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

[ether-ore]

- when someone approaches scripture - any religion's scripture, IMO - with the assumption that it probably had a divine origin, it's often the case that they don't find anything in the scripture that suggests to them that their assumption is wrong. They then take this as confirmation that their original assumption is wrong.

- OTOH, if someone approaches scripture with the assumption that it was written by people on their own, they don't find anything to suggest they're wrong, either.

So... what's a better way of determining whether a piece of scripture is correct? At the very least, I think this state of affairs suggests that neither approach should be taken as reliable without more justification.

In phrasing this the way you did, you are discounting (and thereby overly generalizing) what I said concerning the several prophets having agreement when there was no collusion indicated. The assumption of divine origin has less to do with my approach to scripture than does the coherent and cohesive agreement among the various authors of it over the millennia.

 

[leibowde84]

I never got any benefit from sitting through religious rituals I was raised in unless boredom and discomfort is a benefit. Even the pastors seemed rather bored so I guess I was not the only one.

I agree. I remember having to go to church as a kid, and, even then, I was repeatedly being "taught" what I had already figured out

It is not the same.
a binary variable can't assume a third value.

If it is not 0 then it must be ONE, and only.

Then, i am not presenting here all the arrangements for God existence...And even if i am to do so..i am not expecting all atheists to be unbiased...

There are atheists by choice.

I presented an argument that explained the main point of why Muslims maintained their belief, while the west disbelieved in God and rejected God - i don't mean all.

That's it.

This doesn't address my comment at all. I am pointing out that the lack of an alternative explanation for the beginning of the Universe does not provide any support for God's existence. That is the logical fallacy of the God of the gaps. Where no explanation can be found, people often use it as reasoning to believe in God's existence, but it isn't valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In phrasing this the way you did, you are discounting (and thereby overly generalizing) what I said concerning the several prophets having agreement when there was no collusion indicated.

I would think that outright collusion would be hard to accomplish for people writing centuries apart, but I don't think it's remarkable at all for one writer in a religious tradition to write in accordance with past writers in the same tradition.

Also, scriptures go through selection and editing processes for consistency. It's not like God wrote the Official List of Official Prophets and handed it down from on high; over the centuries, people have made judgements about who is and isn't a "real prophet" or source of "real" scripture (e.g. "Moses, Daniel, and Matthew are in; Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and the Baha'u'lla are out"). Whatever the criteria used, as long as they're applied consistently, they'll result in a consistent message among all the sources that are included... even if the criteria are completely arbitrary and the authors have nothing to do with each other.

The assumption of divine origin has less to do with my approach to scripture than does the coherent and cohesive agreement among the various authors of it over the millennia.

But there ISN'T "coherent and cohesive agreement". Religion and gods have been some of the most controversial, polarizing subjects that humanity has ever considered. Screening out only the opinions that agree with your particular beliefs creates a false impression of agreement.

So you have a community that has insisted that its members hold particular views and kicks out people and ideas that disagree? No wonder it has "cohesive agreement". It's no more surprising than finding a lot of Pontiac fans in a GTO owner's club.

 

[Hawkins]

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, it's a result of human knowledge growth which makes humans learn to demand beyond what is reasonable. They demand evidence but without knowing what kind of truth they are pursuing. For an example, you may try to demand evidence in order to believe a piece of history written down by ancient humans. However the nature of history is that it cannot be evidenced at all. If a no body said something 1000 years ago, how can it be evidenced? Humans have no access to history unless someone in history is famous enough for other humans to write about them in a document we today refer to as a history book. Other than such a document (at most with multiple accounts which you can cross reference), what other form of evidence you can acquire? It's none. To put it another way, if the evidence of history can be acquired, you don't need to read any history books to get to know what happened in the long past, you simply go directly to the evidence yourself. However the contrary is that you can only know what happened by putting faith in a history book which you think that you can trust (with faith) what is said.

As long as the gods have a strong reason to hide themselves from humans, the only way you can approach them is through such a kind of "history books" written down by humans long time ago who possibly encountered such gods.

If you would like to go further, not all gods have such a strong reason not to show up in front of humans. And the only way for a hiding God to care about humans and to convey messages correctly to humans as He wants, is to show Himself up to a small group of humans as His witnesses and for them to write about Him and for later humans to get to know who He is. That's the only way! There's no other way round.

