If Atheism is a psychological position we don't need to seriously consider it

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. We went from "I know there's no evidence" to "hmm, what's the evidence". I'll answer under one condition: can you explain why you felt it was reasonable to make that claim before asking that question?

I have always stated that I have no seen any evidence. With countless atheists saying the same thing, and no theists being able to supply any it is not that big of a jump to say "there isn't any". So it appears that you may be making a strawman, but one that does not help you. If there was valid evidence for a god the rational reaction would have been to post it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Cool, we're going with "pretend theists have never presented evidence." You do you man!

Didn't say they have never presented evidence, now did I? I, in fact, mentioned various types of evidence that have been presented. It's simply that none of it is adequate or compelling.

Think on this. Let's say a body is found on a property. The owner of the property insists innocence, and claims not to have known the body was even there. Wondering whose it is, the investigators do a DNA test on the body, and match it to not only their databases, but also the owners of the property. What they end up finding is that the body is distinctly related to the owners of the property, and they conclude that these are old family burial plots, and not the results of a homicide. This is the type of evidence that could be presented to a court, because DNA testing has tangibly proven itself time and time again to be reliable, inter-subjectively verifiable and just plain real.

Now let's say a body is again found on property, same basic conditions, the owner denies knowledge and claims innocence, but this time the DNA test shows no correlation to the owners of the property, and the body is relatively fresh. Now, the next door neighbor pulls one of the policemen aside and tells them that he believes that the property owner is a murderer. The police officer asks him how he knows this, and the man claims "god told me in a dream." Do you believe that the neighbor's testimony on the matter should be presented in court?

 

[1137]

Didn't say they have never presented evidence, now did I? I, in fact, mentioned various types of evidence that have been presented. It's simply that none of it is adequate or compelling.

Think on this. Let's say a body is found on a property. The owner of the property insists innocence, and claims not to have known the body was even there. Wondering whose it is, the investigators do a DNA test on the body, and match it to not only their databases, but also the owners of the property. What they end up finding is that the body is distinctly related to the owners of the property, and they conclude that these are old family burial plots, and not the results of a homicide. This is the type of evidence that could be presented to a court, because DNA testing has tangibly proven itself time and time again to be reliable, inter-subjectively verifiable and just plain real.

Now let's say a body is again found on property, same basic conditions, the owner denies knowledge and claims innocence, but this time the DNA test shows no correlation to the owners of the property, and the body is relatively fresh. Now, the next door neighbor pulls one of the policemen aside and tells them that he believes that the property owner is a murderer. The police officer asks him how he knows this, and the man claims "god told me in a dream." Do you believe that the neighbor's testimony on the matter should be presented in court?

So you think the only evidence is "god said so"? Insert T-word here!

 

[Valjean]

Actually you start without and idea of Cthulhu, god, giraffes, etc. This is very different from a lack of belief in them. To lack belief you would have to consider the possibility which would require the ability to understand the possibility. Tell me, how can you lack a belief in gods without believing the most likely scenario to be "there are no gods"?

I'm sure you'll find that most weak atheists -- atheists withholding belief pending evidence -- are actually pretty sure there is no God, but are keeping an open mind.

It wasn't that long ago that gorillas, like bigfoot, were believed to be mythical creatures, and the idea that rocks could fall from the sky was considered superstitious nonsense by the educated classes.

No harm in remaining open to possibilities. I'm skeptical about Gods and unicorns, but am willing to consider evidence.

So if you posit evolution and I happen to feel evolution is wrong, I can write you off as full of crap cause I feel like it? Sounds about right!

And I'd write you off as well. An opinion based on feeling is always suspect.

 

[McBell]

So you think the only evidence is "god said so"? Insert T-word here!

One wonders why you did not answer the question:

"Do you believe that the neighbor's testimony on the matter should be presented in court?"​

 

[1137]

One wonders why you did not answer the question:

"Do you believe that the neighbor's testimony on the matter should be presented in court?"​

Of course we shouldn't. Reported.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you think the only evidence is "god said so"? Insert T-word here!

