How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

First before I get accused of plagiarism this thread is a copy done from memory of a write by William Craig, a famous Christian apologist. I couldn't find the original article which contained much more information. I will cut and paste the article if I ever find it.


Well the definition of atheism is difficult or easy depending on the emotional make up of the atheist one asks to define themselves. (lol, I used the word emotional as a substitute for psychological make up. Its an friendly in house sarcasm).

The big question is atheism a view or a psychological condition? If atheism is taken to be a view, like the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. What about the atheists who freely say that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof? Those guys attempt to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition. And psychological conditions can make no assertions. I agree with Craig who says these self named atheists are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. Don't ask me why I know that is true!

; {>

I strongly disagree. Getting a reasonable definition of the term 'God' out of theists is almost impossible. Without that, how can anyone say whether they believe or not? Then, and partly because of the range of possibilities, it is quite possible to believe in some things people label as 'God' and not in others. For example, I certainly don't believe the Christian deity exists. Nor the Islamic one. But a pantheistic deity that iified with the universe? Well, I certainly believe the universe exists. But I am not so convinced that the universe deserves the noun 'God' applied to it.

I also disagree because the of proof is on the positive existence statement. The default position is, and always will be that something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist. because of this, the lack of evidence in a deity *is* quite sufficient to match the claim of non-existence. If I claim that a new species of large mammal exists, but fail to provide proof, the claim will rightly be ignored. if I claim that a subatomic particle exists but fail to provide proof, the claim will rightly be ignored. And in the same way, a claim of the existence of a deity that does not support that claim with clear evidence should be ignored as simply being an unsupported claim.

BTW, Craig, while a very popular apologist, is a very poor reasoner. His claims about infinite regress being impossible are another example of his failures.

 

[Polymath257]

Please member 'It Aint Necessarily So' just what are you calling sufficient evidence? You see if you are asking for what I think you are asking that is a problem. Most atheists think they prove their case by smugly stating they want only empirical evidence to prove the existence of an atemporal being that has little or no physical attributes. Its a non-argument. In addition those atheists feel Atheism is a default position of sorts and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. Not so...

Thank you Dr Craig ~

; { >

The theist doesn't bear a 'special burden', they bear the *only* burden by having the positive existence claim. This is as it *always* is for *any* existence claim.

And the fact that there can be no empirical evidence is, itself, sufficient reason to deny the claim of existence.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I strongly disagree. Getting a reasonable definition of the term 'God' out of theists is almost impossible. Without that, how can anyone say whether they believe or not?

I hear that but using an excuse that there are too many people with definitions you do not understand agree with or feel does nothing to help your case. Besides knowing what God looks like or defining god or whatever that means little to nothing. The bible defines God, you should read it sometimes! I know what God wants and what he is about because the bible makes that clear. If you don't understand the bible there are resources from grade school to PhD level material that will describe God, teach, and enlighten you. If you are looking for extra-biblical sources they are out there too. Use a search engine!

Then, and partly because of the range of possibilities, it is quite possible to believe in some things people label as 'God' and not in others. For example, I certainly don't believe the Christian deity exists. Nor the Islamic one. But a pantheistic deity that iified with the universe? Well, I certainly believe the universe exists. But I am not so convinced that the universe deserves the noun 'God' applied to it.

That's OK, I have no problem with what others believe. If I dont at least try to mention the eternal life thing I do feel saddened afterwards. That's because by not converting the individual, I am allowing a person to die an early death, giving up his birthright of eternal life. So because Christians are asked and taught by the teachings of Jesus to evangelize I do. However not in the traditional way. Most people would not even know I have done my bit for Jesus which means we are tasked with telling those that do not know believing in God/Jesus will enable their eternal life device. But I do respect all belief systems. I happen to have a dual belief deism and theism. In some areas, for example I am more of a deist than a theist in some areas.

I also disagree because the of proof is on the positive existence statement. The default position is, and always will be that something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist.

Is that something that you made up? Science claimed black holes existed long before they had enough evidence to almost ensure they did. And black holes are only one of many many things that fit that criteria.

because of this, the lack of evidence in a deity *is* quite sufficient to match the claim of non-existence. If I claim that a new species of large mammal exists, but fail to provide proof, the claim will rightly be ignored.

There is large evidence that God exists. I am not going to waste my time repeating the many evidences, Use Google and keywords. Also remember nothing is 100% certain in this universe.

if I claim that a subatomic particle exists but fail to provide proof, the claim will rightly be ignored.

