Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[McBell]

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?

Something tells me he is not going to accept the same use of logic he employs to have something to whine about.

 

[Valerian]

Not even close to what I was saying. Was my post unclear or something? Im not saying God evolved at all. If he did evolve what exactly did he evolve from? Anyways, my point was quite simple, if its difficult, or impossible, for you to think that the most basic building blocks of our Universe, that would of been necessary to form all life, is IMPOSSIBLE to believe without God, but then you can imagine God just magically existed and came about and SOMEHOW that isnt impossible to you, then I would love to know what kind of logic you use to come to this conclusion. You might as well be saying a tiny pebble is MUCH harder to throw than a pebble the size of Jupiter, it makes that little sense.

Again, not even close. If the Universe could of come about by its own then thats it, no need for God. How you came to some conclusion that God needed to be in there, or was therefore necessary, ill never know. Please do explain.

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").

Too much for me to address, I should be working. So I sum my position only.

I am saying this: blackdog says if God must have come from nothing or by chance, then why could not the universe and life have done as well? And I said, the only reason you are saying the universe could come from nothing is because you are saying God originated the same way. That logic fails for me, but I am going to leave it at that.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a Catholic argument: We do not need to know how God originated, all we need to know is that He exists. This is has been proven a thousand times over via means the unbeliever will not accept, or more times than not, simply chooses not to consider.

Fatima all alone proves the existence of God. So does the Shroud of Turin. So does the life of Joan of Arc. So do weeping statues and paintings. So do the bleeding stigmata wounds on Padre Pio every day for 50 years. So do the numerous incorruptible bodies of long dead saints. So do near death experiences. So does the inexplicable image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. So does all of the medically unexplained healings at Lourdes. No one wants to connect dots or believe the witnesses to the miracles.

Along with that is the history of the Church and its rising from the blood of martyrs and civilizing and bringing order into a barbaric world. So does their immeasurable acts of charity and goodness despite its many horrible sins. God had no choice but to have sinners be His witnesses.

So we look at the infinitely complex makeup of life from a thousand machines working inside a single cell to a human brain and say, without an intelligent designer it could never have happened. So do many scientists who have converted. A trillion transformations to get from primordial soup to mammals, insects and plants, and nary a mistake strewn about history. That’s quite a trick for something that apparently does not have a mind to even rival a bug. But humanity acts so smug and dreams up theories and fills in the gaps by totally ignoring scientific probabilities of such occurring --- expecting a walleye to start growing feathers and wings before our eyes, and with oh, such precision. Never any real mutations hanging out --- there should be billions of monsters alive and in the fossil record. And the only reason there is not is because if evolution did occur then logic demands it was done with a far superior intelligence than anything man could conceive.

But still they say, no sign of God. And we say we have demonstrated in a myriad of ways real evidence for God. And given that, then of course God was involved in the origin of life. We can say that with the utmost certainty without ever having to explain where God came from first.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Too much for me to address, I should be working. So I sum my position only.

I am saying this: blackdog says if God must have come from nothing or by chance, then why could not the universe and life have done as well? And I said, the only reason you are saying the universe could come from nothing is because you are saying God originated the same way. That logic fails for me, but I am going to leave it at that.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a Catholic argument: We do not need to know how God originated, all we need to know is that He exists. This is has been proven a thousand times over via means the unbeliever will not accept, or more times than not, simply chooses not to consider.

Fatima all alone proves the existence of God. So does the Shroud of Turin. So does the life of Joan of Arc. So do weeping statues and paintings. So do the bleeding stigmata wounds on Padre Pio every day for 50 years. So do the numerous incorruptible bodies of long dead saints. So do near death experiences. So does the inexplicable image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. So does all of the medically unexplained healings at Lourdes. No one wants to connect dots or believe the witnesses to the miracles.

Along with that is the history of the Church and its rising from the blood of martyrs and civilizing and bringing order into a barbaric world. So does their immeasurable acts of charity and goodness despite its many horrible sins. God had no choice but to have sinners be His witnesses.

