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

[Curious George]

babies are conditioned to believe in such things as god.

I agree completely that children are socialized to believe in certain God concepts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You make good points, perhaps defining things as just "not something" is logically problematic.

Or perhaps negating statements is, if not logically problematic, at least counterintuitive enough to render necessarily true statements which are obviously nonsense. And yes, this is an excuse to quote my favorite example here:
"Clearly the opposite of the (false) statement, 'All rational numbers equal 1,' is the statement, 'There exists a rational number that does not equal 1.'
However, by the same rules, the statement, 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach (4th Ed.)

 

[Curious George]

Or perhaps negating statements is, if not logically problematic, at least counterintuitive enough to render necessarily true statements which are obviously nonsense. And yes, this is an excuse to quote my favorite example here:
"Clearly the opposite of the (false) statement, 'All rational numbers equal 1,' is the statement, 'There exists a rational number that does not equal 1.'
However, by the same rules, the statement, 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach (4th Ed.)

Another good point. But I tend to want to go with my gut on this one. While I could in theory point to dictionary after dictionary defining "immortal" or "infallible" to support my statements, these terms are created to apply to specific entities. Broadening the category to apply to entities in a manner for which no meaningful purpose can apply is not helpful or efficient.

To prove my point, we can do away with the law of the excluded middle and still find that according to the definition, the statement could be construed as true. The alligator however, would fall under the "not capable of proof" category.

So, I guess I am stuck suggesting that we either not define things by only what they are not, limit the meaning of words such that when we do this they are the most efficacious, or accept that babies are theists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, I guess I am stuck suggesting that we either not define things by only what they are not, limit the meaning of words such that when we do this they are the most efficacious, or accept that babies are theists.

Basically, use words as we use them and if we need to use them in ways they generally aren't used, don't do so for pointless reasons unless we are willing to accept the logical consequences?

 

[viole]

Or perhaps negating statements is, if not logically problematic, at least counterintuitive enough to render necessarily true statements which are obviously nonsense. And yes, this is an excuse to quote my favorite example here:
"Clearly the opposite of the (false) statement, 'All rational numbers equal 1,' is the statement, 'There exists a rational number that does not equal 1.'
However, by the same rules, the statement, 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is true, since if it were false, then there would exist a eleven-legged alligator that is not orange with blue spots."
Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach (4th Ed.)

Actually, I think that the statement 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is indeed true (and not nonsensical).

Some apparently meaningless statements are even tautologies.Like "all married bachelors have wings".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

This thread needs a definition of 'theism', or ''theist''

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, I think that the statement 'All eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots' is indeed true (and not nonsensical).

Another reason I've taught with this text for years is the authors' comments in the margins of every page. Here, the relevant comment (the one which concerns eleven-legged alligators) is "Statements that to the ordinary mortal are false or meaningless are thus accepted as true by mathematicians; if you object, the mathematician will retort, "find me a counterexample."
Alas, what is nonsensical or meaningless is not well-addressed by formal systems designed to be as stripped of meaning as is possible and which lack in just about every possible sense the capacity to be more than marginally relevant when it comes to linguistic use/lexical semantics/conceptual content. An even easier example and one with far more devastating implications is the interpretation of conditionals. As the truth-value of a conditional can only be 0 or false if the antecedent is true, any conditional with a false apodosis/antecedent is necessarily true, hence "if the moon is made of green cheese, I rule the word" is true; also, conditionals we find in actual speech such as "if you're hungry, there's food on the table" logically entail nonsense such as e.g., "if it is not the case that there's food on the table, you're not hungry."

Put simply, I can't provide you with a counterexample to the statement that "all eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots", but I shouldn't have to (well, at least outside of mathematics or formal systems).

 

[viole]

Duplicate

 

[viole]

Another reason I've taught with this text for years is the authors' comments in the margins of every page. Here, the relevant comment (the one which concerns eleven-legged alligators) is "Statements that to the ordinary mortal are false or meaningless are thus accepted as true by mathematicians; if you object, the mathematician will retort, "find me a counterexample."
Alas, what is nonsensical or meaningless is not well-addressed by formal systems designed to be as stripped of meaning as is possible and which lack in just about every possible sense the capacity to be more than marginally relevant when it comes to linguistic use/lexical semantics/conceptual content. An even easier example and one with far more devastating implications is the interpretation of conditionals. As the truth-value of a conditional can only be 0 or false if the antecedent is true, any conditional with a false apodosis/antecedent is necessarily true, hence "if the moon is made of green cheese, I rule the word" is true; also, conditionals we find in actual speech such as "if you're hungry, there's food on the table" logically entail nonsense such as e.g., "if it is not the case that there's food on the table, you're not hungry."