WRONG! The higgs boson was not ignored because even though there was no empirical evidence for it for a decade or more.Try again?

; {>

 

[Polymath257]

I hear that but using an excuse that there are too many people with definitions you do not understand agree with or feel does nothing to help your case. Besides knowing what God looks like or defining god or whatever that means little to nothing. The bible defines God, you should read it sometimes! I know what God wants and what he is about because the bible makes that clear. If you don't understand the bible there are resources from grade school to PhD level material that will describe God, teach, and enlighten you. If you are looking for extra-biblical sources they are out there too. Use a search engine!

I have read the Bible. That is part of why I don't agree with it. But that is only *one* definition of the term 'God'. There are also the Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Mithraic, etc versions. All of which I do not believe in.

That's OK, I have no problem with what others believe. If I dont at least try to mention the eternal life thing I do feel saddened afterwards. That's because by not converting the individual, I am allowing a person to die an early death, giving up his birthright of eternal life. So because Christians are asked and taught by the teachings of Jesus to evangelize I do. However not in the traditional way. Most people would not even know I have done my bit for Jesus which means we are tasked with telling those that do not know believing in God/Jesus will enable their eternal life device. But I do respect all belief systems. I happen to have a dual belief deism and theism. In some areas, for example I am more of a deist than a theist in some areas.

First you have to prove that eternal life *is* a realistic possibility. ZThen you have to show it is a desirable one. I don't believe either.

Is that something that you made up? Science claimed black holes existed long before they had enough evidence to almost ensure they did. And black holes are only one of many many things that fit that criteria.

No, they said that BH holes were a theoretical possibility. That is a distinctly different than actually claiming they exist. There were several candidates (Cynus X-1, for example) but everything I read was quite open about the inconclusive nature of the evidence when it was still inconclusive. Of course, NOW it isn't inconclusive.

There is large evidence that God exists. I am not going to waste my time repeating the many evidences, Use Google and keywords. Also remember nothing is 100% certain in this universe.

Yes, I have seen the 'evidence'. If it was presented in a trial, it would be legitimately laughed out of court. Inconclusive is the best thing you can say about it. Flat-out deceptive is a much better characterization.

WRONG! The higgs boson was not ignored because even though there was no empirical evidence for it for a decade or more.Try again?

; {>

It was recognized as a theoretical possibility predicted by the best description we had of the electroweak force. The theory also presented clearly HOW to validate the existence. Since we didn't have the technical abilities until recently, that was something allowed.

So, what *precisely* is a method for validating the existence of a deity? Even if it isn't technically feasible right now, how can that idea be *tested*. In particular, what would be a test that would definitively prove no deity exists (or even that particular dieties do not exist)?

I want to point out that for black holes and the Higg's particle, very definite criteria were given to establish existence AND very definite criteria were given that would show non-existence if they happened. Can you do the same for your deity?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most atheists think they prove their case by smugly stating they want only empirical evidence to prove the existence of an atemporal being that has little or no physical attributes.

Smugly? So now rational skepticism is smugness? If the believer can't demonstrate a god by any means, why should anybody else believe those that make claims about them?

those atheists feel Atheism is a default position of sorts and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. Not so...

Atheism is a default position. Atheists have no burden of proof until they make a claim to somebody that they hope to convince.

 

[PureX]

God only exists as a concept in the minds of believers. I am no more going to bow and worship the concept of an invisible pink unicorn than I would a god concept born of nothing more than pure imagination.

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

The next question, then, is; does "God" exist apart from our intellectual conception of 'it'? And I think it's pretty clear by now that we humans will not be able to ascertain an answer to that question. We simply don't have the capabilities required to do so.

And that leaves us with the final, and most pertinent question: is there a positive functional reason for us to presume that "God" exists apart from our intellectual conceptions of 'it'? And we each will have to determine that for ourselves. But, being that billions of humans have obviously found some positive benefit in presuming that their conception of God exists as more than just their own conception, I would say that is very good reason to investigate this possibility, for ourselves.

 

[PureX]

Notice: I'm not going to bother responding to posters who appear to me to be actively trying not to understand what I write, so that they can protect and maintain their own biased opinions. Sorry, but that would just be a waste of my time and energy. And yours, since you would be learning nothing new.

 

[PureX]

I'm not arguing against theism. Keep in mind that I'm not an atheist even if I disagree with your ideas. I'm arguing against your sweeping characterization of atheists as egotistic control freaks.

