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

[LuisDantas]

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.

More like I have never met a god conception that I found both believable and useful, personally.

 

[LuisDantas]

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...

Precisely.

 

[ether-ore]

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 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.


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

I don't know what you might consider a fatal flaw given the fact that I already stated that theists and atheists consider evidence in different ways. Also, I concede up front that God cannot be proven scientifically because His existence is not a matter of empirical evidence... His existence is a matter of the witness of prophets and whether or not one believes their report. The use of the word "supernatural" was in response to what leibowde84 said in claiming I was being "being cynical"about atheists ability to actually consider anything supernatural". Personally, I don't believe in anything above that which is natural. I do believe that God has abilities with regard to acting upon matter which appears miraculous to us but is nonetheless natural.

 

[Dhyana]

Chiming in here late. Fundamentally, theists and atheists do not differ except in what they presuppose. Both agree that the universe is an effect having a cause. The cosmological argument presupposes a First Cause or Prime Mover which itself didn't have a cause, to start the ball of the universe rolling. Scientific realism presupposes something ( a "singularity") that banged to start the ball rolling, prior to emergence of time and space. Take your pick as to which faith you will adhere to. Any presupposition is nothing more than faith. Then speculate as to "what" could "be" if there is no space or time in which to be. AFAIC, there is no difference between atheism and theism as far as explaining the beginning of the universe. You end up contemplating absurdity either way, and must presuppose "something" on faith alone with no means whatever of proving it.

 

[Thanda]

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.

I don't think so. You'll remember that I did a thread recently where I asked how atheists or lukewarm Christians would change if they had indisputable evidence that there was a God. You'll remember from their replies that many actually didn't like the idea of there being a God in the first place. And from that you can infer that their minds are already biased towards not believing there is a God.

This is important to consider: what counts as sufficient evidence for one person is not necessarily sufficient for another. Let's take three alcoholics for example. Suppose all of them watch the same TV program about the dangers of alcohol abuse. One of them, on the evidence alone of that TV program, believes and decides to change his ways. The other two brush it off as all talk from a bunch of busy bodies who don't want other people to have fun. They reason that they are always in control no matter how often they drink. Then one day they are involved in a car accident while under the influence. Each of their daughters die. Then one of them decides to believe and change his ways. The other brushes it of as a coincidence that could have happened to anyone and continues to drink.

This example clearly demonstrates that the standard of proof required to convince different human beings differs. It also shows how whether one believes something or doesn't believe is not based on purely objective criteria. There is a significant element of subjectivity involved.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You'll remember from their replies that many actually didn't like the idea of there being a God in the first place. And from that you can infer that their minds are already biased towards not believing there is a God.

That's not true at all.
We pretty much unanimously agreed that we would accept the absolute evidence, as per your thought experiment, and then the conversation digressed into what we would ask of god or how would judge the god that finally made himself apparent.

I think you should read that whole thread again with this in mind.

 

[outhouse]

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

Its not really funny when theist use mythology to fight facts. many fight the facts of evolution and think the earth was created at a snap of a finger instead of the 100% natural processes we see that formed the earth over billions of years.

I personally never avoid a discussion about how gods were created at mans hands. When we look at Yahweh and how man defined him, theist are forced to ignore and avoid the topic because REAL history goes against the mythology they have ingrained in their opinion on the topic most know nothing about.

example.

Yahweh is a compilation of two pre existing Canaanite deities. and existed before Israelites were even a culture of their own. Yahweh also had a wife which im sure you ignore.

When we look at the source for god 's definition we look at a book factually containing mythology, and one that is factually NOT historically accurate.

To date, Abaraham, Noah, Moses, the Exodus, Genesis, factually have no historicity what so ever, you YOU want us to believe every word as written.


Sorry but I see no reason to think mythology is real when it is factually proven mythology and factually historically inaccurate in many places.

 

[outhouse]

Any presupposition is nothing more than faith.

Agreed.

But the difference is atheist and scientist admit we don't know the definition of a singularity.

Theist do not admit they don't know, and they place god's in the gaps of their knowledge, which are all defined purely with faith.

 

[outhouse]

This is important to consider: what counts as sufficient evidence for one person is not necessarily sufficient for another.

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.

 

[Underhill]

Chiming in here late. Fundamentally, theists and atheists do not differ except in what they presuppose. Both agree that the universe is an effect having a cause. The cosmological argument presupposes a First Cause or Prime Mover which itself didn't have a cause, to start the ball of the universe rolling. Scientific realism presupposes something ( a "singularity") that banged to start the ball rolling, prior to emergence of time and space. Take your pick as to which faith you will adhere to. Any presupposition is nothing more than faith. Then speculate as to "what" could "be" if there is no space or time in which to be. AFAIC, there is no difference. You end up contemplating absurdity.

The only reason science thinks there was a singularity is the fact of the expanding universe. It is not just some notion they pulled from the air. But I don't believe that singularity (assuming current science has it right) is the beginning. It is just the beginning of what we can possibly know. That singularity could be a local event (on an unimaginable scale). It could be a cyclical event. It could be something that some alien species did as a practical joke or as the conclusion to some monumental mistake they made.

