Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

I don't believe likeliness is a factor because how do you argue probability of supernatural claims, especially where the supernatural force/entity/thing is not well defined? To me making a probability argument is like an argument over how many angels you can fit on a pin. Worse, even, since angels have a better definition.
Calculating probability of natural events with defined parameters is one thing (though that can easily fall into the 'lies, damn lies and statistics' category too if you're not careful).
But, long story short, I don't find the existence of gods probable or improbable.

Without a clear definition, any statement about gods is meaningless.

Have you ever noticed that the incident of miracles (supernatural claims) is inversely proportional to the availability of camera phones? Same is true for UFOs.

 

[Willamena]

'Belief' is an attitude of truth towards a proposition or set of propositions about the world. When we believe, there is no doubting, there is no questioning. The thing we believe in has every face of the truth. Yet, if pressed about knowledge, the uncertainty shows, because the appearance of truth isn't objective. 'Knowing' is the objective case.

 

[Thumper]

Belief comes with inherent, implicit uncertainty.

You'll never convince a Christian (Catholic, Muslim, etc.) of that.

 

[Thumper]

Your displeasure notwithstanding, it is still a belief. Belief covers a wide range of concepts, confidences, and justifications. It spans from blind faith to knowledge.

By all means, clarify when required. But remember, you can't just say a belief isn't a belief just because you don't like its bedfellows.

Word definition always matters if I expect to have clear communications with someone.

I don't need to provide you with a set of properties. After all, you're the strongest atheist around. You already have a set of properties for gods who are beings. Your beliefs are not dependent upon my concepts. How YOU define god is primarily what matters.

Personally, I would keep in mind that you need not accept every claim of godhood you come across. Just because someone calls a circle a square doesn't make it one.

No, I don't have a "set of properties for gods" - that's the point. I have never seen such a set.

And again, word definition always matters if I expect to communicate in any meaningful way. If I don't understand your conception of "god" how can I talk to you about it. I certainly have no concept of such.

Edit:
I forgot the best part about beliefs: they can change. So say you do come across some god concept in the future that speaks to your soul, or maybe God Almighty comes down from on high and says "Hello, humans!", you can adjust your beliefs accordingly.

Now you're wanting to introduce the word "soul" without definition. You just make all kinds of assumptions.

However, more to the point of your statement. Verifiable evidence matters.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are changing the topic to what you believe is the most logical definition. I've mentioned several times that I haven't posited a 'best' definition in this thread.

It isn't a matter of the "lack of belief in gods" definition being more logical; it's that the "rejection of gods" definition is completely unworkable and doesn't reflect how anyone uses the term "atheist"... including the people who claim they use that definition.

As you know, I personally believe the lack of belief definition is inane. But I won't convince you of this and you won't convince me otherwise so there is not much to be gained from rehashing it.

"Coherent but not as useful as you'd like" > "Utterly unworkable".

Some human kings could be on that list, including my namesake

My list was only meant as an example, but you do allude to an important point: whether a thing is a god depends entirely on a person's attitude toward it: if you believe that "deified" Roman emperors count as gods, then they're gods for you. If you don't think they count as gods, then they aren't gods for you.

We don't get into debates about whether Muslims who believe that Julius Caesar and Augustus existed are polytheists because the label "god" is not based on any objective determination of the characteristics of a thing; it's based on the attitude of the believer: the ancient Romans were generally polytheistic and Muslims are monotheistic, even if a Muslim believes in things that the Romans considered gods. The Muslim doesn't consider them gods, and that's enough to make the difference.

Conceptually, the way we approach the question of whether a person is an atheist is to consider to areas on his Venn diagram of belief: "things I think exist" and "things I consider gods":

- if these two areas overlap, the person is a theist.
- if there's no overlap, the person is an atheist.

Of course, this approach ends up with the "lack of belief in gods" approach to the meaning of "atheist", so you'd need a different one if you want to use a different definition.

So what's your approach? For your definition of "atheist", please step through how someone would actually qualify as an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

You'll never convince a Christian (Catholic, Muslim, etc.) of that.