Oh, sorry. It's easy to get this many responses mixed up.

The reason I generalize is that I am basically arguing against atheism as an ideology, and how it effects it's adherents, I'm not really against atheists, as a specific category of people. And apologize that my OP and some of my comments in this thread make that unclear.

This kind of leading by the nose tactic always annoyed me when I was an atheist and never changed my mind about anything. Neither does it change my view of Hell as non-existing now, as I have talked about it with Christians and Muslims. Do you believe in a Hell of eternal torture?

No. I am an agnostic, philosophical Taoist/Christian. I defend theism (not religion) as a positive option. And I reject atheism as a foolish and unnecessary rejection of this potentially very useful, positive option, for no rational reason.

God is not just a philosophical idea that comes into existence by thinking about it. God is something you either know from experience or you don't.

The experience comes from the active application of faith to the idea. That's why when atheists reject the idea, having never actively applied any faith to it, nor adjusted the idea to better suit their application of faith, they gain no experiential results. And thus they claim "there is no evidence" to support the belief. Atheism is like closing the barn door before the horse can get in, and then burning the barn down because they find is to be "empty and useless".

 

[Polymath257]

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely silly argument. The *idea* of a God exists, at least in some minds, but that doesn't mean God exists. The idea of a thing is not the thing.

The simple fact that I have an idea of unicorns does not mean unicorns exist!

The next question, then, is; does "God" exist apart from our intellectual conception of 'it'? And I think it's pretty clear by now that we humans will not be able to ascertain an answer to that question. We simply don't have the capabilities required to do so.

But that is the whole question!!! Is God simply a figment of our imagination or not? You have provided no evidence that this is not the case.

And that leaves us with the final, and most pertinent question: is there a positive functional reason for us to presume that "God" exists apart from our intellectual conceptions of 'it'? And we each will have to determine that for ourselves. But, being that billions of humans have obviously found some positive benefit in presuming that their conception of God exists as more than just their own conception, I would say that is very good reason to investigate this possibility, for ourselves.

The question here is whether self-delusion is a value. I don't agree that it is.

And, if the only value you can provide is that of imaginary friends being helpful, then I'd say the atheist position is validated.

 

[Polymath257]

Notice: I'm not going to bother responding to posters who appear to me to be actively trying not to understand what I write, so that they can protect and maintain their own biased opinions. Sorry, but that would just be a waste of my time and energy. And yours, since you would be learning nothing new.

It seems to me that you fail to respond because you have no valid response to make. I don't see anyone here that is actively trying to avoid understanding of your posts. What I *do* see is several that disagree with your posts. But disagreement and lack of understanding are very different things.

Essentially, you propose that we should indulge in imagination to make up a belief in God that we can feel comfortable with. Why? What extra value does such an exercise in imagination yield? You have proposed such things as a feeling of meaning and of purpose, but those are equally, if not better found without the imagination of a deity.

And the main question isn't whether we can imagine something: it is whether that something actually exists. my ability to imagine leprechauns doesn't mean leprechauns exist are are things I should believe in even if it gives me pleasure to do so.

 

[PureX]

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely silly argument. The *idea* of a God exists, at least in some minds, but that doesn't mean God exists. The idea of a thing is not the thing.

The simple fact that I have an idea of unicorns does not mean unicorns exist!

If you are truly incapable of understanding that existence is not defined or determined by "thingness" then there is no further hope for this conversation.

The idea of a unicorn is just as extant as a painted image of the idealized unicorn. Which is just as extant as the hand that painted the image, and the mind that conjured it.

 

[Polymath257]

If you are truly incapable of understanding that existence is not defined or determined by "thingness" then there is no further hope for this conversation.

Huh? Since I don't have a definition of 'thingness', I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The idea of a unicorn is just as extant as the painting of the idealized unicorn. Which is just as extant as the hand that painted the paining, and the mind that conjured it.

Yes, the *idea* of a unicorn exists. But unicorns do not. Do you really not see the difference? The idea of a unicorn is not a unicorn!

The *idea* of God is not God!

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that you fail to respond because you have no valid response to make.

I cannot move you past your "thingness" bias. Only you can do that for yourself.

 

[PureX]

Huh? Since I don't have a definition of 'thingness', I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I believe you.

Yes, the *idea* of a unicorn exists. But unicorns do not.

