Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Falvlun]

We don't even know that universes are created. It could be that our visible universe always existed and there was never a beginning.

True.

 

[gnostic]

it is very simple, everyone runs on a set of beliefs or world views, paradigm, outlook, you either accept one or the other.
so atheism is not playing safe without belief, but just dressed-up belief of what you see is what you get. It is mind's trick of believing(!) that one doesn't have a belief. It is quite funny if you think about it.

While it is possible that "what you see" is not what always true.

But the very same can be said about "what you believe", even more so.

Is it not possible for your mind to play trick on you and on "what you believe in"?

No, alekananada. I think it is even far absurd and more funny to "believe in something" that's not there; I think your comment on "mind's trick", actually apply to believers than they do on non-believers.

 

[Willamena]

Why not?

If agnostic atheist is possible, then isn't it possible to be gnostic atheist?

No. That A is possible doesn't make not-A possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are forcing a category where none exists. If we are binary, it is either true or false. No blanks, no question marks, no I don't know. Just a person entertaining two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously.

So you have an answer to every yes or no question? How did you manage that, exactly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not?

If agnostic atheist is possible, then isn't it possible to be gnostic atheist?

"Gnostic" refers to a specific religious movement. "Gnostic atheist" makes no more sense than "Lutheran atheist."

 

[Shad]

For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it,

This is not required at all and is a direct contradiction to the premise at the start. Being unsure can and does include nothing.

basically an acceptance that gods exist

Again not required and a direct contradiction to the first premise

but no certainty on which gods or their nature.

Again no as it would contradict the first premise.

Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Nope. You have changed your argument. First off it is the box which we can not see inside of that could be empty or not. The jar on the other hand has no such premise. Rather the premise is that there are gumballs that we can see but can not see enough of to conclude if the amount is even or odd.

Why does the minor difference matter?

It matters as it shows a vast difference in your two arguments which you failed to consider then make a blunder as you do not consider your argument at all.

Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness.

Nope. In this context theists make a claim and atheists reject the claim due to lack of evidence.

This is dishonest,

Certainly your strawman is as is your distortion of your own argument.

a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief.

No one said it wasn't a belief. If they did it was made in error. There can be a stance and a belief. Stances typically involve specifics like the Christian God is the true God which is more than just saying God exists.

The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples.

Not identically but similar. Even if an agnostic concludes there is not enough knowledge to make a conclusion about God there is still the matter of their practical life. Does the agnostic live their life as if God exists or not. Hence what I would call a practical atheist can apply to agnostics. They live their lives as if there is no God.

Just more dishonesty,

Yes I know your strawmans are dishonest as is your approach to this topic.

what else can be expected!

I like to think theists actually spend more than 5 seconds considering the position of atheists and agnostics, how this influences their lives, how they live their lives, etc. Too much to expect no doubt.

 

[Curious George]

So you have an answer to every yes or no question? How did you manage that, exactly?

usually with a yes or no.

A) Either God exists or it is not the case that God exists. B) Either you believe God exists or it is not the case that you believe God exists; jointly C) either you believe God is non-existent or it is not the case that you believe God is non existent. If you are choosing unknown A, then it is demonstrated by answering the same way for both B and C. Either way is a fully functional way of "reserving" judgment and creating a muany valued logic. This is not revolutionary. Just look to Aristotle. All you are demonstrating is that your belief is subject to change in the future. Now if you want to talk about your present view, I would suggest that you either believe God is existent or you believe God is non existent. This is where the jelly beans come into the equation. Either you believe there is an even number or you believe there is an odd number. You may vacillate between views, but at any one moment you either believed even or odd. Your commitment to the belief is also very small. You are literally on the tipping point at all times. One is just as good as the other, so you could treat both as true (or in your view, one is just as bad as the other, so you can treat them both as false). This seems so easy because you evaluate themail propositions separately. There are an even number of jelly beans; false (or true). There are an odd number of jelly beans; false (or true). But you are not stopping to realize that you are necessarily answering the other question the opposite each time you treat one of the two propositions as false (or true). Then, you are taking a step back and equivocating by talking about a future belief instead of a present belief. You are trying to communicate that you will believe that their are an odd or even number of jelly beans once you have found significant reason to include (or exclude) one of the options.

I know you would like to think that you are merely "suspending" belief. But we are not talking about a future belief that you may or may not have. We are talking about whether it is true or false that there is an even number of jelly beans and consequently whether it is true or false that there is an odd number of jelly beans. And your evaluation of any one proposition is your belief in that moment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you do not know then this is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a leaning towards no gods, whereas theism leans towards gods, with strong forms existing of both. So do you think that it is more or less likely that the universe has gods than that it is godless?



This is exactly why the actual argument used is dishonest, it ignores the "I don't know position," or rather it pretends that agnosticism is not an option, and that "I don't know" is atheism. This is a clear perversion of the terms.



Haha, as a psychological discussion I find this fascinating, and would agree. Relative to the validity of this argument from atheists, I find this irrelevant.



Because you find it more likely, overall, that there are no gods in the universe as an atheist, correct?



Can you elaborate and/or clarify perhaps?



