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

[ether-ore]

Can you support this claim?

Only by an appeal to scripture which you will not accept, so there is no point.

 

[leibowde84]

As I said, I recognize that the "temporal and finite universe" we perceive had a beginning, The mechanism that began it isn't what I'm questioning. It is the cause of the event in the first place that is in question. What I am doing is attempting to find commonality between scientific observation and what the scriptures say. What I come up with is that the universe that we see is a subset of an infinite and eternal universe where entropy does not exist. If you find these points of reason not acceptable... I'm ok with that. It really doesn't matter.

So, it doesn't bother you that you use clear confirmation bias in this reasoning? You are trying to reconcile scriptures with what has been scientifically discovered. Basically, you are starting with the assumption that scriptures are accurate, which limits your ability to accept certain scientific discoveries.

 

[leibowde84]

Only by an appeal to scripture which you will not accept, so there is no point.

I asked whether that was the case, actually. That's fine ... I have absolutely no problem with that. I just wanted to see whether your belief was based on any kind of objective evidence or whether it was just based on your belief that scripture is accurate. To tell you the truth, your honesty in this matter is refreshing.

 

[ether-ore]

So, it doesn't bother you that you use clear confirmation bias in this reasoning? You are trying to reconcile scriptures with what has been scientifically discovered. Basically, you are starting with the assumption that scriptures are accurate, which limits your ability to accept certain scientific discoveries.

As hard as if may be for you to accept (as if it made any real difference to you), yes, I give precedence to scripture. How could I not? By my not doing so, would be a tacit admission that I really didn't believe it. You just might consider that the reverse is true. You have a confirmation bias such that it limits your ability to believe in God. I may (but it would be a waste of time) suggest to you that disbelief in God carries with it much more risk than a disbelief in scientific discoveries. From my perspective, your sole purpose for your preference to science is to find excuse not to believe in God without considering that very few if any scientific discoveries carry an immediate benefit to your life. I emphasize 'immediate' because... well... just how much impact does a belief in a big bang have on your life apart from giving you an excuse not to believe that if it were true, it would require and outside force (like God) to initiate it? Exactly what mechanism do you KNOW was the cause of it? For you to be consistent disallows speculation on your part.

 

[outhouse]

It is the cause of the event in the first place that is in question

That's great. But its painful watching theist try ad inject religion into events we are not certain about and have no knowledge of.

We don't know, but can be explained as easy as a super massive black hole expanding.

Nobody knows. Singularity is another name in context, for we don't know.

What I am doing is attempting to find commonality between scientific observation and what the scriptures say.

There is none outside of forcing square holes into round pegs.

What is fact in nature, is not mentioned in scripture by people that factually used mythology explaining legends and morals important to multiple cultures.

What is described in religious mythology is not what actually took place. Religious text are neither scientific or historical. That does not mean that it is devoid of these elements, some sections are historical.

That is where having an education in both science and religion gives me an upper hand in these debates.

Don't come unarmed my friend

 

[outhouse]

I give precedence to scripture. How could I not?

This statement aloe shows a lack of understanding because your missing the most important details.

You can give precedence to the text, its the interpretation where I see you making mistakes. Do you understand what allegory is? do you understand what literary rhetoric is ?

To understand these text in clear context, you need an education. And I have asked you and you have ignored my request so I will assume your self taught?

 

[Shad]

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.

I would say theists are responsible for their poor arguments for God. However an atheist could have other reasons for rejecting theism which may not be expressed by theists. Rejection of theism could be purely an emotion response thus is not reasonable to begin with nor is directly related to any particular argument for God.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism?

An issue here is what is considered sufficient evidence. For example there was sufficient evidence to support the geocentric model for centuries. It was not until new evidence was discovered that the evidence was no longer sufficient since the discovered evidence falsified the modal. Another issue is that individual people are deciding what is sufficient or not making the term subjective.

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.

The cosmological argument in it's basic form is not a theist argument. Only the later premises which are additions are. The CA follows causality which is a principle followed not just by theists but by atheists, the justice system and other forms of science. The problem with CA is that the later premises are leaps of faith and unsound premises. The something from nothing argument is a theist argument which many are oblivious to, it is not strictly an atheist position nor even one of worth. I would say many theists are to blame for repeating refuted arguments but this is a problem of education. I would also put forward the arguments for God do not form a proof thus are responsible for poor arguments. However as per above I would not say theists are responsible for every atheists view. Such a generalization is fallacious. I would also point out that dogma from either side can prevent one from accepting any sort of arguments. People do have vested interests in certain views by they atheists or theist. The RCC did this with Galileo for example. So it is not always that the argument fails to convince but the people are not open to any view but the one they hold.

 

[ether-ore]

This statement aloe shows a lack of understanding because your missing the most important details.

You can give precedence to the text, its the interpretation where I see you making mistakes. Do you understand what allegory is? do you understand what literary rhetoric is ?

To understand these text in clear context, you need an education. And I have asked you and you have ignored my request so I will assume your self taught?

Yes, I do indeed understand various types of rhetorical devices in scripture and consider myself better equipped to decipher their implications than an atheist. And to answer your question, I have both a formal education and continuous self teaching. Your own myopia seems to prevent you from considering any validity to theology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I do indeed understand various types of rhetorical devices in scripture and consider myself better equipped to decipher their implications than an atheist. And to answer your question, I have both a formal education and continuous self teaching. Your own myopia seems to prevent you from considering any validity to theology.