This human pattern is so predictable. They try to reason with their limited intelligence and conclude that evidence should be the key for them to reach a truth. Yet it's predicted in the Bible that the same day they choose to eat of it (i.e., Knowledge) the same day they shall surely die.

The pursuing of evidence is not reasonable in the contrary of what humans would demand today. It's because in this reality not all kinds of truths can be evidenced. Plus that even in the cases that a truth can be evidenced it's not the efficient way for the 99% humans to reach such a truth. Humans mostly rely on believing in other humans to reach a truth. That's the only efficient way.

 

[ether-ore]

I would think that outright collusion would be hard to accomplish for people writing centuries apart, but I don't think it's remarkable at all for one writer in a religious tradition to write in accordance with past writers in the same tradition.
That comment just smacks of cynicism.

Also, scriptures go through selection and editing processes for consistency. It's not like God wrote the Official List of Official Prophets and handed it down from on high; over the centuries, people have made judgements about who is and isn't a "real prophet" or source of "real" scripture (e.g. "Moses, Daniel, and Matthew are in; Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and the Baha'u'lla are out"). Whatever the criteria used, as long as they're applied consistently, they'll result in a consistent message among all the sources that are included... even if the criteria are completely arbitrary and the authors have nothing to do with each other.
And the reason the above comment smacks of cynicism is because you are assuming that God did not call the prophets. Rather you are assuming that men are the ones who have designated who is and isn't a prophet. If that were the case, how does that explain the people murdering some of the prophets who came to them? Actually, as is indicated in the book of Jeremiah, God did ordain prophets even before the world was thereby creating an official list of prophets.


But there ISN'T "coherent and cohesive agreement". Religion and gods have been some of the most controversial, polarizing subjects that humanity has ever considered. Screening out only the opinions that agree with your particular beliefs creates a false impression of agreement.
You are conflating all religions with the coherence and cohesiveness within a given belief system. The agreement I'm referring to does exist across ancient and modern scripture accumulated over millennia within a particular belief system... namely mine. If this were not the case, I wouldn't be believing it would I?

So you have a community that has insisted that its members hold particular views and kicks out people and ideas that disagree? No wonder it has "cohesive agreement". It's no more surprising than finding a lot of Pontiac fans in a GTO owner's club.

Here again, because of your atheism, you are presenting a cynical answer. If there is a God (and I believe there is) then His objective system is what matters. Any variation of His system by man would necessarily be subjective and consequently must be excised... so, yes, cohesive agreement must exist with God and not with the community.

 

[leibowde84]

Here again, because of your atheism, you are presenting a cynical answer. If there is a God (and I believe there is) then His objective system is what matters. Any variation of His system by man would necessarily be subjective and consequently must be excised... so, yes, cohesive agreement must exist with God and not with the community.

This is a pretty hypocritical comment. The statement you cited as "smacking with cynicism" seems to be pretty darn reasonable. Then you say this: " ... because of your atheism, you are presenting a cynical answer". It seems that you are being "cynical" about atheists ability to actually consider anything supernatural. I think nothing could be further from the truth. They demand evidence to "buy-into" anything. That is called prudence. It seems wrong to hold that over anyone's head.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That comment just smacks of cynicism.

But is it wrong?

And the reason the above comment smacks of cynicism is because you are assuming that God did not call the prophets. Rather you are assuming that men are the ones who have designated who is and isn't a prophet.

No, for the moment, I'm reserving judgement while recognizing that the facts at hand - as I see them - fit with either explanation, so there's no particular reason to accept yours.

If that were the case, how does that explain the people murdering some of the prophets who came to them?

Why would you assume that being murdered means a person's beliefs were true?

The Bab and Guru Nanak Dev were murdered. Do you accept them as prophets?

Actually, as is indicated in the book of Jeremiah, God did ordain prophets even before the world was thereby creating an official list of prophets.

I'm sorry; I didn't realize there was an official list. Can I see it?

Here again, because of your atheism, you are presenting a cynical answer.

Again: cynical does not necessarily mean wrong. I get that you dislike my position, but dislike is not an argument.

