Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[Willamena]

To be clear, you think babies are polytheists? Or are you being contrary...

Yeah... I don't get the whole polytheist thing--perhaps I missed part of the conversation. But I stand by my statement to outhouse.

 

[outhouse]

But I stand by my statement to outhouse.

Which was?

 

[LuisDantas]

Never say never....eternity is a long time...

Are you asking me to lie?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you asking me to lie?

No of course not...but you like all mortals are not omniscient and the circumstances may change in a way that requires revisiting a certain belief... But that's ok for now..carry on as you best understand life...

 

[Curious George]

I am. I am not prone to hyperbole.



Sure, but at some point the woods get lost for the trees. Are lion cubs theists now?

Hmm, good question. I suppose some people would say yes, while others would say theist is limited to humans.

 

[outhouse]

others would say theist is limited to humans

Who else could it be limited to ?

 

[LuisDantas]

No of course not...but you like all mortals are not omniscient and the circumstances may change in a way that requires revisiting a certain belief... But that's ok for now..carry on as you best understand life...

I can't believe you give your own beliefs so little importance, Ben.

I must be misunderstanding you. You can't possibly be suggesting that I should attempt to develop either a belief in god or a fear of a hypothetical afterlife just for the sport of it.

That... is insulting to your faith, don't you think? I sure do.

 

[Curious George]

Who else could it be limited to ?

Having trouble tracking?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I can't believe you give your own beliefs so little importance, Ben.

I must be misunderstanding you. You can't possibly be suggesting that I should attempt to develop either a belief in god or a fear of a hypothetical afterlife just for the sport of it.

That... is insulting to your faith, don't you think? I sure do.

I have no idea what you are talking about so you are obviously misunderstanding me? ...in any event it is all pretty trivial but fwiw..you said that neither theism or christianity would ever be compatible with you! I replied that eternity is a long time! You then asked me if I was asking you to lie? I then explained no...but you can't know the eternal future...but for this life carry on as as you are....that's all there was to it.. I don't really care that you believe that there is no future for everyone beyond the one mortal life..

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no idea what you are talking about so you are obviously misunderstanding me?

Let's see.

You seem to be suggesting that I should in some way "keep open" to the supposed possibility that there is a god and/or an afterlife, apparently so that I might not be too surprised or have reason to repent "if" it turns out that there is one and/or the other.

Is that about right?

...in any event it is all pretty trivial

That much I can agree with, although I suspect we have very clashing conceptions about this supposedly trivial matter.

but fwiw..you said that neither theism or christianity would ever be compatible with you!

I sure do. That the concepts exist at all as such is in some senses fascinating to me. They challenge many leading elements of fantasy fiction in their exoticism.

I replied that eternity is a long time! You then asked me if I was asking you to lie?

As in "I'm not quite sure whether I will ever have an use for theism or christianity". Saying so would be a lie. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I then explained no...but you can't know the eternal future...

In the same sense that I "can't" know whether I am immortal, I suppose. For all I "can" know I may be destined to inherit the power of Zeus and Odin before I turn 60. Or be half-alien.

But is just simpler, more direct and more honest to simply say that I know I am not. There is no point in toying with fantasies that are not even all that coherent or appealling.

but for this life carry on as as you are....that's all there was to it.. I don't really care that you believe that there is no future for everyone beyond the one mortal life..

Fair enough. I may have misunderstood you after all.

 

[Willamena]

Which was?

Sorry, it was to Lewis, not to you.

(You all look the same.)

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

No! I am an atheist because it is the default position. The fact that someone claims otherwise and fails to make their case does not affect my position in the least.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

Sorry if I still haven't read through the thread except the first page, but isn't the term 'blame' a bit out of place? If not shouldn't blame be placed on believers for believing, rather than on believers for non-believers for not believing?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

In my opinion, we really are born with an innate propensity to either believe in the existence of a High Power or to disbelieve. The same evidence is essentially available to all of us. Some see it as compelling and others see it as nonsense.

I disagree! My youngest memories are free of belief or disbelief. It was only when I was told I must believe that the question ever entered my mind. The only propensity was whether I thought my grandmother, the only person that every truly loved me, was a lier, or if I wished to burn in hell for all eternity!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Speaking for myself, ... Whatever your metaphysical beliefs, I believe spiritual progress is made through improving the quality of our hearts and minds (not our metaphysical beliefs).

