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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

What gets you from "there might be a god" to "there must be a god"?

 

[1AOA1]

The word must fall on good soil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The word must fall on good soil.

To me, this smacks of excuse-making for poor arguments.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And how is that a false equivalence?

You need evidence NOT to believe in something?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Hmm, are you talking about lack of belief or believing there is not enough evidence to support a claim for God?

 

[Curious George]

You need evidence NOT to believe in something?

Certainly if one of your kids told you they had to go to the bathroom, would you say prove it? Or would you believe them until evidence discrediting their claims was discovered.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Certainly if one of your kids told you they had to go to the bathroom, would you say prove it? Or would you believe them until evidence discrediting their claims was discovered.

Honestly, it would depend on circumstance, but that's based on history (using the toilet as a bed avoiding tactic). I see your point.
The clear difference is that my children 100% know if they need to go to the toilet, and I'm backing them as not being liars. People who say they 100% know the mind of God are...well...let's just say unconvincing, given that the God that is so certainly known varies.

 

[ether-ore]

What gets you from "there might be a god" to "there must be a god"?

What gets me there are the rejection of two concepts: nothingness and oblivion. It is said that the universe is expanding. I ask, expanding into what. The answer is that it is expanding into nothing, that it is creating space/time as it goes. This makes no sense to me. I cannot conceive of non-existent and empty space. Rather I believe in a steady state eternal universe wherein there are pockets of temporal spaces like bubbles expanding as it were into the permanent universe. That constitutes the physical aspect of my answer to your question. The mental, or consciousness aspect is that neither can I conceive of a time where I stop being me; oblivion makes no sense. Since I exist and occupy place in the permanent universe, it seems reasonable to me that I am not alone and that I exist among other intelligences. Along with this belief, I recognize that there must needs be greater intelligences than I which brings me to the concept of a continuum of intelligence, at the pinnacle of which is God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly if one of your kids told you they had to go to the bathroom, would you say prove it? Or would you believe them until evidence discrediting their claims was discovered.

Heh... I'm sure you've heard the poem about the person who was sincere but mistaken on that issue:

Here I sit, broken hearted
Paid a dime but only farted.
Next time I won't take that chance
Save the dime and **** my pants



In the same vein as your scenario, would you treat it as CERTAIN that your child's claim is true?

For instance, say in your scenario, you dutifully take your kid to the washroom, but 5 minutes later, he says he has to go. Do you say to yourself "maybe he didn't actually go the first time" and take him again, or do you say "no - you said that you had to go 5 minutes ago, so I KNOW you don't have to go now"?

 

[Curious George]

Honestly, it would depend on circumstance, but that's based on history (using the toilet as a bed avoiding tactic). I see your point.
The clear difference is that my children 100% know if they need to go to the toilet, and I'm backing them as not being liars. People who say they 100% know the mind of God are...well...let's just say unconvincing, given that the God that is so certainly known varies.

I am just pointing out that we believe claims until there is a reason not to do so.

That our reaction varies under the circumstances does not change this fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What gets me there are the rejection of two concepts: nothingness and oblivion. It is said that the universe is expanding. I ask, expanding into what. The answer is that it is expanding into nothing, that it is creating space/time as it goes. This makes no sense to me. I cannot conceive of non-existent and empty space. Rather I believe in a steady state eternal universe wherein there are pockets of temporal spaces like bubbles expanding as it were into the permanent universe. That constitutes the physical aspect of my answer to your question. The mental, or consciousness aspect is that neither can I conceive of a time where I stop being me; oblivion makes no sense. Since I exist and occupy place in the permanent universe, it seems reasonable to me that I am not alone and that I exist among other intelligences. Along with this belief, I recognize that there must needs be greater intelligences than I which brings me to the concept of a continuum of intelligence, at the pinnacle of which is God.

So it's an argument from ignorance combined with an assumption of a hierarchy to the universe?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am just pointing out that we believe claims until there is a reason not to do so.

That our reaction varies under the circumstances does not change this fact.

Hmmm...I'll have to think on this a little.
There is some truth to it, though. I was even posting about that in a thread the other day. Okay, consider me pausing to consider my position.