If there is a God (and I believe there is) then His objective system is what matters. Any variation of His system by man would necessarily be subjective and consequently must be excised... so, yes, cohesive agreement must exist with God and not with the community.

But do you have "cohesive agreement with God"? If so, show me. As it stands now, this just seems like an empty assertion.

 

[ether-ore]

This is a pretty hypocritical comment. The statement you cited as "smacking with cynicism" seems to be pretty darn reasonable. Then you say this: " ... because of your atheism, you are presenting a cynical answer". It seems that you are being "cynical" about atheists ability to actually consider anything supernatural. I think nothing could be further from the truth. They demand evidence to "buy-into" anything. That is called prudence. It seems wrong to hold that over anyone's head.

As I have state elsewhere, atheists and theists have differing definitions of what constitutes evidence. I don't think it is hypocritical to say that atheists are wholly dependent on the limitations of science for what they believe (while completely disregarding the evidence of scriptural eye witness accounts)... it is not hypocritical; it is simply the observation of what is. I would be interested to know in what instance has an atheist considered the truthfulness of anything supernatural when it came to considering God?

 

[LuisDantas]

One question: why do so many theists feel that there is a good reason to attempt to convince atheists?

Were it a matter of deciding on, say, health policy, convincing others in order to make a decision at the exclusion of its alternatives would be understandable. But atheists lack the power to make the world not created by God for those who hold such a belief. Theism needs no permission.

So why is our existence such a burden for theists?

 

[Quintessence]

So why is our existence such a burden for theists?

It shouldn't be.

It's been said that monotheism invented the notion of religious intolerance. Insisting that there is only one true god is a recipe for antagonistic relationships with those who disagree with such a notion, whether it's atheists or other theists. And while monotheists in at least some parts of the world have gotten better at being inclusivist or even pluralist, there's still an inherent exclusivism to the notion of "one and only one."

Really, outside of the exclusivist monotheists, it isn't a burden at all, nor do we really give a damn if someone is an atheist or some other type of theist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry; I didn't realize there was an official list. Can I see it?

It's on tablet 120 of the 4000 BCE Yearbook.

 

[LuisDantas]

It shouldn't be.

It's been said that monotheism invented the notion of religious intolerance. Insisting that there is only one true god is a recipe for antagonistic relationships with those who disagree with such a notion, whether it's atheists or other theists. And while monotheists in at least some parts of the world have gotten better at being inclusivist or even pluralist, there's still an inherent exclusivism to the notion of "one and only one."

Really, outside of the exclusivist monotheists, it isn't a burden at all, nor do we really give a damn if someone is an atheist or some other type of theist.

It seems to me that most people accept early on that finding someone who holds quite exactly the same religious beliefs as oneself is a rare and perhaps impossible feat... but some monotheisms seem to encourage people, intentionally or otherwise, to doubt that somehow.

IMO that is an unfortunate fact, that can only disappoint both those monotheists and everyone else.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me that most people accept early on that finding someone who holds quite exactly the same religious beliefs as oneself is a rare and perhaps impossible feat... but some monotheisms seem to encourage people, intentionally or otherwise, to doubt that somehow.

IMO that is an unfortunate fact, that can only disappoint both those monotheists and everyone else.

I aim to find humor in it. Such as by equating it to the expectation that everybody will like wearing the same type of underwear...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I have state elsewhere, atheists and theists have differing definitions of what constitutes evidence.

That isn't it at all.

Let's try an exercise: start with any evidence you want, as long as you really do believe it and it really would be evidence and not a conclusion (i.e. no "if we assume that God exists, then we can conclude that God exists"-type shenanigans); we'll assume it's true for argument's sake. From that evidence, give a logical argument that rationally leads to "... therefore, God exists". I bet you a frubal that you can't do this without at least one fatal flaw in the reasoning of your argument. Are you game?

I don't think it is hypocritical to say that atheists are wholly dependent on the limitations of science for what they believe (while completely disregarding the evidence of scriptural eye witness accounts)... it is not hypocritical; it is simply the observation of what is.

I agree: ot isn't hypocritical. It's completely wrong, and you've been hypocritical in this thread in other ways, but that position isn't hypocritical, no.