Science doesn't presuppose. It comes up with hypothesis. The difference between belief in god or science is simple. Belief in god takes an old hypothesis and accepts it as fact. Science, when done properly, takes many hypothesis and tries actively to disprove them.

 

[ether-ore]

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.

Again, what would you consider good reason. Are you inclined to give any credence to scriptural accounts where a prophet or prophets have claimed to have either seen God or have received some other manifestation of Him such as hearing His voice?

 

[outhouse]

where a prophet or prophets have claimed

I would ask if you even know how this word was defined in Judaism BC?


Let me tell you what it is because your view is probably a modern one. A prophet back in their day was nothing more then someone who spoke about god.

It did not mean there was a divine connection, and any mortal was and could be a prophet.

So a prophets claim is no more credible then MY claims. As a matter of fact, I have a better overview and more knowledge then the people did in any specific time period back then did.

 

[outhouse]

Are you inclined to give any credence to scriptural accounts

Do you believe other cultures mythology and spirituality???????????????


Then why should anyone believe yours?

 

[ether-ore]

Chiming in here late. Fundamentally, theists and atheists do not differ except in what they presuppose. Both agree that the universe is an effect having a cause. The cosmological argument presupposes a First Cause or Prime Mover which itself didn't have a cause, to start the ball of the universe rolling. Scientific realism presupposes something ( a "singularity") that banged to start the ball rolling, prior to emergence of time and space. Take your pick as to which faith you will adhere to. Any presupposition is nothing more than faith. Then speculate as to "what" could "be" if there is no space or time in which to be. AFAIC, there is no difference. You end up contemplating absurdity.

Actually, I differ with the premise that the universe had a beginning... of course depending on what one considers the universe to be. I think what we perceive as the universe is actually a subset of a larger whole. The subset may be of finite duration, but the whole (of which the subset is but a part) is eternal and has no beginning and has no end. Entropy does not exist there.

 

[outhouse]

but the whole (of which the subset is but a part) is eternal and has no beginning and has no end.

Unsubstantiated personal rhetoric.

Im guessing this is based on a complete refusal of scientific facts currently in place.

 

[ether-ore]

Unsubstantiated personal rhetoric.

Im guessing this is based on a complete refusal of scientific facts currently in place.

Yes, it is a refusal of current scientific perceptions which you choose to call facts. Even some scientist acknowledge the idea of parallel universes. I am merely stating that the unseen universe (I call it the Celestial Kingdom) is a place where according to scripture, entropy does not exist.

 

[ether-ore]

Do you believe other cultures mythology and spirituality???????????????

No, because upon my investigation, they do not provide what I consider an accurate description of the origin and destiny of souls in terms of eternity.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think so. You'll remember that I did a thread recently where I asked how atheists or lukewarm Christians would change if they had indisputable evidence that there was a God. You'll remember from their replies that many actually didn't like the idea of there being a God in the first place. And from that you can infer that their minds are already biased towards not believing there is a God.

This is important to consider: what counts as sufficient evidence for one person is not necessarily sufficient for another. Let's take three alcoholics for example. Suppose all of them watch the same TV program about the dangers of alcohol abuse. One of them, on the evidence alone of that TV program, believes and decides to change his ways. The other two brush it off as all talk from a bunch of busy bodies who don't want other people to have fun. They reason that they are always in control no matter how often they drink. Then one day they are involved in a car accident while under the influence. Each of their daughters die. Then one of them decides to believe and change his ways. The other brushes it of as a coincidence that could have happened to anyone and continues to drink.

This example clearly demonstrates that the standard of proof required to convince different human beings differs. It also shows how whether one believes something or doesn't believe is not based on purely objective criteria. There is a significant element of subjectivity involved.

Aren't you judging atheists in general by the vocal atheists in this forum, though? Don't you think that is a dangerous road to go down. Often, generalizations like this lead to incorrect assumptions about people.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, it is a refusal of current scientific perceptions which you choose to call facts.

But facts are not up for debate. Your refusal while noted, is just that. Refusal. It does not change what is taught worldwide as credible knowledge.

Even some scientist acknowledge the idea of parallel universes

So? that is an open mind.

The universe was created from a singularity, its not up for debate the universe factually had a beggining point when space and time was created.

And guess what, singularities are common in nature and exist scattered or even littered across the universe.

They are a factual part of nature.

I am merely stating that the unseen universe (I call it the Celestial Kingdom) is a place where according to scripture, entropy does not exist.

What your doing is placing faith before fact, out of theistic personal belief.


If you apply to the same skepticism to your own faith as you science, it would fall flat on its face.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, what would you consider good reason. Are you inclined to give any credence to scriptural accounts where a prophet or prophets have claimed to have either seen God or have received some other manifestation of Him such as hearing His voice?

I'm as inclined to believe that the authors are sincere as I would be for any account. I recognize that people sometimes lie, but they're usually sincere.

The conclusions drawn from experiences, though... they're a different story. Any time someone says something like "I saw X, therefore Y is true", anyone can step through the reasoning and ask themselves "if I saw X, would it necessarily imply Y?"

So... in the case of someone who says that they heard the voice of God, I'd generally believe that they heard something, but I wouldn't automatically assume that it really was God... or really was outside his own head.