It has been my experience that they would acknowledge it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The most interesting part of your post is how you are completely blown away by the concept of DNA forming on its own, but so easily gloss over the idea that a being infinitely more impossible could of just formed on its own or always been there. You cant hold such a position, and pretend to be confused by our Universe, without seeming completely ridiculous. If God can just happen, then from there it should be MUCH easier to think anything in our Universe could just happen. I still have no idea how creationists mentally block this out.

Ok, then if I understand you correctly you are saying that the only way life could have begun and evolved is the same way God did. And if God had to have come about "by chance" then so could have life here on earth done so as well. Well that’s a bit of twist because now you are de facto saying God has to exist or evolution without God is untenable. On that score, I can agree with you.

What he's saying is that it is a logical error to state that it's a logical error to say that something seems to complex to exist undesigned and uncreated,and to try to address the problem by proposing something even more complex to account for it. What could possibly be less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than a god? It's a refutation of the argument from design.

He's also lamenting that believers don't seem to be able to hear this argument. I've never had a single one address it directly. If they answer at all, it isn't an answer to the rebuttal. It's of a form like "God has always existed."

I suppose that seasoned participants in discussions like these no longer expect a direct answer, and understand that a faith based confirmation bias must dispose of the idea somehow, so evasion or ignoring the point are usually on the menu.

But the unbeliever is not afflicted with that kind of thinking. He looks at whatever argument and supporting evidence are available, and lets reason take him to his conclusion whatever that may be. If you can think like that, you find the argument compelling. You will never be moved by a comment that the universe looks too complex to have arisen naturalistically, therefore it must have been intelligently designed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All I can say then is without God there is no chance in the world, no chance in any honest scientist’s mind that life could evolve on its own (by chance) creating the most fantastic machines and physiological miracles. This is where I and atheism are at a major impasse.

The impasse between the reason and evidence based thinker and the faith based thinker is in the radically different ways that they process information as alluded to above. If you begin with an idea believed by faith, that is, an unjustified belief, and then filter evidence such that what remains seems to point to your faith based premise as if it were a conclusion derived from the evidence you have saved, you will always be able to fashion some reverse engineered argument together that appears to support your premise, which you will offer as a conclusion (we can call such premises "pseudoconclusions").

The problem with that method of processing information is that it can yield whatever you want it to. You could change your mind and believe the polar opposite idea by faith, sifted through the same evidence and arguments retaining what you threw out the first time and throwing out what you retained the first time.

You begin with a premise of "God," so you see one, but not the arguments against that concept. And you make arguments that assume that unshared premise. No rational skeptic will accept any such argument. That is the impasse.

It's not just that we disagree about what is true. It's that we disagree about how to decide what is true. If we only disagreed about facts but not how to arrive at them, we could go back to our last shared premise, see where our paths bifurcated, review all of the evidence together impartially, review the logic leading to our conclusions. If the discussion wasn't value laden, such as a purely scientific matter, and we were both sufficiently educated, we would likely come an agreement. Perhaps we're engineers discussing an optimal trajectory for a space probe.

If we inject values into the discussion, such as whether it is more important to reduce the payload or the travel time, we might not agree, but we would understand that if shared the other persons values, we would agree with them them.

That just doesn't happen with the faith based thinker. And it can't. We don't even begin with shared premises. There is no mechanism for ironing out differences. Look at your comment above. There is no way for you to reach me with an argument of incredulity - you just can't see how it could happen - based on a god premise, and I'm sure that there is no chance of anything I write reaching you. You're just not interested in cooperating with me in the currency of my thought, and I can't reach you without your open-minded and dispassionate participation.

That's the impasse.

So why do this? I was just asked that the other night. Isn't it frustrating? No. It's fun and interesting, and not frustrating once one has reasonable goals and expectations. I don't expect this post to change your worldview or increase your data base one iota, and as long as you bring faith based ideas to the table, you shouldn't expect to be any less impotent.

 

[Augustus]

It isn't a matter of the "lack of belief in gods" definition being more logical; it's that the "rejection of gods" definition is completely unworkable and doesn't reflect how anyone uses the term "atheist"... including the people who claim they use that definition.