 

[Curious George]

Heh... I'm sure you've heard the poem about the person who was sincere but mistaken on that issue:

Here I sit, broken hearted
Paid a dime but only farted.
Next time I won't take that chance
Save the dime and **** my pants



In the same vein as your scenario, would you treat it as CERTAIN that your child's claim is true?

For instance, say in your scenario, you dutifully take your kid to the washroom, but 5 minutes later, he says he has to go. Do you say to yourself "maybe he didn't actually go the first time" and take him again, or do you say "no - you said that you had to go 5 minutes ago, so I KNOW you don't have to go now"?

Pushing the scenario a bit further? Aren't you just supplying evidence not to believe the claim? I merely pointed out that we believe many claims unless we have a reason not to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am just pointing out that we believe claims until there is a reason not to do so.

Con artists must love you.

We don't actually do this. Or at least most people don't. We'll take actions based on tentative conclusions made on the basis of risks and probabilities, but that isn't the same thing.

In any case, when it comes to religious claims, there's always a reason not to accept claims automatically: conflicting claims. There are conflicting claims on any and every religious issue, so they can't all be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pushing the scenario a bit further? Aren't you just supplying evidence not to believe the claim? I merely pointed out that we believe many claims unless we have a reason not to do so.

Being prepared in case the claim is true is not the same as believing it.

For instance, I believe that most fire alarms are false alarms, but when one goes off, I still leave the building in case I'm wrong.

 

[Curious George]

Con artists must love you.

We don't actually do this. Or at least most people don't. We'll take actions based on tentative conclusions made on the basis of risks and probabilities, but that isn't the same thing.

In any case, when it comes to religious claims, there's always a reason not to accept claims automatically: conflicting claims. There are conflicting claims on any and every religious issue, so they can't all be true.

Lol, maybe I have had some shady friends, and maybe not.

We do not run through a risk benefit analysis for every claim upon which we rely.

Regarding religious claims I certainly agree, I am after all one who doesn't need to hide behind any tentative position of automatic rejection. I outright assert, I believe there is no god that exists objectively.

 

[Curious George]

Being prepared in case the claim is true is not the same as believing it.

For instance, I believe that most fire alarms are false alarms, but when one goes off, I still leave the building in case I'm wrong.

Yes and when a person says they are hungry, I usually believe they are hungry despite testimony as the only form of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, maybe I have had some shady friends, and maybe not.

We do not run through a risk benefit analysis for every claim upon which we rely.

We usually don't do actual number-crunching, but we do make assessments that inform our opinions (e.g. "this guy seems shifty. I don't think I can trust him." "what this guy says seems unlikely to be true. I'm not going to believe him until I get some corroboration."). This is normal critical judgement. I'm sure you'll realize that you do this if you think about it.

Take right now: I'm making a claim to you (i.e. that most people don't automatically accept claims uncritically"), but you aren't accepting it uncritically. The fact that you apparently disagree with me supports my point.

Regarding religious claims I certainly agree, I am after all one who doesn't need to hide behind any tentative position of automatic rejection. I outright assert, I believe there is no god that exists objectively.

Hmm. So this whole tangent was a snipe hunt?

 

[ether-ore]

So it's an argument from ignorance combined with an assumption of a hierarchy to the universe?

In another thread, I suggested that atheists seem to take delight in insulting people of faith by calling them ignorant. I was pounced on for suggesting that atheists take such boorish attitudes towards anyone. Yet here you are calling me ignorant. I happen to believe the reports of prophets and have considered them reasonable; I have incorporated their implications into my thinking and have come up with my point of view. I guess if it makes you feel good about yourself, to refer to someone else as ignorant... have at it... I'm done with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In another thread, I suggested that atheists seem to take delight in insulting people of faith by calling them ignorant. I was pounced on for suggesting that atheists take such boorish attitudes towards anyone. Yet here you are calling me ignorant. I happen to believe the reports of prophets and have considered them reasonable; I have incorporated their implications into my thinking and have come up with my point of view. I guess if it makes you feel good about yourself, to refer to someone else as ignorant... have at it... I'm done with you.

I didn't call you ignorant. I said you were using an argument from ignorance:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html