I would be interested to know in what instance has an atheist considered the truthfulness of anything supernatural when it came to considering God?

What do you mean by "supernatural"? I don't find "natural/supernatural" to be a useful distinction.

 

[leibowde84]

As I have state elsewhere, atheists and theists have differing definitions of what constitutes evidence. I don't think it is hypocritical to say that atheists are wholly dependent on the limitations of science for what they believe (while completely disregarding the evidence of scriptural eye witness accounts)... it is not hypocritical; it is simply the observation of what is. I would be interested to know in what instance has an atheist considered the truthfulness of anything supernatural when it came to considering God?

What eye-witnesses are you referring to? To the best of our knowledge, no one who wrote the Gospels were eye-witnesses, as we don't even know who the authors were. And, Paul/Luke never met Jesus face to face.

 

[ether-ore]

One question: why do so many theists feel that there is a good reason to attempt to convince atheists?

Were it a matter of deciding on, say, health policy, convincing others in order to make a decision at the exclusion of its alternatives would be understandable. But atheists lack the power to make the world not created by God for those who hold such a belief. Theism needs no permission.

So why is our existence such a burden for theists?

At least for me it isn't. I merely respond to remarks made in this forum. I hold absolutely no illusions that any atheist will be convinced by anything I say for the simple reason that atheists and theists accept totally different considerations for what constitutes evidence. It is my belief that aside from that, atheists actively and purposefully avoid any suggestion for the existence of a god. It is almost as if that were an atheist article of faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is my belief that aside from that, atheists actively and purposefully avoid any suggestion for the existence of a god.

Dude - I've asked you to make your case several times in this thread. I'm completely willing to listen to any "suggestion for the existence of a god" you feel like giving.

I'll ask you why I should accept it, and I won't accept it without a good reason, but there's (at least) one atheist right here, listening, ready to give your arguments fair consideration.

 

[viole]

At least for me it isn't. I merely respond to remarks made in this forum. I hold absolutely no illusions that any atheist will be convinced by anything I say for the simple reason that atheists and theists accept totally different considerations for what constitutes evidence. It is my belief that aside from that, atheists actively and purposefully avoid any suggestion for the existence of a god. It is almost as if that were an atheist article of faith.

I have a lot of faith concerning the non existence of many things. For instance I do not believe that neither Apollo nor fairies exist, even though I am not dead sure that they do not exist. And since fairies and God share the same evidential support, I do not see any reason to break my democratic faith to favor one and not the other. Call me ecumenical

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

I hold absolutely no illusions that any atheist will be convinced by anything I say for the simple reason that atheists and theists accept totally different considerations for what constitutes evidence. It is my belief that aside from that, atheists actively and purposefully avoid any suggestion for the existence of a god. It is almost as if that were an atheist article of faith.

The issue isn't that atheists and theists have different opinions on what constitutes evidence because in other areas of our lives, irrespective of this whole god business, I generally think we all agree on what should be considered evidence and what shouldn't. We all passed the "fiction vs non-fiction" portion of our reading classes in grade school. We all passed the mathematics and science classes that we took in middle school, high school, and hopefully college. We had no difference of opinions of what was considered a good source or a bad source when it came to our first research paper, right? But Theists do, for one reason or another, suspend that rationality in relation to this god concept. This is why the theistic arguments for god, other than the one you believe in, hold no sway with you.

You're obviously rational enough to discern why the Roman and Greek gods are make-believe. And you're rational enough to conclude that the all the gods except for the one(s) you personally accept are make-believe... but you fail to maintain that rationality when it applies to your god of choice.

The question at the root of the issue is ; why?

Why do theists maintain rationality and skepticism in all other fields except for their personal deity of choice?

A second question would be why do they hold the atheist's stricter maintaining of rationality against them, as if they were terrible people simply for being consistent in their thoughts?

 

[outhouse]

atheists and theists accept totally different considerations for what constitutes evidence.

Yes one group follows facts and real evidence. This group is open to changes based on credible evidence.

The other follows mythology and is faith based, and ignores the facts and credible evidence in support of ONLY man writing mythology. This group is more often closed minded and often refuses new evidence no matter how credible.