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

[Shad]

He agreed with Copernicus/ heliocentricism though did he not? But true, you can be right without enough evidence to prove anything

Neither one provided enough evidence of their claim. This is why it was rejected.

And that is part of the point, we like to see the catholic church as impeding science at the time, but we can't blame anybody for not instantly throwing out centuries of received conventional wisdom, based on the anecdotal testimony of a couple of misfits. It was a pretty wild theory at the time.

I am trying to stay away from the RCC direct involvement since it is not required when it comes to whether Galileo provided evidence of his ideas or not. Part of the problem when bring the RCC into this topic is that Galileo openly mocked the Pope and the Church bring it directly into a personal conflict. Besides if one actually looks at history it was not the RCC that hampered science the "most" during this time, it was the Protestant movement.

But he was right, and for the right reasons, i.e. personal experience trumped what was considered 'verified' by a large consensus.

None of his personal experiences were about the heliocentric model, he had no experience of the Earth orbiting the sun nor the math to prove it. It was about flaws in the geocentric model based on flaws in Aristotelian physics. For example the phases of Venus showed that Venus orbited the Sun, not the Earth. The moons of Jupiter showed that these orbited Jupiter, not the Earth nor Earth around the Sun. The Moon observation show that not all objects tried to move towards the "center" of the universe. All his personal observation refuted Aristotelian physics but not the geocentric model directly nor did it provide evidence of the Earth's movement. Newton was the one to provide evidence and observations of the Earth's movement.

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/pos/pos_background2.html

Personal experience one never had nor showed can not trump anything.

 

[leibowde84]

It is meant with all due respect!

The scientific method is about NOT taking anybody's word for it, would you agree? Evidence can be a very subjective thing, so relying on other's evidence has been shown time and again to be unreliable also.

I take your point on verification, but personal experience can be very much objective, opposing the collective subjective opinion of a large group of 'experts'.

Let's say - what Galileo himself saw through his telescope, versus the wide consensus of the most educated authoritative scientific institutions of the day?

We both agree on our respect for the scientific method as ideally defined. But in reality, those attempting the method are human beings. The method is pure, the practitioners are not. Conclusions can guide evidence as often as the other way around.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical. Personal experience is always "subjective" by definition. That is what subjective experience is.

 

[Dhyana]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical. Personal experience is always "subjective" by definition. That is what subjective experience is.

And therefore not capable of being proved objectively. Neither is absolute truth objective. Whatever is made objective by being spoken, written, or indeed thought of as a concept cannot be absolute. Concepts are human constructs and are true or false relative to the human who expresses
them. Absolute truth is then subjective. Some Mystics have stated that absolute truth is subjectivity per se.

 

[leibowde84]

And therefore not capable of being proved objectively. Neither is absolute truth objective. Whatever is made objective by being spoken, written, or indeed thought of as a concept cannot be absolute. Concepts are human constructs and are true or false relative to the human who expresses
them. Absolute truth is then subjective. Some Mystics have stated that absolute truth is subjectivity per se.

I would say that absolute truth is a myth.

 

[Jumi]

When we want something objective, we don't rely on witnesses to provide interpretation but are referring to something that will fit the data we have now and will make an accurate prediction in known conditions. We can say that landing Rosetta's Philae probe on a comet didn't have much to do with subjective experience but of objective knowledge.

 

[StopS]

Since there is no uniform definition of a god and gods have the habit of hiding, there is nobody else around to take the blame, is there?

 

[Robert Landbeck]

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.

Speaking as an EX christian who has concluded that 'theological' based tradition has nothing to do with God, but yet to default to atheism, I think " their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief." is only a small part for the problem. If the idea of God is nothing more than an intellectual game of who has the best argument, then theists have reduced God to the lowest common denominator of whatever natural reason can comprehend which must be completely contrary to what the very nature of revelation should provide; that is insight into the mind of God. And that insight should be able to demonstrate itself without the need for argument. As in principle truth should be able to stand and defend itself. God remains the biggest idea ever to exist. Unfortunately tradition has reduced that omnipotence and majesty to an impotent, improbable reality without significance to a future in desperate need of new direction. If God is true, and I have no doubt that is the case, he has yet to make his will clear to humanity. Not too much to ask of omniscient, omnipotent being!

 

[leibowde84]

Speaking as an EX christian who has concluded that 'theological' based tradition has nothing to do with God, but yet to default to atheism, I think " their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief." is only a small part for the problem. If the idea of God is nothing more than an intellectual game of who has the best argument, then theists have reduced God to the lowest common denominator of whatever natural reason can comprehend which must be completely contrary to what the very nature of revelation should provide; that is insight into the mind of God. And that insight should be able to demonstrate itself without the need for argument. As in principle truth should be able to stand and defend itself. God remains the biggest idea ever to exist. Unfortunately tradition has reduced that omnipotence and majesty to an impotent, improbable reality without significance to a future in desperate need of new direction. If God is true, and I have no doubt that is the case, he has yet to make his will clear to humanity. Not too much to ask of omniscient, omnipotent being!

Maybe God is a deistic entity. Maybe our "free-will" meant that God, after granting it to us, was unable to interject himself into our lives any longer. Maybe that was the gift. My issue comes when people have any kind of certainty as to what God's will is, based on nothing more than scripture written by ancient men who knew A LOT LESS than we know now about the universe in which we live.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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.

Well, your Christian god absolves you from needing to do much of that. There are verses that claim it should be apparent based on an individuals sole observations of nature like Psalm 19:1-4 and others. And it seems to me that the preachers of the Christian word need not trouble themselves with too much more other than to declare what one should believe in a few sentences, and then the ball is very quickly in the court of the listener. So judging from that, you probably don't need to worry about it too much.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

You have to admit that after some 2,000 years of trying, theists have still failed to have sufficient evidence to supporttheir claim. It isn't the fault of theists. It is the faults with their belief system. It just doesn't hold water.