Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Willamena]

You do realize you just stated that is impossible to believe in a falsehood right?

Only if you indulge ontological realism.

 

[Repox]

I require a reason to believe. Your god premise is an unshared one. No argument or claim that assumes it has any meaning for me. You needn't tell me anything that begins with "God is ..." or "God said ..." I will be forced by reason to disregard it until you show me credible evidence for this god.

What is your evidence for gods, and what is your evidence that the one you call "God" is the correct one?

Why bother asking such a question? No one can prove the existence of a supernatural being. It is your job to figure it out, not mine. I already know who God is. From your remarks, you must be an atheist. So, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Only if you indulge ontological realism.

Solipsism eh?

Alrighty then.

 

[Repox]

No one can prove the existence of a supernatural being. I have no interest in convincing you. I will post what I please about my God. .

 

[Willamena]

Solipsism eh?

Alrighty then.

No, not solipsism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why bother asking such a question? No one can prove the existence of a supernatural being. It is your job to figure it out, not mine. I already know who God is. From your remarks, you must be an atheist. So, we have nothing to discuss.

Yes, I am an atheist, and I have answered the question to my own satisfaction regarding gods and the supernatural.

 

[ArtieE]

Does your 'fence sitter' possess a belief in deities?

You mean possess a belief in the existence of deities? No.

Belief remains a binary.

If you mean belief in the existence of deities you either believe in their existence or you don't.

If you aren't sure, you still lack belief.

If you aren't sure, you can still have a belief in the existence of deities or belief in the non-existence of deities. You are just not sure if they do exist or don't exist. If you were sure, you would know and be a gnostic.

 

[Thumper]

Maybe to you, but not to others.

Actually, there is, and it's already been done. I do it.

Me too.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You mean possess a belief in the existence of deities? No. If you mean belief in the existence of deities you either believe in their existence or you don't.If you aren't sure, you can still have a belief in the existence of deities or belief in the non-existence of deities. You are just not sure if they do exist or don't exist. If you were sure, you would know and be a gnostic.

At this point in this bizarre exchange the only logical conclusion I can make is that you are using a wholly different definition of the word 'belief' than I am. Does AiG have it's own dictionary these days?

 

[ArtieE]

At this point in this bizarre exchange

I'm afraid the only bizarre things in this exchange are your posts.

the only logical conclusion I can make is that you are using a wholly different definition of the word 'belief' than I am.

Since you don't say which definition you use I can't make any conclusions about whether we use different definitions or not. You believe something is true when you are of the opinion that something is true but don't feel you are certain enough that it's true to declare that you know it's true.

Does AiG have it's own dictionary these days?

I have no idea. I am an apatheist.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I'm afraid the only bizarre things in this exchange are your posts. Since you don't say which definition you use I can't make any conclusions about whether we use different definitions or not. You believe something is true when you are of the opinion that something is true but don't feel you are certain enough that it's true to declare that you know it's true.I have no idea. I am an apatheist.

OK , let's go for Merriam Webster then;

Definition of believe
believed
;
believing

1. intransitive verb
2. 1a : to have a firm religious faithb : to accept something as true, genuine, or real ideals we believe inbelieves in ghosts
   
   
3. 2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something believe in exercise
   
   
4. 3: to hold an opinion : think Ibelieve so
   
   
5. transitive verb
6. 1a : to consider to be true or honest believe the reports you wouldn'tbelieve how long it tookb : to accept the word or evidence of I believe you couldn't believe my ears
   
   
7. 2: to hold as an opinion : suppose Ibelieve it will rain soon

believer
noun
not believe

1. : to be astounded at I couldn't believe my luck

So, to narrow it down, a belief can be defined as holding a proposition as true.

Knowledge is defined in the field of epistemology as simply 'justified true belief'.

That makes belief and knowledge subjectively indistinguishable from each other, as what qualifies as 'justified' and 'true' will vary from subject to subject.

Your dichotomy is invalid.

