Is a Belief a Claim?

[Trailblazer]

What you see as sharing can be perceived as a claim (or at least as an invitation to debate) - or vice versa.

You just hit the nail on the head. Yes, that is what often happens.

 

[Valjean]

Their belief in philosophical materialism, and their belief that if gods exist, there would be discernible, testable, physical evidence. And their belief that because no one has provided them with this, that no gods exist unless and until someone does.

For starters.

Wouldn't this put gods in the same epistemic class as leprechauns, as things with no empirical evidence of existence? If belief in gods were legitimate, wouldn't that legitimate unicorns, Cthulu and færies, as well?

Is philosophical materialism a class characteristic of atheists?
Me, I don't believe lack of evidence = non-existence. Lack of evidence only renders lack or deferral of belief the reasonable position.

 

[Valjean]

Sure, in the atheist's 'kangaroo court'. Which is really what this whole debate is about.

Huh? Kangaroo court? Please explain why deferring belief in something unevidencd is unreasonable.

 

[PureX]

There's exactly one "source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is"? That sounds like a claim of its own.

I posted the "great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". That does not imply anything, "exactly".

And it can't be that mysterious to work as the focus of belief.

Of course it can. The mystery is WHY it works. It allows anything that we hope God to be, possible.

To have belief in a thing, that thing has to be well-defined enough that the belief can point to it.

For many people it is, but it doesn't have to be. And your arguing with how they choose to define it in their minds or in their religious traditions is us just a big waste of time. As ultimately everyone will have their own individual ideal.

Edit: and your definition sounds way too monotheistic-centric to really work as a definition for "god."

That's because you can't seem to grasp the concept of a profound mystery. It doesn't give you a big boogeyman you can hate on.

Sure. Worship is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a god.

No, it's not necessary at all. It's just a choice some people make.

Again: there's a limit to how mysterious a god can be, because we can't believe in or worship that which we can't conceive at all.

We can conceive of the questions, but not the answers. Hense, the mystery. Everything we experience about existence implies a source, sustenance, and purpose. And yet we have no way of determining what that is. So, being humans, we do what we humans do and imagine what it might be. And we generally call imagined deity "God".

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't this put gods in the same epistemic class as leprechauns, as things with no empirical evidence of existence? If belief in gods were legitimate, wouldn't that legitimate unicorns, Cthulu and færies, as well?

Sure, in the atheist's 'kangaroo court' of the mind. It's partly why they are constantly trying to equate them with God. Well, that and they know it's insulting to theist's beliefs.

Is philosophical materialism a class characteristic of atheists?

It's a very common belief. As is 'scientism'.

Me, I don't believe lack of evidence = non-existence. Lack of evidence only renders lack or deferral of belief the reasonable position.

I think "belief" is just blind egotism, and should be disregarded entirely. But my fellow humans seem to be completely enamored by it, and just cannot give it up; theists and atheists alike. And so they fight about it endlessly, achieving nothing, because it's all just as ego blather.

 

[PureX]

Huh? Kangaroo court? Please explain why deferring belief in something unevidencd is unreasonable.

Most atheists are NOT "deferring belief". They are specifically out to destroy any and all theistic claims, beliefs, assertions, speculations, possibilities, and anything else, related. Then they pretend to be undecided and open minded when they are pressed to defend their own blind anti-theism. Because they know they can't defend it in any of the ways they are insisting that every theist they encounter MUST defend their theism.

This is the 'kangaroo court' of the mind that so many theists are addicted to engaging in. It's why they see every theistic utterance as fodder for their own internal kangaroo court trial. The outcome of which has already been decided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I posted the "great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". That does not imply anything, "exactly".

It implies that there's only one. It implies that the source of "all that is" is the same thing that sustains it, etc.

Of course it can. The mystery is WHY it works. It allows anything that we hope God to be, possible.

For a belief in a thing to be in the thing, it has to refer to the thing. Something that's entirely mysterious has nothing to refer to.

A: "I believe in God."
B: "Okay. What do you mean by 'God'?"
A: I don't know. God is completely mysterious.
B: "..."

You know... in this case, there really would be no claim, because A hasn't actually communicated anything.