Millions of us manage to use it in that manner without any issues. I wouldn't call that 'unworkable'.

please step through how someone would actually qualify as an atheist.

Answering "no" to the question "Do you believe in the existence of any god or gods?" ought to do it.

 

[Willamena]

My list was only meant as an example, but you do allude to an important point: whether a thing is a god depends entirely on a person's attitude toward it: if you believe that "deified" Roman emperors count as gods, then they're gods for you. If you don't think they count as gods, then they aren't gods for you.

We don't get into debates about whether Muslims who believe that Julius Caesar and Augustus existed are polytheists because the label "god" is not based on any objective determination of the characteristics of a thing; it's based on the attitude of the believer: the ancient Romans were generally polytheistic and Muslims are monotheistic, even if a Muslim believes in things that the Romans considered gods. The Muslim doesn't consider them gods, and that's enough to make the difference.

Conceptually, the way we approach the question of whether a person is an atheist is to consider to areas on his Venn diagram of belief: "things I think exist" and "things I consider gods":

- if these two areas overlap, the person is a theist.
- if there's no overlap, the person is an atheist.

Unless one believes god isn't a thing, which, by your use of the word, is perfectly acceptable.

Of course, this approach ends up with the "lack of belief in gods" approach to the meaning of "atheist", so you'd need a different one if you want to use a different definition.

So what's your approach? For your definition of "atheist", please step through how someone would actually qualify as an atheist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An interesting metaphor arises from the situation I just described. In biology, we say that what defines a species is group of organisms that possess ability to interbreed successfully.

Biologically,the faith based thinker and reason and evidence based thinker are of the same species, since the seed of one can fertilize the womb of the other. A faith based thinker and a rational skeptic can produce a child.

But the opposite is true psychologically speaking. Neither is capable of planting a seed in the mind of the other. There is no conception of ideas. They don't implant. The result is what you see: no cross-pollination of thought whatsoever. Neither is affected even a little by the seeds of thought planted by the other in the areas where faith and reason disagree. That's intellectual sterility. Psychologically, we are not the same species in the areas where faith and reason intersect. We can still communicate where faith doesn't play out, such as when discussing a restaurant, but not in these other areas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@Thumper provided me a perfect example: "If one considers a scale where 1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is 100% certainty in the non existence of God. Then Richard Dawkins considers himself - "The probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9." ... "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""

As I've said, this isn't a claim to certainty, that's NEVER been what I'm discussing and I've clearly illustrated that for all who can read. Rather, it's a belief that the universe is probably without gods. Were Dawkins agnostic, he would be a 3.5, but he believes 0 gods to be far more likely than 1+. But if he admitted this openly he'd have a "burden of proof," oh no

Why do you think that atheists have a burden of proof? Do aleprechaunists have a burden of proof as well? What do I need to prove to anybody to say that I don't accept any god claims? That I'm not lying?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Millions of us manage to use it in that manner without any issues. I wouldn't call that 'unworkable'.

That's the thing: you don't actually use the word the way you claim you do when you define it.

Answering "no" to the question "Do you believe in the existence of any god or gods?" ought to do it.

That question is in line with the "lack of belief in gods" definition, not the "rejection of belief in gods" definition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"The probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low" is a claim with a burden of proof.

I agree. I don't know how we can even begin to estimate such a thing. I think that Dawkins has gone too far by picking a number on his scale.

Asimov said, "I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

He wrote "God" rather than the generic "god," but the term is ambiguous when capitalized. Which god? The Hebrew god (Asimov is ethnically Jewish). The Christian (triune) god? If it's one of those, we can make a probability statement. Those gods are impossible as described since they are described in mutually exclusive terms. We are told in the OldTestament that Yahweh is perfect, but also that he regretted his error making man and decided to try again. He's omnisicient, but didn't know that man would fall. He's omnipotent, but can't make either angels or man in the way that He would like them to be, and thought that it was a good idea to start over again using the same breeding stock. And on it goes. That god doesn't exist. If that's what Asimov meant, I go further that he does with "strongly suspect".