Even this atheist can agree!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Are they saying that the cosmos came from nothing?

And what is the difference between doctrine and beliefs?

Doctrine is "teaching" from authority. It is to be accepted without question. If one accepts doctrine there may not me much difference. If one does not accept doctrine, then doctrine is what an fool/idiot believes, while belief could be based on doctrine or evidence (or conceivable something else).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

When you use the phrase: "valid, reasoned and supported arguments", I think you might need to consider that the evidences being considered as such are very different between the theist and atheist camps. For the most part, atheist have limited themselves to a large extent to exclusively empirical evidence. The interesting thing is that most atheists haven't sought out this empirical scientific evidence themselves. Rather, and ironically enough, they take it on faith that the scientists have got it right.

Theist, on the other hand (and at least speaking for myself) accept that the scriptural record concerning the core message of the atonement along with the reports of honest men who claim to have been witness to manifestations of God, to be valid, reasonable and supported by the coherence and agreement of the various reports. Atheist have a tendency to get hung up on details which have little or nothing to do with the core message of scripture and reject the whole thing on that basis... throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were. There are many things which I cannot explain in scripture, but I feel I can hold those issues in suspense until such time as God sees fit to make things more clear. The important thing is the core message... The atonement of Jesus Christ. Also, I do not neglect empirical evidence. I attempt as best I may, try to find correlation between science and scripture. For myself, I think I have found avenues of thought... reasoning, to explain what might otherwise be considered disparities.

So, you believe that atheists have 'faith' in the 'evidence' that others present, and that believers have 'evidence' in the 'faith' of others? And you wonder why atheist fail to accept the arguments of believers as any thing other than fanciful musings?

 

[psychoslice]

Theists have no support for their claims what so ever, and we wonder why there are atheist, not one claim what so ever has ever been worth contemplating about.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

When you use the phrase: "valid, reasoned and supported arguments", I think you might need to consider that the evidences being considered as such are very different between the theist and atheist camps. [/quote'BS! the evidence is exactly the same!' Either empirical evidence i.e. EVIDENCE; or, as you state "accept that the scriptural record ." which IS NOT EIDENCE[qutoe]For the most part, atheist have limited themselves to a large extent to exclusively empirical evidence. The interesting thing is that most atheists haven't sought out this empirical scientific evidence themselves. Rather, and ironically enough, they take it on faith that the scientists have got it right.

Theist, on the other hand (and at least speaking for myself) accept that the scriptural record concerning the core message of the atonement along with the reports of honest men who claim to have been witness to manifestations of God, to be valid, reasonable and supported by the coherence and agreement of the various reports. Atheist have a tendency to get hung up on details which have little or nothing to do with the core message of scripture and reject the whole thing on that basis... throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were. There are many things which I cannot explain in scripture, but I feel I can hold those issues in suspense until such time as God sees fit to make things more clear. The important thing is the core message... The atonement of Jesus Christ. Also, I do not neglect empirical evidence. I attempt as best I may, try to find correlation between science and scripture. For myself, I think I have found avenues of thought... reasoning, to explain what might otherwise be considered disparities.

Sir, I do not mean to be disrespectful. But you need education regarding the term evidence. Evidence means that which presents itself. I agree that both empirical evidence and biblical evidence present themselves. However for almost 1000 years evidence has had the additional tag of "OBJECTIVE," which means observable reality. I.e. not based on what someone says, not based on what someone writes down, not even based on what a million believers believe god wrote down...THAT WHICH PRESENTS ITSELF IN A MANNER IN WHICH I, ME, THE OBSERVER, CAN VERIFY FOR MY OWN SELF.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I wonder if it is more common that atheists are atheists because they simply stopped, or never started, believing in the first place, rather than because the theists didn't make a good enough argument.

For me it was a back-and-forth. I recall being given my first bible and going through confirmation. I recall questioning everything I was told, everything i read, and finding it unbelievable. But I questioned my authorities, my pastor, my grandmother, etc. and the answers always came up that I had better believe. This consistency with authority, or those that I valued, my social circle, was more important than consistency with my (11 year old) conception of reality!!!! After all, reality is harsh, Nana is sweet! Reality is brutal, Pastor Becker promised me eternal life in heaven.

Between then and now i have a M.S. in Evolution and I have been a minister in a Baptist church. At the age of 50 I feel secure in saying I will never be able to believe in the fables again!