"I believe in X, but X is a mystery" is just an elaborate way of saying "I don't know what to believe."

For many people it is, but it doesn't have to be. And your arguing with how they choose to define it in their minds or in their religious traditions is us just a big waste of time. As ultimately everyone will have their own individual ideal.

And we can infer people's beliefs from what they say and do.

When someone can go into great detail about their god's opinions on, say, how people's fashion and genitals should align or which day of the week is the right one for group worship, or whether the word "filioque" is or isn't appropriate when describing their god, we know that their god isn't very mysterious at all, regardless of which buzzwords the person uses.

Nobody prays to "I don't know." Nobody tithes to "I don't know." They might not have a crystal-clear concept of their god in every detail, but with their actions, they're declaring that they know enough about their god to decide that it's right to pray to it.

That's because you can't seem to grasp the concept of a profound mystery. It doesn't give you a big boogeyman you can hate on.

You provided enough detail for us to understand that you believe in a monotheistic creator-god. Not that mysterious.

No, it's not necessary at all. It's just a choice some people make.

Every god is an object of worship by someone. That was my point: the realm where we would look to see whether a purported god actually exists is finite; it's limited by the bounds of human knowledge.

Even if, say, a powerful magical alien did exist on the other side of the universe hiding behind some moon, the fact that it's beyond our ken means that it's never been an object of worship bybany human and therefore can't be a god.

We can conceive of the questions, but not the answers. Hense, the mystery. Everything we experience about existence implies a source, sustenance, and purpose. And yet we have no way of determining what that is. So, being humans, we do what we humans do and imagine what it might be. And we generally call imagined deity "God".

Any word - including "God" - signifies something or else it's just an empty sound and not a word at all.

 

[PureX]

It implies that there's only one. It implies that the source of "all that is" is the same thing that sustains it, etc.

For a belief in a thing to be in the thing, it has to refer to the thing. Something that's entirely mysterious has nothing to refer to.

A: "I believe in God."
B: "Okay. What do you mean by 'God'?"
A: I don't know. God is completely mysterious.
B: "..."

You know... in this case, there really would be no claim, because A hasn't actually communicated anything.

"I believe in X, but X is a mystery" is just an elaborate way of saying "I don't know what to believe."

And we can infer people's beliefs from what they say and do.

When someone can go into great detail about their god's opinions on, say, how people's fashion and genitals should align or which day of the week is the right one for group worship, or whether the word "filioque" is or isn't appropriate when describing their god, we know that their god isn't very mysterious at all, regardless of which buzzwords the person uses.

Nobody prays to "I don't know." Nobody tithes to "I don't know." They might not have a crystal-clear concept of their god in every detail, but with their actions, they're declaring that they know enough about their god to decide that it's right to pray to it.

You provided enough detail for us to understand that you believe in a monotheistic creator-god. Not that mysterious.

Every god is an object of worship by someone. That was my point: the realm where we would look to see whether a purported god actually exists is finite; it's limited by the bounds of human knowledge.

Even if, say, a powerful magical alien did exist on the other side of the universe hiding behind some moon, the fact that it's beyond our ken means that it's never been an object of worship bybany human and therefore can't be a god.

Any word - including "God" - signifies something or else it's just an empty sound and not a word at all.

I'm sorry that you have no boogeyman to snipe at but the millions of imaginary facsimiles people invent to represent the mystery of existence in their own minds. But that's just the way it is. We humans are capable of knowing THAT we don't know something without knowing WHAT we don't know about it. That is the essence if unknowing, and is a big part of the human condition. I'm sorry if this doesn't suit your purposes, but that's just the way it is. You want a God that you can think your way out of, or around, and that just isn't what it is. The mystery is real, and you can't make it go away. So deal with it.

 

[Valjean]

Most atheists are NOT "deferring belief". They are specifically out to destroy any and all theistic claims, beliefs, assertions, speculations, possibilities, and anything else, related. Then they pretend to be undecided and open minded when they are pressed to defend their own blind anti-theism. Because they know they can't defend it in any of the ways they are insisting that every theist they encounter MUST defend their theism.

This is the 'kangaroo court' of the mind that so many theists are addicted to engaging in. It's why they see every theistic utterance as fodder for their own internal kangaroo court trial. The outcome of which has already been decided.