Put simply, I can't provide you with a counterexample to the statement that "all eleven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots", but I shouldn't have to (well, at least outside of mathematics or formal systems).

Well, this is probably due to my professional distortion, then. By the way, I like to not belong to the set of ordinary mortals, lol.

For me, it is a tautology that all members of the empty set satisfy property P, for any P, including ~P.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, this is probably due to my professional distortion, then.

I sympathize (empathize) entirely. If I could do it over, I'd do mathematics (as close as unambiguous as things get in academia), not physics in which we use unambiguous formalisms which relate to systems in ways we don't understand (exactly solvable solutions to systems that aren't physical but are supposed to correspond to physical reality in ways we must interpret).

For me, it is a tautology that all members of the empty set satisfy property P, for any P, including ~P.

Generally, I agree. But nearly a century after von Neumann, and despite the mostly rejected attempts to replace classical logic with an ontological many-valued logic, the foundations of modern physics rest upon violations of logic, modern (elementary & non-measure-theoretic) probability, and seemingly the LNC and excluded middle, how to apply such clearly logical, valid inferences/theorems/axioms from naïve set theory and classical logic remains problematic. And that's physics. Language, cognition, and conceptual processing are much, much, more "messy" (even fuzzy sets have proven very inadequate here). Years ago, a linguistics professor whose approach was formal (generative) expressed a certain frustration while expressing the (apparently) unavoidable conclusion that language can't possibly be even approximately reduced to classical (mathematical/symbolic) logic, or we'd all speak the same language. Neurobiology, neuroimaging, linguistics, and cognitive psychology (and the cognitive sciences more generally) have made this abundantly if unfortunately clear.

Luckily, this doesn't make mathematics or logic either irrelevant here or useless. For instance, as you probably know better than I, semantics/meaning/concepts may be essential, but soundness requires validity and validity is a formal matter.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

If they were successful in making their case, wouldn't that cause an effect?

 

[leibowde84]

>>Do you think the flawed reasoning of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind?<<

Yes I do. At least it is a great contributing factor in many cases, not all. I imagine some atheists spend most of their discourse with "pop theologians" (like us) and between that and grasping some important gists of Scripture, that is enough for them to say “not convincing enough for me, too many unknowns or disturbing ideas.”

And yet, I personally do not know of too many devout agnostics who converted to Christianity based upon reasoning it out alone? No doubt there are many celebrated cases of that, but for most of humanity what do you think is the reason most unbelievers become believers? Out of hope for something better after death? Out of fear? Out of tragedy? Or maybe God assisted in inspiring their minds once they humbled themselves enough to ask for answers, not just once, but sincerely in a continuous quest.

"Every happy family is happy in the same way and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” --- Tolstoy That quote reminds me something of the subject at hand. Maybe most souls are at peace because of their certainty of God’s existence and His mercy, and most souls that are not at peace is for a thousand different reasons. Everyone is on a unique journey in some ways, it is not a one-size-fits-all to bring one into the light.

You phrased it better than I did. Great comment.

 

[leibowde84]

No.


Strawman argument. You are presuming prudence, for no apparent reason. You are ''setting up'', the argument, with an erroneous premise. *You have defined atheism, btw, in the thread, as merely a lack of belief. In the OP, you are presenting the position of a thought out position. Ie, a position of 'there is no deity', /deities'.

*These aren't the 'same thing'. A position of ambivalence or not knowing, either way, is completely different than a declaration or belief that there aren't deities, or a Deity.

Atheism includes those who merely lack a belief. There are many are many atheists who don't hold a belief that God does not or cannot exist. They merely don't believe in any gods.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism includes those who merely lack a belief. There are many are many atheists who don't hold a belief that God does not or cannot exist. They merely don't believe in any gods.

Great! But the issue is, how does that fact, ie more than one 'definition', in essence, affect the OP question. The OP is positing a question that would be answered differently, for the different ''types'', of atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

Great! But the issue is, how does that fact, ie more than one 'definition', in essence, affect the OP question. The OP is positing a question that would be answered differently, for the different ''types'', of atheism.

