I got sick of being an atheist

[Unveiled Artist]

Best way to see this is see each atheist individually as people with our distinct points of discussion without comparison.

Neither is logically justified

It is. If you say there is anything or any statement of question, it would be logical someone to ask about that statement or even challenge it to get more information.

If I said 100 people were cured of COVID by medicine X, you would want me to defend myself (I'm sure?) to provide proof before you can accept such a thing.

If someone said god existed and god is not something you can observe with your senses, of course that person should (I hope) defend his belief by providing some sort of proof for the other to accept such a thing.

The problem is religion is personal. So, it does not make sense for any theist to say god exists and this is fact because in saying so, he is opening himself up to be questioned for his clarity and validity of his statement. It's nothing inherently personal.

Religions 'work' for a great many people. Yet somehow this 'evidence' is not acceptable to the atheist.

Because your evidence has different criteria than physics and objective evidence. So, you can say you have evidence for god but in reality, it is all subjective. Nothing. Wrong with subjectivity. The problem is many theists (I won't say all) present their "god exists" as facts and facts are likely to be more questioned for their validity than experiences of god.

I don't know what that means.

Disregarding atheists attitude about evidence etc, isn't it logical one would ask for evidence for a claim one can't ascertain for himself?

i.e. Ask for proof COVID medicine works despite the person just believing what is said.

We do have evidence that faith in God works for a great many humans. But the atheist doesn't want to accept it as evidence, because it's subjective. Yet that same atheist cannot produce and objective evidence that no gods exist, or even and subjective reasons for presuming so. And then they try to hide behind this irrelevant gibberish about "unbelief". It's just so tiresome.

You have subjective evidence: people's testimonies, personal experiences, abstract thoughts, coincidental conclusions (lack of words theists would accept), etc. These aren't objective so these aren't what atheists are looking for.

What a theist "can" do is say to atheist directly: there is no objective evidence for god, so sorry. Can't help you there.

Now the last part that does not make any logical sense what so ever.

i.e. If I said I had the medicine for COVID, would it makes sense to ask you to provide proof that I don't have the medicine?

i.e. That's like a child holding a toy in his hand and telling the other child "na-nananana. prove I don't have a toy! Go on. Prove it!" without ever showing his peer he even has something in his hand to begin with.

Don't you think it's odd to take your statements (god, COVID, whatever) as true and take your word for it without asking for anything that would support your statements?.... that and

Wouldn't it make even lesser sense for me to ask you to prove what I "don't?"

I'm honestly not following the logic of why anyone (and how) anyone can prove something does not exist if there is nothing for that person to base his conclusions on. Ya dig?

Proof was never going to be possible. It's like proving something existed before existence as we know it, existed. So demanding it is illogical and disingenuous. Yet the demand for it never ends, even as the atheist cannot prove his own contention that no gods exist.

Exactly.

So the question "prove god does not exist" to atheist is illogical.

Sounds like you have more problem with the atheist not their arguments. Take away your issue with atheists for a minute.

The problem is asking any person to prove you don't have something but at the same time saying it can't be proven. So why ask the question? Does it make sense to even ask that question?

It makes sense for someone who does not believe in god to ask another who does, to provide support and conclusions of why he (the former) say god exists. I'm asking from an atheism point of view not an atheist (too many view points as there are atheists).

God does exist as a fact. And the fact that we are talking about it, proves it. But you're interpreting "existence" as a physical material phenomenon, only. And then demanding physical material evidence. Yet God's existence has never been proposed as a physical material phenomenon. And when we try to point this out, the atheist runs to the Bible and begins citing literary artifice as if it were proposed fact. Which has nothing to do with anything, and is yet another dishonest ploy to avoid his own illogical hypocrisy.

I hate dictionaries, so I'll try to be simple. Fact is something both parties can observe and draw conclusions from. 1 and 1 is 2 is a fact regardless who knows it, why, what language it's in, what culture. In other words, if I hold one thing in either hand, when I combine them, they double. God is not a fact.

Facts are concrete. Criteria you can observe regardless of what a person believes.

"Yet God's existence has never been proposed as a physical material phenomenon." Facts are physical material (for lack of better words). Facts have criteria for their validity and can be studied to show if the validity of the conclusions (2 and 2 is 5 or 4) is correct or false. What you're saying is a contradiction. God is a fact "and" god has never been proposed as a physical material phenomenon.

Supernatural religions don't propose facts. Why do believers try to say they have facts "but then" they need faith not observation and study to believe in it?

Sure, but that isn't what's happening.

Proof was never going to be possible. It's like proving something existed before existence as we know it, existed. So demanding it is illogical and disingenuous. Yet the demand for it never ends, even as the atheist cannot prove his own contention that no gods exist.