 

[ArtieE]

So, to narrow it down, a belief can be defined as holding a proposition as true.

Yes, that's the same as saying "I believe it's true".

Knowledge is defined in the field of epistemology as simply 'justified true belief'.

Yes, when you say you know something you mean that you are a 100% certain that it's true.

That makes belief and knowledge subjectively indistinguishable from each other, as what qualifies as 'justified' and 'true' will vary from subject to subject.

If a person says "I am 99% certain that it's true" he says "I strongly believe it's true". If he says "I'm 100% certain it's true" he says "I know it's true". So?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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!

Wow! Can't say you've hit the nail on the head, or even glanced at it! As an atheist, I'd leave the box alone and ignore it if it were not my box. If it were my box, or I was asked what might be inside the box, I'd....wait for it...open the box and take a look.

Now the theist position seems to be, yes we open the box an even though we can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste, I KNOW FOR A FACT god is in the seemingly empty box.

Who is being dishonest?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, that's the same as saying "I believe it's true".Yes, when you say you know something you mean that you are a 100% certain that it's true.If a person says "I am 99% certain that it's true" he says "I strongly believe it's true". If he says "I'm 100% certain it's true" he says "I know it's true". So?

You don't believe something unless you also believe what you believe constitutes knowledge. You can't have knowledge without believing in the truth of a premise.

Your dichotomy is invalid.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't believe something unless you also believe what you believe constitutes knowledge. You can't have knowledge without believing in the truth of a premise.

Your dichotomy is invalid.

Ah. Another bizarre post. No idea what it's supposed to mean. I'll just skip it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That article isn't debunking evolution from wolves,

]

is too!

" the common ancestor of dogs and wolves has gone extinct since they diverged. "

which as I said, is perhaps the reason that we can't find every intermediate step between a wolf and a dog, because they never existed- .


Most people, like yourself, will initially reject this notion as absurd- and be amazed at my 'ignorance' which is understandable because we are constantly told it is so, and besides it seems so intuitive. Same goes for birds from dinosaurs and even man from apes.

Its extremely tempting to make these connections, especially under presumptions of Darwinism, but as scientific understanding progresses, the more we see these links as existing purely in our imagination

Ironically we have even less examples of transitional species than we did in Darwin's time, because so many that were originally assumed have been since debunked.

My position however was on the basics of evolution. Right at this moment dogs are being bred with differences to their makeup. They are being perfected and changed as breed standards change.

Yes, through the application of intelligent design, guiding towards predetermined goals, right? If this is your position on the basics of evolution then we agree!

The first black man who ever slept with a chinese women was also a part of evolution. They produced a child that was different to what was known before, it was a change. The kid wasn't quite black, nor quite Chinese, he was a mix, he was different, there was change.

The child is still human, and in fact, a more genetically 'average' and indistinct human than the parents are, right? further away from representing a shift to an entirely different species.

You truly dont believe in that though? You don't believe things can change in anyway whatsoever? I find this hard to believe. Because that is all it takes to begin to believe in evolution on some level, from there you can look at extraordinary ways things can change. Just check out fruit flies for example, they have some very interesting findings you can go and see for yourself right at this moment if you so desire.

Yes we can look at our own offspring, and see slight differences. And I agree that from there we can extrapolate in our minds, a process to account for all life... where a single cell can eventually morph into a human through millions of lucky accidents.. tempting

Just as genetic apples don't fall far from their trees, it was extremely tempting to observe literal apples falling from literal trees, and extrapolate from that, the physical laws that governed the entire universe.

The 'immutable' laws of classical physics, when the notion of underlying mysterious invisible forces, guiding instructions predetermining outcomes, were still the realm of 'religious pseudoscience'

I think Darwinism was a perfectly logical extension of this Victorian model of reality 150 years ago. Darwin logically extended the basic model for the development of physical reality onto life. So I agree with his premise, I think life did continue to develop as physics, according to very precise instructions and predetermined outcomes.