Balderdash!
Most atheists don't give theism a second thought, unless the issue is brought up in a discussion or on a talkboard.
Most of us are open minded. Show us some evidence or a reasonable argument and we'll seriously consider the matter.
When pressed to defend our non-belief, we do so. If you can't drop your presumptions or don't understand logic, that's not our problem.
Do you understand the concept of burden of proof. We atheists are making no claim. It's you making the claim -- and failing to substantiate it. When we point this out, and show your rational errors, you feel threatened and and start making ridiculous claims about our being out to destroy theistic claims.

 

[PureX]

Do you understand the concept of burden of proof.

Yes, it's the open invitation into the atheist's kangaroo court. Where the atheist will decide what is and is not evidence, and what is and is not proof, and has already decided that there is no evodence, and no proof, and that all gods are just human delusions.

We atheists are making no claim.

Yes, because you're all wimps that won't subject your own beliefs to the same absurd scrutiny that you want so badly to subject all theists to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, it's the open invitation into the atheist's kangaroo court. Where the atheist will decide what is and is not evidence, and what is and is not proof, and has already decided that there is no evodence, and no proof, and that all gods are just human delusions.

Yes, because you're all wimps that won't subject your own beliefs to the same absurd scrutiny that you want so badly to subject all theists to.

This is still coming across the same way: "people didn't take my arguments seriously, and this offends me."

The grapes were sour anyway, right?

 

[PureX]

This is still coming across the same way: "people didn't take my arguments seriously, and this offends me."

The grapes were sour anyway, right?

I guess that's what you have to tell yourself when you have no other logical rebuttal.

 

[Kfox]

Why would this be unique to theists?

When having a discussion with a person I know to be a theist, it's usually a religious discussion and the person informed me they were a theist. theists have a long history of making truth claims concerning their religion

 

[SalixIncendium]

When having a discussion with a person I know to be a theist, it's usually a religious discussion and the person informed me they were a theist. theists have a long history of making truth claims concerning their religion

If you know they're a theist, why would they need to inform you that they're a theist?

I have discussions with lots of people. Aside from discussions here, religion rarely comes up. I couldn't tell you whether most people I interact with aside from family are theists or atheists. Seems strange that religion is usually the point of discussion for you with theists.

 

[Kfox]

That is only how you perceive it.
I assume you do not lie.
Is everything you post a truth claim, just because you believe it is the truth?

Often what I post is opinion or something that just make sense to me; not necessarily a truth claim. However in religious discussions theists have a history of making truth claims concerning their religion/God

 

[Kfox]

If you know they're a theist, why would they need to inform you that they're a theist?

It is often how a person responds on the forum that informs their beliefs, if for example the discussion is "Evolution vs Creation", they don't necessarily have to say "oh yeah; and by the way I am a Christian".

I have discussions with lots of people. Aside from discussions here, religion rarely comes up.

Same here

I couldn't tell you whether most people I interact with aside from family are theists or atheists. Seems strange that religion is usually the point of discussion for you with theists.

This is a religious discussion site. Many of the discussions here are religious based. You don't have to be a mind reader to know which side of the tracks a person is on based on how they respond.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You're the exception, then. Many believe what they learned as children, before critical thinking and logic, and what their social network accepts as true.

Really? You don't think most adults question their childhood beliefs, when they reach adulthood?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it's the open invitation into the atheist's kangaroo court. Where the atheist will decide what is and is not evidence, and what is and is not proof, and has already decided that there is no evodence, and no proof, and that all gods are just human delusions.

Yes, because you're all wimps that won't subject your own beliefs to the same absurd scrutiny that you want so badly to subject all theists to.

Apparently you don't understand reasoning or logic.
The scrutiny is entirely reasonable, and we invite such scrutiny of our own beliefs, as well.

 

[RestlessSoul]

.

 

[Heyo]

Really? You don't think most adults question their childhood beliefs, when they reach adulthood?

Look at the statistics. Most believers don't change their religion in adulthood. The RF crowd is a self selected group which did or is at least questioning / thinking about their beliefs. Don't take us as an example, we are the exception.