So we look at the infinitely complex makeup of life from a thousand machines working inside a single cell to a human brain and say, without an intelligent designer it could never have happened. So do many scientists who have converted. A trillion transformations to get from primordial soup to mammals, insects and plants, and nary a mistake strewn about history. That’s quite a trick for something that apparently does not have a mind to even rival a bug. But humanity acts so smug and dreams up theories and fills in the gaps by totally ignoring scientific probabilities of such occurring --- expecting a walleye to start growing feathers and wings before our eyes, and with oh, such precision. Never any real mutations hanging out --- there should be billions of monsters alive and in the fossil record. And the only reason there is not is because if evolution did occur then logic demands it was done with a far superior intelligence than anything man could conceive.

But still they say, no sign of God. And we say we have demonstrated in a myriad of ways real evidence for God. And given that, then of course God was involved in the origin of life. We can say that with the utmost certainty without ever having to explain where God came from first.

You don't have enough time to read, consider, and respond to the rebuttals of your ideas, but you do have enough to restate those ideas. Is that correct?

You have merely repeated your arguments from incredulity and design, and given us more of what you see through a faith based confirmation bias. You just can't see how it could have happened without an intelligent designer, and wherever you look, you see evidence of a god. I got that the first time.

This is kind of what I was alluding to. There is no discussion going on here. There is no give-and-take. You realize, of course, that we can never proceed past this point in this chain of thought if you ignore rebuttals and repeat the rebutted claims. I have nothing new to say about your position, and would refer you to the post that you didn't feel a need to address. It's the answer to the above as well.

Regarding the new material you've added, I would say that your certitude doesn't make your god belief correct or convince others, and now you've added some special pleading. You require an explanation for physical reality, which is why you invoke a god, and then apply a second standard to this god - "we need no explanation for it."

 

[ArtieE]

That's not logical, Artie. It is impossible to prove non-existence. There can be no burden of proof for the impossible.

Of course it isn't logical. But 1137 keeps insisting and I quote "All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless." If that is correct, then Christians must first prove that the god they believe in exists, and then they must prove that all the gods they believe don't exist don't exist.

 

[Valerian]

You don't have enough time to read, consider, and respond to the rebuttals of your ideas, but you do have enough to restate those ideas. Is that correct?

You have merely repeated your arguments from incredulity and design, and given us more of what you see through a faith based confirmation bias. You just can't see how it could have happened without an intelligent designer, and wherever you look, you see evidence of a god. I got that the first time.

This is kind of what I was alluding to. There is no discussion going on here. There is no give-and-take. You realize, of course, that we can never proceed past this point in this chain of thought if you ignore rebuttals and repeat the rebutted claims. I have nothing new to say about your position, and would refer you to the post that you didn't feel a need to address. It's the answer to the above as well.

Regarding the new material you've added, I would say that your certitude doesn't make your god belief correct or convince others, and now you've added some special pleading. You require an explanation for physical reality, which is why you invoke a god, and then apply a second standard to this god - "we need no explanation for it."

I did read your rebuttal and came to the same conclusion you did --- basically no point or common agreement to go further. Fine, I can live with that. So I did not take the time, but chose to reitierate my words.

But one correction to your comments. My contention for the reality of God is not faith based! It is fact based on empirical evidence. Big difference. And that is why your premise for my argument or position is wrong.

Evolution’s starts with the premise of matter exists. And Catholicism starts with the argument of proof that God exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you're saying there's no burden of proof on beliefs?

Why do you think atheists have a burden of proof? That's a rhetorical question now, as I have asked it of you several times and not gotten an answer. It's no longer asked with the expectation of receiving any information.It is now really a statement ending with a question mark. Each reader is free to decide what that statement is.

There's never a burden of proof unless a person is trying to convince another and wants to be believed. I don't need you to believe that I'm an atheist. I claim that I am and don't need you to believe it.

You also have no burden of proof regarding your theism. For starters, I accept it as accurate that you are a theist, but even if I didn't, you wouldn't need to convince me otherwise. You could just shine me on.

Nor would you need to convince me that a god exists unless that is your purpose, in which case you do have a burden of proof.

 

[Thumper]

I did read your rebuttal and came to the same conclusion you did --- basically no point or common agreement to go further. Fine, I can live with that. So I did not take the time, but chose to reitierate my words.