That's fine. On second thought, I would say that the OP was aimed at atheists who merely lack a belief in God or gods. Those that who actively believe that God cannot exist would certainly provide different reasoning. But, I fail to see why both "kinds" of atheists couldn't provide their respective answers in one forum.

 

[Shad]

Immortal is subject to death, if a baby does not understand death then they cannot believe a parent is subject to death.

They also can not understand immortality. You refuted your own argument

Similarly a parent cannot be subject to flaw if the baby does not understand flaw.

Babies get hungry and cry when wanting to be feed. The fact that this happens rather than the parent feeding the child before the crying starts is a flaw. That is the way the child points out a flaw at the current time. Although I doubt it would recognize it as a flaw from our understanding

 

[Shad]

That's fine. On second thought, I would say that the OP was aimed at atheists who merely lack a belief in God or gods. Those that who actively believe that God cannot exist would certainly provide different reasoning. But, I fail to see why both "kinds" of atheists couldn't provide their respective answers in one forum.

The OP only works for rejection atheists not "lack of" atheists. You are tripping over your ill defined terms again.

 

[leibowde84]

The OP only works for rejection atheists not "lack of" atheists. You are tripping over your ill defined terms again.

That is nonsensical. You are claiming (erroneously) that people who merely lack a belief in God are, necessarily, not in that position because of theists inability to support their beliefs with reasoned/logical arguments. Certainly both strong and weak atheists can be in their position due to the failure of the theistic arguments they've heard. How can you disagree with this.

In short, it seems that your accusation against me is based solely on your lack of understanding of the OP itself. It is simply ASKING whether the lack of belief and/or active disbelief of atheists can be attributed to the failure of theists (of whatever sort) to provide a well-reasoned/articulated argument. This can certainly apply to both "kinds" of atheists you pointed out.

 

[Shad]

That is nonsensical. You are claiming (erroneously) that people who merely lack a belief in God are, necessarily, not in that position because of theists inability to support their beliefs with reasoned/logical arguments. Certainly both strong and weak atheists can be in their position due to the failure of the theistic arguments they've heard. How can you disagree with this.

You are proposing that theists are responsible for atheist being unconvinced. In order to be unconvinced of something a person must know of and reject what is being proposed, theism. Theists can not be responsible for a lack of belief as these people have not considered the arguments for theism. If they are familiar with the concept then it is not a lack of but rejection of. Strong and weak atheism are not lack of belief stances but rejection of stances with confidence parameters.

In short, it seems that your accusation against me is based solely on your lack of understanding of the OP itself. It is simply ASKING whether the lack of belief and/or active disbelief of atheists can be attributed to the failure of theists (of whatever sort) to provide a well-reasoned/articulated argument. This can certainly apply to both "kinds" of atheists you pointed out.

No I understood the argument and responded to it. However it seems like you do not understand what being "unconvinced" means. All of your points are based on convincing arguments, evidences and/or proofs. All of your points are aimed towards an arguments failure to convince thus is a rejection stance.

In my OP response I answered in two parts separating the two defination rather than the generalization used in the OP.

 

[leibowde84]

You are proposing that theists are responsible for atheist being unconvinced. In order to be unconvinced of something a person must know of and reject what is being proposed, theism. Theists can not be responsible for a lack of belief as these people have not considered the arguments for theism. If they are familiar with the concept then it is not a lack of but rejection of. Strong and weak atheism are not lack of belief stances but rejection of stances with confidence parameters.



No I understood the argument and responded to it. However it seems like you do not understand what being "unconvinced" means. All of your points are based on convincing arguments, evidences and/or proofs. All of your points are aimed towards an arguments failure to convince thus is a rejection stance.

In my OP response I answered in two parts separating the two defination rather than the generalization used in the OP.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I never said that the subjects in question did not consider the concept of God's existence. I agree that, of course they must in order for the OP to apply to them. That being said, "rejecting the concept of God" includes those who are unconvinced, but still don't actively believe that God does not exist. Obviously, there aren't only two options.

There are many who "lack a belief in the existence of God" because they have heard the argument's for God's existence and are still unconvinced. They have considered the options, and they lack the belief due to insufficient evidence. And, along that same logic, they haven't seen enough evidence to convince them that God cannot exist either.