I think I missed this quote. If proof is not possible, then it should be logical not to present your belief as fact (i.e. saying god is fact).

If god is fact, there needs to be support for it for both people can judge whether that fact is true.

If god is based on belief, there does not need to be support because each person will have their own criteria of truth. Belief is subjective, facts are not.

Theist got to choose one or the other to make a sound discussion.

People on both "sides" are, but I am not a "side". And I am capable of sticking to the logic. Unfortunately, I get very little of this in return from the atheists I encounter, here. Just as I get little of it from the religious zealots I encounter.

You're using subjective logic (if there is such a thing)-only logic that makes sense to you and those who agree with you. Facts aren't bias.

Putting atheist in one box is very insulting. I hope you don't consider me a religious zealot, I hope?

The vast majority of religious theists are not evangelistic. In fact, it's only a fraction of religious Christians that believe it is their calling to evangelize. Judaism, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Paganism; none of these are evangelistic practices. Even many Christians do not evangelize, even though it would be somewhat justified by their religious ideology. And yet this indictment is constantly being used by atheist to condemn all religious practice and expression, and to justify their own proselytizing.

True.

Most atheist on RF don't care about religious unless the religious harms and influence others because of religious' belief systems. I only know of, in the States, christians to be harmful and influence people who don't agree with them. It's a legal and moral issue rather than a theological one.

I am not evangelizing. I am not religious. I am not here to defend other people's religious practices. And that isn't a logical part of any reasoned debate of the theist proposition.

You as in people in general.

I think many self-proclaimed atheists are willful idiots who refuse to recognize the difference between theism and religion because it serves their bigotry against religion. Which they don't understand, much, either.
their own proselytizing.

That, I don't get. Maybe the insults are distorting your points. I can smell negativity a mile away and in person it does make me twinge.

Your pathological obsession with the fiction of "objectivity" is not their responsibility. Nor is it mine.

You're taking offense over a person's behavior and using your feelings for atheist as a means to invalidate the logic and argument (statement of debate) they put forth.

I would assume many philosophers who are not atheists ask the same question of christian and god logic as any lay person atheist, christian, or not.

It's not about atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really need to stop playing with hairy fairy woo and branding other people with it.

I will repeat again
Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

True and valid are not concrete like say a rock. To treat them as concrete is the fallacy of reification.
You use a cognitive rule, which is not objective because it requires thinking and not unbiased, because you could use another rule. I.e. you end up doing this for words like facts, information, true or valid. You use a personal interpretation for these words and thus it is not objective: Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

You treat in effect your subjective choice only to accept your understanding as objective and concrete. It is not.
Here is an example of what truth is:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
There are 6 different contradictory versions of truth listed and you use one of them. That you use one of them is subjective and a personal interpretation.

In short you use a subjective definition of truth. I use another. I just know that it is the case for both of us and it appears you don't, because relevant for this you can't differentiate between concrete and abstract just like objective and subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not my problem. I am petty sure it is not up individuals to dictate who is and who isn't in their club. In fact. I believe the bible is explicit on not judging others. So perhaps those finger painting are the ones not real members of the club

However. It is a club with around 50000 branches, all believe slightly differently. All have particular views on what Christianity is. The fact remains they are all Christians

So you judge who are members of a single club, yet "I am petty sure it is not up individuals to dictate who is and who isn't in their club." is an individual doing it, because you as "I" is an individual. Learn to check your reasoning before you claim something in effect absurd.
You as an individual treat all Christians as one club. Again learn to check your own thinking, before you start to claim that you can do it for all humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Good post, but



Because your evidence has different criteria than physics and objective evidence. So, you can say you have evidence for god but in reality, it is all subjective. Nothing. Wrong with subjectivity. The problem is many theists (I won't say all) present their "god exists" as facts and facts are likely to be more questioned for their validity than experiences of god.

...

Your criteria for what makes evidence evidence is as for the criteria not objective and physical. They are also subjective and these criteria are not facts. So do you present your criteria as objective, physical and facts themselves or do you accept that they are subjective?

 

[ChristineM]

True and valid are not concrete like say a rock. To treat them as concrete is the fallacy of reification.
You use a cognitive rule, which is not objective because it requires thinking and not unbiased, because you could use another rule. I.e. you end up doing this for words like facts, information, true or valid. You use a personal interpretation for these words and thus it is not objective: Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

You treat in effect your subjective choice only to accept your understanding as objective and concrete. It is not.
Here is an example of what truth is:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
There are 6 different contradictory versions of truth listed and you use one of them. That you use one of them is subjective and a personal interpretation.