But one correction. My contention for the reality of God is not faith based! It is fact based on empirical evidence. Big difference. And that is why your premise for my argument or position is wrong.

Evolution’s starts with the premise of matter exists. And Catholicism starts with the argument of proof that God exists.

Actually your evidence is anecdotal. Miracles don't happen when there are cameras available.

It's interesting that you want to conflate atheism with biology. Wrong as neither one is dependent on the other, but interesting.

All religions start with a de facto belief that a specific deity exist. The Hindu holy book (The Bagavad Gita) states that it doesn't matter which god you pray to because Shiva answers all prayers. I know you believe that statement is wrong, but have you ever stopped to consider why you think it's wrong?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And so it is. Scientists are researching the explanation as we speak.

As for gods, goddidit isn't an explanation, it's an assertion of agency. The question of mechanism remains -- with or without Gods.

The one definitive feature of atheism is absence of belief. Individual atheists may believe or not believe all sorts of other things, but this is the one thing all atheists have in common.

As a recent immigrant to Religious Forums from a similar message board and discussion site, I just want to say to the thread that I have been impressed with the elevated level of debate here and other RF threads, and the civility shown. I'm accustomed to much less.

Also, you enjoy far superior software here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So now you can be an atheist without finding gods unlikely? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha that's side splitting!!!!

You're wrong to laugh at that. It is correct. An atheist needs make no estimate of the likelihood of the existence of gods to say that he chooses to not believe that they exist without sufficient support.

Why are you so quick to ridicule? Make the effort to understand what the other person is saying. If you can interpret his words in more than one way, at least consider the possibility that he means it in a way that is reasonable, and ask questions that help you decide if you wish to be more certain.

Here are some ideas for you to consider. It's all cut-and-paste, and should be read as if in quotes:

Cooperative principle - In social science generally and linguistics specifically describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way.

Principle of humanity - states that when interpreting another speaker we must assume that his or her beliefs and desires are connected to each other and to reality in some way, and attribute to him or her "the propositional attitudes one supposes one would have oneself in those circumstances"

Principle of charity - requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But an absence of belief over what ? Gods ? What should we understand by this term ?

We're probably all already aware of this term, but if so, it bears repeating here. From Wiki:

"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a coherent, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence."

This same problem arises when considering the historicity of Jesus from an atheistic perspective. Does the historical Jesus need to have been born to a virgin, performed miracle, and been resurrected to return to heaven as a god? I don't think that atheists require that. They would likely say that if the rest of the gospel account was accurate, that a historical Jesus existed.

Here comes the slippery slope: What if we can determine that there was no census during Herod's reign, and that therefore, nobody was born in Bethlehem because of one? Is a historical Jesus still possible? I would say yes.

How much of the story can be stripped away and there still have been a historical Jesus? What if his parents weren't named Joseph and Mary, he only had 9 disciples, and there was no Last Supper, but the rest is historical?

The problem is once again that we're not clear about what we are arguing did/does or didn't/doesn't exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because someone makes dishonest arguments does not make them inherently dishonest, especially when it comes to religious debate.

So if you're dishonest only in religious debates, you're not "inherently dishonest"? I'm flattered that you only consider me dishonest, and not inherently dishonest.

We have different conceptions of what dishonest and "inherently dishonest" mean.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
I admit all my beliefs. I have no idea why you think I wouldn't. What do I stand to gain by believing in an idea and concealing it?

The avoidance of a burden of proof, which is extremely hard to meet for a negative belief.

What is a "negative belief," and what negative belief do you think I hold? That I hold no god belief?

But now that I understand your standards, I regret to have to inform you that according to them, I have to call you on your avampirism using them. You're being dishonest to shirk your burden of proof there, thought not necessarily inherently dishonest.

Was that helpful? I hope so.

 

[Thumper]

We're probably all already aware of this term, but if so, it bears repeating here. From Wiki:

"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a coherent, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence."
....

It's been so long since I've been involved with these discussions, I had forgotten that they was actually a name for this position. Yes, I am definitely ignostic. But I am also willing to entertain anybody's specific definition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All beliefs have a burden of proof

Disagree for reasons already given and ignored.

All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless.