 

[Falvlun]

While I agree that it is arbitrary. The defining characteristic in others worldview hinges on theist or not a theist. And for this support of their reasoning they they point to the word atheist as equal to "not theist"

Imagine we had three mutually exclusive categories: X, Y, and Z. We could categorize these in a number of ways. If we categorized based on the X-ness of the items we could label them respectively: X, not-X(y) and not X (z). This is what the people are doing. As you point out, it would be equally possible to label based on the Y-ness or even the Z-ness. People prefer basing the definition on theism however because it has the most readily identifiable positive characteristic.

Not suggesting that I agree with it, but if you wanted an explanation...there it is.

Thanks, George.

I think my point is, as you point out, that it is arbitrary to label based on X-ness as opposed to Y-ness.

I also hold that there's no need for the labels "theist" and "atheist" to encompass every person. Especially since there's a third position. (And honestly, even that doesn't cover every person. It only covers all people who have considered the question.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Personal experience I can't say much on. If something happened, that verified your ideas of what exists out in the nether, then that is something just for you. I will say however it isn't very compelling, not that I am saying you think it should be to anyone but yourself. The problem with personal experience is every Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Mormon, Scientologist, Greek Mythologist, Satanist, Hindu, Bahai', Spiritualist, Wiccan, etc, etc, etc all of then. Every single last one ive ever spoken too has had personal experience. I mean looking at this objectively, what exactly do you think is happening here? Is everyone crazy but you? How do you determine that? Are they not just as human as you? If they are capable of error then how aren't you? Doesn't this seem more like evidence that this is part of the human condition and has no effect on reality or the truth of anything? I dunno, it definitely doesn't spell "truth" out to me, but when being objective, how can it?

I was being a little flippant, but personal experience can be the most empirical kind of evidence, as anything else is ultimately taking someone else's word for it. But agree it's not very useful in convincing anyone else!
But I think there are good arguments on it's own merits, as in the OP- I don't call myself an a-naturalist, I don't see God as a default explanation, just the best one.

As to the cars, evolution does exist in cars, I mean, they change from year to year. You will get commercials about "The Next Evolution of the Mazda!!" This is indeed still evolution, its things changing. It isn't evolution in the natural sense, but it is an evolution. This is all that is needed for you say "I believe in evolution."

Now, if we want to discuss whether evolution brought about everything we see around us, that is another discussion entirely, but that has no bearing whether evolution, at its core, exists.

Well it's an interesting discussion and I appreciate your thoughts, so let me ask you this

If we look at the record here then, we dig down into the past, in general order of depth and age, we find shared traits, with changes over time, a few dead ends and even apparent regressions, vestigial features etc etc.. but a general trend towards more sophistication, more specialized bodies suited to different tasks and environments yes?. We also know that some are more successful, and hence survive, and are replicated in successive generations, with further changes and so on...

Tell me what you think, what does all this suggest to you?

 

[Falvlun]

Because they are not theists and the word atheist literally means not theist...

Are you talking about etymology here? Because that's not really how we define words.

Atheist originally meant something more akin to "impious"-- and that was by people who originally spoke the language that "atheist" is composed of.

Because they are not theists and the word atheist literally means not theist...
1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I don't believe that gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I don't believe that gods exist and I don't believe that gods don't exist.

2 and 3 are together because they both don't believe gods exist.

And 1 and 3 are together because they both don't believe that gods don't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you talking about etymology here? Because that's not really how we define words.

Atheist originally meant something more akin to "impious"-- and that was by people who originally spoke the language that "atheist" is composed of.

This is 2017.

And 1 and 3 are together because they both don't believe that gods don't exist.

1. I believe that gods exist.
2. I don't believe that gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist.
3. I don't believe that gods exist and I don't believe that gods don't exist.

How can you combine the person 3 "I don't believe that gods exist" and person 1 "I believe that gods exist"? See post 739.