Any reason why theology should be considered without a pre-existent willingness to do so?

 

[ether-ore]

Any reason why theology should be considered without a pre-existent willingness to do so?

The willingness comes from considering the idea that man does not and indeed cannot know all things and that on the continuum of intelligence there just might be an entity in the universe that knows more. The SETI program seeks to find intelligent life in the universe by people who at the same time reject the idea that that intelligent life out there could be God. It is that lack of willingness that stands in the way of discovering what really is important.

 

[Bunyip]

The willingness comes from considering the idea that man does not and indeed cannot know all things and that on the continuum of intelligence there just might be an entity in the universe that knows more. The SETI program seeks to find intelligent life in the universe by people who at the same time reject the idea that that intelligent life out there could be God. It is that lack of willingness that stands in the way of discovering what really is important.

Well then rest assured, atheists reject the possibility of there being a more intelligent life form somewhere - nor do they claim to know everything.

 

[LuisDantas]

The willingness comes from considering the idea that man does not and indeed cannot know all things and that on the continuum of intelligence there just might be an entity in the universe that knows more.

Accepting that is hardly a challenge for the typical atheist - or really, for most reasonable people of any kind.

Still, why would that be a reason to turn to theology? It does not look like a particularly natural match to me.

I suppose some people may well feel inclined to believe in a deity of some sort as real and therefore have an interest in sharing ideas about those deities, and that is fair and good, but it is still following one's interests, esthetical inclinations and vocations.

I am still not seeing a reason for someone who is not predisposed to follow those interests to nonetheless pursue them, let alone to feel an actual duty to do so.

The SETI program seeks to find intelligent life in the universe by people who at the same time reject the idea that that intelligent life out there could be God.

I don't know that one can fairly call "rejection" that what is actually just a lack of disposition to presume supernatural agency in the absence of so much as any evidence for it.

Even if people were predisposed to see a supernatural touch of some kind in the observation of outer space (and it turns out that many people are indeed so predisposed), that would still be basically useless and meaningless.

Presuming a deity without any evidence is still presumption, regardless of whether we are looking at our own world or towards outer space.

You are not only complaining that people "reject" the idea of a God, you are actually complaining that people won't _assume_ a deity without even having a reason or a single piece of evidence for doing so. I don't think that can be filed under "reasonable expectations".

It is that lack of willingness that stands in the way of discovering what really is important.

Why should anyone feel such a willingness, though? Respect it in others, sure.

But behave as if sharing of it were some sort of duty? That just does not makes sense to me, and I don't think I have ever seen much in the way of arguments to convince me, or anyone.

The closest I have ever seen are admonitions about fear of a bad afterlife and/or of God's wrath.

And those, frankly, are both demerits to faith and utterly useless as arguments. Religion should always aim to be better than that, to rise above such harmful and undignified superstition.

 

[gnostic]

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.

That's a possibility.

Quite often, the atheists left the religions they were brought up in, for that very reason you have mentioned.

They become disillusioned by the religions they previously followed, because either they can't prove what they supposed to believe in themselves, or others around them can't prove their belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The willingness comes from considering the idea that man does not and indeed cannot know all things and that on the continuum of intelligence there just might be an entity in the universe that knows more. The SETI program seeks to find intelligent life in the universe by people who at the same time reject the idea that that intelligent life out there could be God. It is that lack of willingness that stands in the way of discovering what really is important.

Speaking only for myself...

I don't know that there is no God. I'd consider myself an agnostic atheist for that very reason.
Neither do I know that there are no aliens.

Many would tell me that a search via material means for God is fruitless, for God dwells in a different (spiritual) realm.
So isn't it entirely possible that atheists (at least some of us) HAVE made a spiritual search without success?

Whereas the search for aliens surely requires a material/science based search?

That is my first, and primary point. But there is also a second point, as follows;
If someone were to make a general statement to me like 'I reckon there might be aliens' or 'I reckon there might be a God', then fine. I may agree or disagree, but I really don't have knowledge of either.

If someone said to me that they think there are blue aliens on the third planets from the 5th star in Alpha Centauri, and that said aliens are sillicone based life-forms who reproduce via cloning, then I would be extremely skeptical without some level of material proof.
If someone said to me that there is a God who sacrified his own son (who, by the way, is part of a Trinity) and that said God doesn't want my neighbour to have gay sex, I start to ask for material proof.

This really isn't an inconsistent approach in terms of a worldview.

 

[Desert Snake]

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'm withholding belief in your theories, until proven otherwise, that I should not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm withholding belief in your theories, until proven otherwise, that I should not.

I liked this, since it was funny.
But if I put on my serious hat (which I occasionally brush off) that's a false equivalence.

 

[Desert Snake]

I liked this, since it was funny.
But if I put on my serious hat (which I occasionally brush off) that's a false equivalence.

And how is that a false equivalence?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how is that a false equivalence?

It all comes down to the meanings of "belief" and "theory".

 

[Desert Snake]

It all comes down to the meanings of "belief" and "theory".

I think that the OP is presenting an idea that is too broad, for the parameters of the argument being presented.

Regarding the OP, the theory is not explained well enough for me to agree with it, even if I wanted to.

 

[Desert Snake]

Definitions of words used, are needed.