In short you use a subjective definition of truth. I use another. I just know that it is the case for both of us and it appears you don't, because relevant for this you can't differentiate between concrete and abstract just like objective and subjective.

I am not talking of my subjective opinion, i am talking of independent observations and measurements that confirm each other.

Sorry you dont consider verified data as objective but prefer to brand it with your own subjective woo. I see no point in continuing if you repeatedly ignore recognised definitions.

 

[ChristineM]

So you judge who are members of a single club, yet "I am petty sure it is not up individuals to dictate who is and who isn't in their club." is an individual doing it, because you as "I" is an individual. Learn to check your reasoning before you claim something in effect absurd.
You as an individual treat all Christians as one club. Again learn to check your own thinking, before you start to claim that you can do it for all humans.

Tell Christianity that, i dont really care how you choose to misrepresented

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your criteria for what makes evidence evidence is as for the criteria not objective and physical. They are also subjective and these criteria are not facts. So do you present your criteria as objective, physical and facts themselves or do you accept that they are subjective?

I don't understand. You'd have to rephrase the paragraph for me?

 

[Secret Chief]

As much as lemon-meringue planets exist.

Hang on, I need to check this out. So are you saying that if I talk about salted caramel asteroids then they exist, because we can talk about them? Does talking about Ghuonibrtyuixcmist mean that Ghuonibrtyuixcmist exists?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not talking of my subjective opinion, i am talking of independent observations and measurements that confirm each other.

Sorry you dont consider verified data as objective but prefer to brand it with your own subjective woo. I see no point in continuing if you repeatedly ignore recognised definitions.

But that is not all of the world. You have confirmed that by observing that there is subjectivity. You are just unable to understand relevant for this and you are also subjective.

It is your subjective opinion that for evidence only independent observations and measurements, that confirm each other, counts. "Counts" is the subjective part.
You subjectively weigh subjective and objective differently than me, but you are still subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not talking of my subjective opinion, i am talking of independent observations and measurements that confirm each other.

Sorry you dont consider verified data as objective but prefer to brand it with your own subjective woo. I see no point in continuing if you repeatedly ignore recognised definitions.

That you choose independent observations and measurements that confirm each other, is subjective.

Edit: recognised is subjective.

 

[ChristineM]

That you choose independent observations and measurements that confirm each other, is subjective.

The observations are objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Tell Christianity that, i dont really care how you choose to misrepresented

That is subjective and not science, observation, facts, valid, truth and your opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The observations are objective.

And that you value that as important is subjective.

 

[ChristineM]

But that is not all of the world. You have confirmed that by observing that there is subjectivity. You are just unable to understand relevant for this and you are also subjective.

It is your subjective opinion that for evidence only independent observations and measurements, that confirm each other, counts. "Counts" is the subjective part.
You subjectively weigh subjective and objective differently than me, but you are still subjective.

No, it is fact that confirms independent onservatives confirm each other

 

[ChristineM]

And that you value that as important is subjective.

Irrelevant

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand. You'd have to rephrase the paragraph for me?

Your criteria for what makes evidence evidence are also subjective and not objective and physical.

 

[ChristineM]

Your criteria for what makes evidence evidence are also subjective and not objective and physical.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hang on, I need to check this out. So are you saying that if I talk about salted caramel asteroids then they exist, because we can talk about them? Does talking about Ghuonibrtyuixcmist mean that Ghuonibrtyuixcmist exists?

Yep, that is about it. if we talk about something then it exists - including Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and all associated wizardry. But some manage to discern the fiction (as existence) from the facts (as existence).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your criteria for what makes evidence evidence are also subjective and not objective and physical.

It can't be. I don't have criteria for evidence. Like two and two is four, the evidence for this math equation isn't dependent on my belief or criteria in order for it to be true. Math laws and physics aren't dependent on me to exist. This is objective not subjective.

Religion, god, et cetera are subjective. You haven't given a reason why or how my criteria is not objective?

I'm not sure what criteria I have, just saying that theists are proposing subjective experiences as objective facts. Then they add, when asked about objectivity, god is greater, god is personal, god can't be sensed, and so forth. Vague descriptions of god that by its nature can't be proven.

So, it's illogical to present something as a fact but then can't back it up "and" say it is impossible to do so at the same time.


-
What I would say is for theist to make up their mind. If it's a fact, it must be supported by concrete evidence. If it's a belief, then the evidence would be fact to the person who believes it only. Can't have both ways. Either it has evidence everyone can observe or it does not.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yep, that is about it. if we talk about something then it exists - including Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and all associated wizardry. But some manage to discern the fiction (as existence) from the facts (as existence).

So can we please keep talking about Ghuonibrtyuixcmist, I've decided to start a new religion to augment my meagre pension.