But we cannot comment in the same way about generic gods that are not described in any way apart from being capable of creating universes.

What we can say is that if such a creature or creatures exist, we don't anything about them, that there is no reason to believe that such things exist, nor any reason to modify our lives because of that possibility.

 

[1137]

Why do you think that atheists have a burden of proof? Do aleprechaunists have a burden of proof as well? What do I need to prove to anybody to say that I don't accept any god claims? That I'm not lying?

Cmon, I can only be expected to repeat myself so many times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure.

Atheism is a belief in the same way abstinence is a sexual position.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- viole

I have a collection of those that you and others might find entertaining:


Atheism is a religion like…

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion like transparent is a color

Atheism is a religion like health is a disease state.

Atheism is a religion like death is a lifestyle.

Atheism is a religion like nonsmoking is a habit.

Atheism is a religion like fasting is a menu entree.

Atheism is a religion like unemployment is a career choice.

Atheism is a religion like nudity is a fashion style.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.

Atheism is a religion like off is a radio station and silence a song playing on it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

determination. (sorry, dog hit the keyboard with his paw.)

We have an edit option on this site.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because I have often had the displeasure of people saying that scientists "believe" in the theory of evolution as if their confidence in the theory carries no more weight that a belief. There is a huge difference.

I find it helpful to make a distinction between "believing" and "believing in." It's the same distinction as that between justified belief and unjustified belief. I believe that my car will start the next time I turn the key based on the evidence of the last several hundred trials. I also believe that it might not start based on having had that experience, albeit not recently.

I believe much, but I don't believe in anything.

JOHN LENNON LYRICS - God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. I don't know how we can even begin to estimate such a thing. I think that Dawkins has gone too far by picking a number on his scale.

I have issues with the Dawkins scale in general.

Asimov said, "I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

He wrote "God" rather than the generic "god," but the term is ambiguous when capitalized. Which god? The Hebrew god (Asimov is ethnically Jewish). The Christian (triune) god?

I don't know the context of the quote, but presumably he was talking about whatever god someone was suggesting he believe in.

If it's one of those, we can make a probability statement. Those gods are impossible as described since they are described in mutually exclusive terms. We are told in the OldTestament that Yahweh is perfect, but also that he regretted his error making man and decided to try again. He's omnisicient, but didn't know that man would fall. He's omnipotent, but can't make either angels or man in the way that He would like them to be, and thought that it was a good idea to start over again using the same breeding stock. And on it goes. That god doesn't exist. If that's what Asimov meant, I go further that he does with "strongly suspect".

But we cannot comment in the same way about generic gods that are not described in any way apart from being capable of creating universes.

What we can say is that if such a creature or creatures exist, we don't anything about them, that there is no reason to believe that such things exist, nor any reason to modify our lives because of that possibility.

Personally, I look at the issue in terms of mental models, not gods: my mental model of the world includes nothing I consider a god. It wouldn't be improved by adding in any god I've ever seen described. Of course, my mental model isn't perfect, but I've never run into a case where believing that some god exists would address the discrepancy between my mental model and reality.

I recognize that there are plenty of theists with mental models that also agree closely with reality, but I haven't run into any yet that work better than my own model in any way that I can see. I also recognize that if two models work equally well, then the difference between them - i.e. gods - doesn't have any explanatory power and can be eliminated from the model.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What burden of proof ?

To support that the universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.

That's a logical possibility until it can shown to be be impossible making the statement self-evidently correct. There is no known reason or justification to assert otherwise. If you do, you have the burden of proof if you would like to be believed.

You spend a lot of energy trying to depict atheists as having a character defect. We're deceptive, We're hiding our true beliefs. We're too cowardly to take a stand. We're shirking our burden of proof responsibilities. Do have evidence for any of that?


We're mostly honest, hard working, law abiding people trying to live decent lives as good people. Why do you think otherwise?


Edit. I was a little hasty in my reply. It applies to the second half of 1137's comment following "and." You were correct when you answered that: Who made that claim?