. Perhaps we aren't looking for proof, because many things you cannot prove, yet believe.

In other words, religion is a cultural phenomenon that doesn't depend on establishing the truth of its claims to exist. I hold that if we are unable to substantiate the existence of said God, then there is no justification, within the realm of reason, to believe in it.

Ah? No, I do expect people to establish their credibility. Many churches do not, I understand that, however the churches and such do not ''speak'' for religious ideas, neither does academia. Substantiation is subjective.

 

[Desert Snake]

No. I can't even convince you to hold that the basics of logic are correct.

This is nonsense.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is nonsense.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thank you for proving my point.

You aren't proving points. You're demonstrating that you don't know the subject.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

off topic, and not my problem.

Yes, you saw to that.

 

[David M]

It can't be one of atheism, if you are being technical. You would have to be ignostic, a play on the word ignorant, which is what they are to you. It does depend on ones definition of the words however.

Made up words are not going to change the fact that the terms I used do already have definitions. There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.

If someone has not heard of a deity then they lack belief in that deity, which makes their position on that deity one of atheism. In general Christians lack belief in the Hindu deities, which means that their stance on the Hindu deities is one of atheism (but that does not make them Atheists because they do have belief in one theistic deity). Its not a hard concept to grasp.