Again you're mischaracterizing my previous words. First you say I "think no evidence has been presented" when I specifically mentioned texts, other people's testimonies, your own anecdotal feelings/hopes/dreams - all as types of evidence. So no... the evidence isn't only "God said so." But NONE of the types of evidence I presented that theists tend to claim would stand on their own in court. Even eye-witness testimony in court is understood as needing weighed! And no theist even has something as strong as eye-witness testimony (for their "sacred texts" or oral traditions) specifically - unless their religion is newly founded and these items were written or told by someone still living.

Your vague, short, curt replies are making me believe that you are uncomfortable with my stance and points made. You haven't once truly provided an actual rebuttal. So... out with it - DO you have any types of evidence that you feel should compel me to believe anything you have to offer of a spiritual/supernatural/godly archetype? You seem to think you do... otherwise you wouldn't complain that I am dismissing "it". So? Anything?

 

[1137]

Again you're mischaracterizing my previous words. First you say I "think no evidence has been presented" when I specifically mentioned texts, other people's testimonies, your own anecdotal feelings/hopes/dreams - all as types of evidence. So no... the evidence isn't only "God said so." But NONE of the types of evidence I presented that theists tend to claim would stand on their own in court. Even eye-witness testimony in court is understood as needing weighed! And no theist even has something as strong as eye-witness testimony (for their "sacred texts" or oral traditions) specifically - unless their religion is newly founded and these items were written or told by someone still living.

Your vague, short, curt replies are making me believe that you are uncomfortable with my stance and points made. You haven't once truly provided an actual rebuttal. So... out with it - DO you have any types of evidence that you feel should compel me to believe anything you have to offer of a spiritual/supernatural/godly archetype? You seem to think you do... otherwise you wouldn't complain that I am dismissing "it". So? Anything?

So you deny things like "effects have causes" and "the universe could not host human life with different properties" and "the mind can have power over the body", despite them being true to our best scientific evidence? Or do you consider pretending these arguments don't exist somehow different?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you deny things like "effects have causes" and "the universe could not host human life with different properties" and "the mind can have power over the body", despite them being true to our best scientific evidence? Or do you consider pretending these arguments don't exist somehow different?

So what if the universe could not host human life with different properties? That does not mean that it could not host intelligent life. This is a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. And your physics is about a century behind the times Quantum mechanics shows that not every event has a cause. And the last one is another huge so what? Do you have anything besides PRATT 's?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you deny things like "effects have causes" and "the universe could not host human life with different properties" and "the mind can have power over the body", despite them being true to our best scientific evidence? Or do you consider pretending these arguments don't exist somehow different?

Did I argue against any of those things? You think those things are evidence of theistic beliefs having merit? Is that seriously what this is about? You may as well say that oranges having peels is evidence for theistic beliefs. That has about the same level of correlation to theism as any of those things you mentioned.

 

[Valjean]

So you deny things like "effects have causes" and "the universe could not host human life with different properties" and "the mind can have power over the body", despite them being true to our best scientific evidence? Or do you consider pretending these arguments don't exist somehow different?

Physics: Effects have causes at a Newtonian level, but this relationship isn't so obvious at a quantum level. Example: the computer you're posting with.
Biology: Abiogenesis is ordinary, cause and effect chemistry. Evolution is a cause and effect process whose steps are well known and easily observed.
Theology: No cause and effect. Magic proposed.

Your fundamental properties point puts the cart before the horse. The universe wasn't produced for us, we developed to fit the universe we're in. This universe chanced to have X properties, and these produced us and effects we observe.

With different properties a universe would produce different effects, and perhaps a different race remarking on how the universe seemed designed for them, and a universe hostile to life wouldn't produce anyone to make a comment on the situation.
This defective bit of reasoning has been debunked countless times.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
-- The Salmon of Doubt. Douglas Adams.

 

[Willamena]

I have always stated that I have no seen any evidence. With countless atheists saying the same thing, and no theists being able to supply any it is not that big of a jump to say "there isn't any". So it appears that you may be making a strawman, but one that does not help you. If there was valid evidence for a god the rational reaction would have been to post it.

It's a logical leap, though, to say "there isn't any" just because you haven't encountered it and appeal to the authority of popularity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a logical leap, though, to say "there isn't any" just because you haven't encountered it and appeal to the authority of popularity.