Of course they do. They exist as ideas, they exist as images, they exist as inanimate objects like sculptures and play-toys, and they exist as fictional characters in myths and in children's stories. So every time you claim they don't exist, you are just killing the conversation. Because clearly they DO EXIST. They just don't exist in the very narrow, biased way that YOU insist existence must be defined.

 

[Altfish]

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

The next question, then, is; does "God" exist apart from our intellectual conception of 'it'? And I think it's pretty clear by now that we humans will not be able to ascertain an answer to that question. We simply don't have the capabilities required to do so.

And that leaves us with the final, and most pertinent question: is there a positive functional reason for us to presume that "God" exists apart from our intellectual conceptions of 'it'? And we each will have to determine that for ourselves. But, being that billions of humans have obviously found some positive benefit in presuming that their conception of God exists as more than just their own conception, I would say that is very good reason to investigate this possibility, for ourselves.

Change the word "God" to "Harry Potter" or "Winnie the Pooh" you have the same argument.
It makes no sense

 

[Mister Silver]

I believe you.
Of course they do. They exist as ideas, they exist as images, they exist as inanimate objects like sculptures and play-toys, and they exist as fictional characters in myths and in children's stories. So every time you claim they don't exist, you are just killing the conversation. Because clearly they DO EXIST. They just don't exist in the very narrow, biased way that YOU insist existence must be defined.

No, they don't exist. In no way does a living, breathing unicorn exist in the same manner that a cat or dog exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe you.
Of course they do. They exist as ideas, they exist as images, they exist as inanimate objects like sculptures and play-toys, and they exist as fictional characters in myths and in children's stories. So every time you claim they don't exist, you are just killing the conversation. Because clearly they DO EXIST. They just don't exist in the very narrow, biased way that YOU insist existence must be defined.

WOW. Exactly. Unicorns are *fictional*: they do NOT exist.

 

[Koldo]

The idea of God exists in everyone's mind. So, "God exists", as an idea, and ideas exist in the same way everything else, exists: as patterned expressions of energy. So lets end the childish foolishness about "God" not existing, right now.

It is not fair to use the term 'existence' in a different manner from pretty much everyone else and then proceed to say the others are fools. When we say something exists ( or not ), we don't mean that it exists conceptually ( since that is a given ), we mean that it exists apart from our minds.

The next question, then, is; does "God" exist apart from our intellectual conception of 'it'? And I think it's pretty clear by now that we humans will not be able to ascertain an answer to that question. We simply don't have the capabilities required to do so.

Depends on how you interpret the term, doesn't it ?

And that leaves us with the final, and most pertinent question: is there a positive functional reason for us to presume that "God" exists apart from our intellectual conceptions of 'it'? And we each will have to determine that for ourselves. But, being that billions of humans have obviously found some positive benefit in presuming that their conception of God exists as more than just their own conception, I would say that is very good reason to investigate this possibility, for ourselves.

Two points here.
First one is that if I find sufficient reason to believe that something is true, then I believe in it. If I don't find sufficient reason, then I don't believe in it. I refrain from wishful thinking as much as I can. Whether something is beneficial to me won't change my judgment about its truth value. If you are any different that's entirely up to you.
The second point is that people aren't really taught how to cope with life. The benefit I see coming from religion is the solace that is offered at times of need, but it is possible to provide solace without religion.

 

[Jumi]

The reason I generalize is that I am basically arguing against atheism as an ideology, and how it effects it's adherents, I'm not really against atheists, as a specific category of people. And apologize that my OP and some of my comments in this thread make that unclear.

I used to be an atheist for most of my life, it was never an ideology for me as presented.

No. I am an agnostic, philosophical Taoist/Christian. I defend theism (not religion) as a positive option. And I reject atheism as a foolish and unnecessary rejection of this potentially very useful, positive option, for no rational reason.

I'm a bit different since I hold the gnostic position, but it's not for me to criticize what positions one may hold. As a philosophical taoist you could think about this:

When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear.

Is it more preferable than honest criticism? I think it's not.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe you.
Of course they do. They exist as ideas, they exist as images, they exist as inanimate objects like sculptures and play-toys, and they exist as fictional characters in myths and in children's stories. So every time you claim they don't exist, you are just killing the conversation. Because clearly they DO EXIST. They just don't exist in the very narrow, biased way that YOU insist existence must be defined.

It seems to me that you have a difficult time distinguishing fiction from reality.