I suggest you look into the difference between claims of certainty and beliefs, as it is fundamental to philosophy of religion. I am not in any way suggesting atheism rejects gods, I am suggesting that it believes the universe to be godless, in other words find it more likely that there are 0 gods than 1+ gods. Do you believe it is more likely that there are gods, or that the universe is godless?

I am an agnostic atheist. I am an atheist because I accept no god claims, and an agnostic because I don't say that gods do or don't exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To avoid any burden of proof.

Atheists have no burden of proof. Why would they?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The box contains Schrodinger's cat.

I know the cat is definitely alive in the box (theism)
I know the cat is definitely dead in box (naturalism)
I can never know for certain whether the cat is alive or dead in that closed box (agnosticism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely alive in the box(atheism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely dead in the box (a-naturalism)
I know that the cat is both alive and dead in the box. (Pantheism??!!)
The cat, dead or alive, either suffered or is suffering in the box. (Buddhism)
The box and the cat are one. (Advaita Hinduism)
It depends on the person, the box and the cat. (Subjectivism)
Let's establish what a cat in a box really means. (Socrates)
.....
etc.

Heisenberg and Schroedinger are tooling down the road when they get pulled over by the Highway Patrol. The trooper asks Heisenberg if he knows how fast he was going. "No, but I knew my precise location."

Annoyed, the trooper has the gentlemen exit the car, and begins a search of it, including the trunk.

"Do you know that you have a dead cat back here?"

"I do now," answers Schroedinger.

 

[redpolk]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I don't care about what's in the box, but rather, who put the box there in the first place.

"Something"

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

That something could any sort of

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

So "something" could be a mindless force of nature?Would theists accept

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

So "something" could be a mindless force of nature?

 

[1137]

I am an agnostic atheist. I am an atheist because I accept no god claims, and an agnostic because I don't say that gods do or don't exist.

Do you find it more likely that 0 gods exist, or that 1+ gods exists?

Atheists have no burden of proof. Why would they?

Haha everyone does, the burden of proof is nonsense. I think what annoys me most is that atheism is totally supportable with reason and evidence. You can make the arguments, and in many cases like Christianity easily win the debate. But for some reason you don't, you want us to think of you as these baby-like entities with no reason or evidence to support your decision. It makes no sense to me.

 

[gnostic]

No. That A is possible doesn't make not-A possible.

"Gnostic" refers to a specific religious movement. "Gnostic atheist" makes no more sense than "Lutheran atheist."

I wasn't referring to Gnosticism's "gnostic"; just the the non-religious gnostic of "knowing".

 

[corynski]

Why make it a silly word game? Either you have evidence of something supernatural or you don't. And obviously you have no evidence or you would show us. Instead you insult others who aren't as mealy mouthed as you are. Atheist is the correct position until any evidence of the supernatural is shown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't referring to Gnosticism's "gnostic"; just the the non-religious gnostic of "knowing".

Even with a lowercase "G", "gnostic" generally only ever referred to esoteric, mystical religious knowledge; until the past few years, it wasn't ever used as a catch-all term for every theist who's absolutely certain their god(s) exist... and this new usage hasn't achieved general acceptance, IMO.

 

[Willamena]

I wasn't referring to Gnosticism's "gnostic"; just the the non-religious gnostic of "knowing".

That's how I took it.

 

[Magic Man]

It's atheists who came up with an make the argument

Do you find it more likely that 0 gods exist, or that 1+ gods exists?



Haha everyone does, the burden of proof is nonsense. I think what annoys me most is that atheism is totally supportable with reason and evidence. You can make the arguments, and in many cases like Christianity easily win the debate. But for some reason you don't, you want us to think of you as these baby-like entities with no reason or evidence to support your decision. It makes no sense to me.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, the theist is making the claim (that God exists). If you make an argument for God's existence, it's up to the atheist to refute it, as long as there is something of substance to refute, but generally it's up to you to support the main claim that God exists.

Atheism at its core is the lack of belief in a theistic god. There is no need for evidence of that. If you're referring to atheism as the claim that a theistic god does not exist, then yes, that can be supported by reason and evidence, and many atheists do. It's possible you haven't come across such atheists, but it seems more likely you have and just choose to ignore them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's an interesting argument-- we don't have experience with how universes are created so who's to say what is usual and what's not?

Spontaneous generation and ID could be just as likely.

And that may well be true.

Occam's razor would have us choose spontaneous generation since that does involve one less piece of complexity-- namely, the ID.

But Occam's razor isn't the end all or be all of truth. It's more of a general rule of thumb: and we all know what rules are good for: Breaking!

I would agree there, and with your logic that- all things being even- the spontaneous mechanism appears the simpler explanation.

But also as you say, it's not an immutable law- as once described classical physics, so reality seems to enjoy breaking our laws as much as we do!

 

[ArtieE]

"I believe that gods don't exist." --> Atheist

Strong atheist.

"I do not believe that gods exist and I do not believe that gods don't exist."

Weak atheist.

There would be a whole lot less confusion if you would simple agree to use the proper terms.

 

[ArtieE]

For all those lurkers who are completely confused:

A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist.
A strong atheist is a person who believes gods don't exist.