I don't think they are making that error, but that is not my claim. Perhaps you should ask some hard atheists directly. Keep in mind that the answer of one is not the answer of all.

 

[PureX]

I don't quite follow the distinction you are making here between "beliefs" and "philosophical position." Isn't a philosophical position a type of belief?

A philosophical position is a reasoned conception regarding the nature of reality and our purpose within it. We do not necessarily have to "believe in" this conception for it to be valid (logically reasonable and/or actually functional). "Belief", on the other hand, refers to the relative voracity with which we are currently assuming a given philosophical conception (position) of the nature of reality and our purpose within it. And I say "relative" because belief is almost always some percentage of both acceptance and rejection, relative to the circumstances of the moment, to which the concept is being applied.

Arguing "belief", then, means arguing a visceral, constantly changing, and inherently contradictory degree of voracity, rather than the philosophically reasoned conception of reality that the belief is being applied to. Which is why arguing our beliefs (and even more-so our "unbelief") is such a completely pointless and nearly always fruitless exercise. Whereas arguing (debating) the logical reasoning underpinning a given philosophical proposition regarding the nature of existence and our purpose within it can at least present us with a stationary 'target' concept that we can explore, and adopt, or not, as we deem it reasonable and/or functional.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think they are making that error, but that is not my claim. Perhaps you should ask some hard atheists directly. Keep in mind that the answer of one is not the answer of all.

I'm not talking about gods, but about evidence. I'm referencing your post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not talking about gods, but about evidence. I'm referencing your post.

Then you seem to be confused about my position.

 

[1137]

Did I argue against any of those things? You think those things are evidence of theistic beliefs having merit? Is that seriously what this is about? You may as well say that oranges having peels is evidence for theistic beliefs. That has about the same level of correlation to theism as any of those things you mentioned.

I don't know why I assumed you'd be familiar with even basic Theistic arguments. My bad.

Physics: Effects have causes at a Newtonian level, but this relationship isn't so obvious at a quantum level. Example: the computer you're posting with.
Biology: Abiogenesis is ordinary, cause and effect chemistry. Evolution is a cause and effect process whose steps are well known and easily observed.
Theology: No cause and effect. Magic proposed.

Your fundamental properties point puts the cart before the horse. The universe wasn't produced for us, we developed to fit the universe we're in. This universe chanced to have X properties, and these produced us and effects we observe.

With different properties a universe would produce different effects, and perhaps a different race remarking on how the universe seemed designed for them, and a universe hostile to life wouldn't produce anyone to make a comment on the situation.
This defective bit of reasoning has been debunked countless times.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
-- The Salmon of Doubt. Douglas Adams.

So somehow we are a product of the universe, but you don't believe we would not exist were the universe different? Or am I misunderstanding? Do you not see how if I dig holes of different sizes and in different locations it will effect the sizes and properties of the puddles ?

Oh, that's right, since there's no truth to the cosmological argument you must reject cause and effect. Believe what you will then!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know why I assumed you'd be familiar with even basic Theistic arguments. My bad.



So somehow we are a product of the universe, but you don't believe we would not exist were the universe different? Or am I misunderstanding? Do you not see how if I dig holes of different sizes and in different locations it will effect the sizes and properties of the puddles ?

Oh, that's right, since there's no truth to the cosmological argument you must reject cause and effect. Believe what you will then!

You are still using a Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy.

 

[Willamena]

Then you seem to be confused about my position.

I'm not commenting on your position. I'm only commenting on what you said. You said, "With countless atheists saying the same thing, and no theists being able to supply any it is not that big of a jump to say 'there isn't any'. "

But it is a big jump. It's a logical leap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not commenting on your position. I'm only commenting on what you said. You said, "With countless atheists saying the same thing, and no theists being able to supply any it is not that big of a jump to say 'there isn't any'. "

But it is a big jump. It's a logical leap.

I don't think it is all that big of a jump. I could give examples that you would probably agree with that are very similar. I think a big part of the problem is the emotional investment that many people have in the concept of "God". That is why it sometimes helps to change the name of "God" in discussions.