The belief you describe is not required of atheists nor derived from atheism. I'm an atheist, and I make no such claim. Only people making such a claim that want to be believed have a burden of proof there.

You like to ask others how long it will take them to understand a simple declarative statement. When do you expect to be able to do that?

If the atheist is right and there are no gods, they have to explain away gods, explain how the universe can exist without gods, etc.

Atheism can't be right or wrong. And we have no need to explain away gods, nor any more need to explain how a universe can exist without a god than you feel that you have to explain how a god can exist without a meta-god to create it.

Atheists are convivial people happy to engage with theists, but we have no burden of any kind to them. Believe what you like. Whatever you choose literally has no effect on my life.

The worst part to me is that most atheists are fully capable of making these arguments, but instead hide behind the burden of proof.

There's always a character attack. We hide, We're cowards. We're shirkers and deceivers. We must all be scum, right?

Where did you learn that? In karate classes? From reading Marvel Comics? From watching Major league Baseball? I'm confused about who is teaching you that atheists are corrupt and why.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It may be just a claim to you but it is my belief.

This just about sums it up.

View attachment 16291

If you claim that something thinks or acts, then you are saying it thinks and/or acts in time. Each requires a distinct before and after state. That includes gods.

 

[Thumper]

All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless. If the atheist is right and there are no gods, they have to explain away gods, explain how the universe can exist without gods, etc. The worst part to me is that most atheists are fully capable of making these arguments, but instead hide behind the burden of proof.

But again, atheism is not a statement that gods don't exist. Atheism is a statement that there is no evidence for any gods therefore there is no reason for belief.

A person who bases their worldview in "belief on faith" has a real problem understanding this distinction.

 

[Valerian]

Actually your evidence is anecdotal. Miracles don't happen when there are cameras available.

Pictures of the Virgin on top of a cathedral in Egypt exist, albeit more often a less descriptive form in bright light. Numerous times cameras have filmed statues or painting exuding blood or oil. And invariably someone will respond it’s a camera trick or a hoax the nuns concocted. And they are satisfied.

It's interesting that you want to conflate atheism with biology. Wrong as neither one is dependent on the other, but interesting.

Is it not true an atheist who does not believe any god or supernatural being exists must logically also believe that these “miracle” manifestations of biology happened without any intelligent designer? How can you hold any other position? If there were a God around, he would have been involved.

All religions start with a de facto belief that a specific deity exist. The Hindu holy book (The Bagavad Gita) states that it doesn't matter which god you pray to because Shiva answers all prayers. I know you believe that statement is wrong, but have you ever stopped to consider why you think it's wrong?

I think it is wrong because of empirical evidence for the Judeo-Christian G-d. If I am right then neither Hinduism nor any other religion can be close to the most important dogma. They may contain some moral truths but their god is not God. It cannot be both. And the miracles I have cited dwarf the supernatural occasional manifestations of Hinduism or Islam. But Judaism and Christianity stand on pillars of history, reason and revelations that go far beyond just miracles.

In 1968 in Zeitoun, Egypt over 250,000 Egyptians testify to seeing the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic Cathedral over the course of maybe 20 evenings that summer. Are they all hallucinating the very same image? Or are doubters waiting for an even greater miracle before they start realizing?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

You have to actually answer once before you can repeat yourself.

 

[Augustus]

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

I'm unsure what gives you this insight into my mind, but I'm pretty confident I use the word exactly the way that I intend to use it.

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

Reject in this context means the same as disbelieve.

"Do you believe in god or gods?"
"No"

This is disbelief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My contention for the reality of God is not faith based! It is fact based on empirical evidence. Big difference. And that is why your premise for my argument or position is wrong.

You have never produced that evidence, and I have never encountered it. Why do you suppose that is?

Evolution’s starts with the premise of matter exists. And Catholicism starts with the argument of proof that God exists.

Evolution starts with observations, has no premises, and is the only existing explanation for what is observed.

There are a host of competing religious claims involving supernaturalism, but none has any explanatory power, has any supporting evidence, includes any mechanism, predicts anything, or has generated any productive ideas.

The two aren't comparable in any other way but that. One has been fruitful, the other sterile.

Arguments don't prove that gods exist any more than they prove dogs exist. Evidence does.