Lack of belief in gods.

[Cephus]

Too much to list here, the evidence is all around you, how it's interpreted is the thing..

But you can answer also this for yourself with the beach analogy as above

why do you deduce an intelligent agent spelling 'help' with rocks, when the direct, empirical evidence, Occam's razor even, would conclude the random action of the waves did it?

No, all we have evidence for around us is the material world We have no evidence of any kind for anything outside of the material world. So what reason do we have to think that anything but the material world actually exists? All you have is wishful thinking and irrational interpretations.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If you see something that others do not, and you have no evidence to prove it exists;
wouldn't you consider it ignorant if they then told you that you have not seen such a thing?

Of course. That's kind of the point of the question.

Are you saying you've seen invisible things?

If someone reported seeing a Brown Booby off the coast of Texas, I'd have no problem accepting it as fact based on authority. If someone reported a Brown Booby in Central Texas, I'd require either a photograph, or that the reporters credentials were immaculate. So yes a somewhat out of the ordinary claim can at times be accepted based on authority. IF someone reported a Blue Footed Booby in Texas, authority would be out of the question. Photographs and field notes would be required to accept the record. Authority would be completely insufficient. Even the most renowned ornithologist would understand this and it would give a lot of impetus to search for that particular bird and properly document it.

Just two days ago I came across a Diamond Back Terrapin at Powderhorn Ranch. There had been reports of the nearly extinct species in this area. One of the biologists had been frantically searching and even setting traps to document the presence of this species in this area. There have been 100s of verbal accounts. My friend, the TPWD biologist immediately jumped in his vehicle and drove 1/2 hour to meet me to photograph the Terrapin, weight it, take measurements, and make field notes. Until 2 days ago the presence of Diamond Back Terrapins at Powderhorn was only a myth, a fable, a rumor. Today it is documented fact, history, knowledge.

Now, what standard of truth do you think I'd use if someone claimed they saw a Phoenix, or a Pterodactyl, or an angel flying around south Texas?

To repeat your question in a different context;

If you see something that others do not, and you have no evidence to prove it exists;
wouldn't you consider it ignorant if they then told you that you have not seen such a thing?

If you see a Pterodactyl flying around South Texas, and you have no evidence to prove it exists; Wouldn't you consider it ignorant of them not to tell you've lost your mind, or imagined it, or didn't know what you were talking about, or don't know the difference between a Pterodactyl and a Brown Booby?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, all we have evidence for around us is the material world We have no evidence of any kind for anything outside of the material world. So what reason do we have to think that anything but the material world actually exists? All you have is wishful thinking and irrational interpretations.

So when you see the rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'HELP', no evidence of anyone ever being there, you rationally conclude the material action of waves did it accidentally? No reason to suspect intelligent agency?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Often people see things for which there is no evidence.
That does not mean that such does not exist.
My point is that it is one thing to withhold judgement,
it is quite another to claim that such a person is lying or delusional.
It comes down to a judgement of character.
So if you trust a person, in other matters but then claim that they are delusional,
then that is inconsistent on your part.

No, it is not a judgement of character. It is a question of the level of evidence meeting the likelihood of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have to assume someone is lying to dismiss their claim. Although there have been times when I have had to presume someone needs mental professional help.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

When someone says you have not seen what you have seen, then THAT is an insult.

Maybe maybe not. But if you tell me you saw a pterodactyl flying around south Texas, you're going to be insulted. To bad. Isn't it an insult to tell someone you saw something it ridiculously outrageous and expect them to take it as fact based on your authority alone? People aren't aloud to question you? Deny your claim? If that were the case we'd still be cutting tongues out of insulant dogs that disputed the king.

I feel insulted!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

But that is not what I said at all.



When someone tells you that you have not seen what you have seen, THAT is ignorance.
If they do not believe you then that means they are either withholding judgement OR they think you are lying OR delusional.

When someone says you have not seen what you have seen, then THAT is an insult.

Often people see things for which there is no evidence.
That does not mean that they have not seen those things.

Ok, it's not everyday I respond to the same post with different lines.

No! You are wrong! I do not believe you! These are facts, if you take them as insults than that is your fragile ego breaking up and you really have no business in a debate forum. You are not cut out to have an honest discussion.

Now, what all you said is wrong, what it actually is is this; "You have failed to convince me of your claim! . (.), I'll just say it...PERIOD

 

[Cephus]

So when you see the rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'HELP', no evidence of anyone ever being there, you rationally conclude the material action of waves did it accidentally? No reason to suspect intelligent agency?

Please point out where we can go to see the words "Universe, (c) 4004 B.C. by God" spelled out anywhere. Thanks.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I find the people who go around and tout their atheism a bit strange. Just like I find the idea of an atheist community a bit strange. Is it really important in the modern day to go around proclaiming that god doesn't exist? We don't exactly live in a theocracy where such an idea would get you arrested.

Do they think that simply shouting " I'm an atheist, DEBATE ME!" is really going to change a bunch of people's minds?

Much more important than a religious community. We need more and more atheist to step up and actively deny they believe all the insane beliefs that have been pushed down cultures for millennia so that we can free society from teh burden of religion.

Isn't it strange that religious people feel the need to gather and judge others, tell them they'll burn in hell, if they don't convert, conform, do like the rest of them....religion pretty much seems xenophobic to me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please point out where we can go to see the words "Universe, (c) 4004 B.C. by God" spelled out anywhere. Thanks.

either that or HELP would be selling the entire universe a little short don't you think?

so you suspect intelligent agency in this example, even though there is only direct evidence for a purely naturalistic/materialistic cause..

Similarly it's not entirely impossible that some sort of random reality generator spat this universe out for no particular reason, but do you honestly believe that is the best explanation?

How confident would you say you are of this 100% ?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Nor does it mean that what they interpret their experience to be is what their experience actually was. This is what happens when people simply assert things rather than demonstrate them with evidence. Someone may not be lying, they may simply be wrong. Without that evidence to back them up, no rational person should take an empty claim seriously. That's why skeptics ask questions. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, theists rarely have any demonstrable answers.

Much of what you say is true.

However, when it comes to science, the scientists just as often have illogical answers,
and when their illogical answers are shown for the falsehoods that they are, they just deny it out of dogma
no better or worse than that of the theists, or any other human institution.

For example:
A black-hole is said to have gravity so strong that even something travelling at light-speed cannot escape.
And yet the scientists also argue that gravity itself is travelling at light-speed and yet it somehow escapes the black-hole.
Gravity is curved space, they say, and thus even objects without mass are affected by it.

Now how that example is arrived at, and its resolution are far more complex than the example.
But the scientists are not interested in such proof. And proof itself is worth a whole lot more than mere evidence.

So when I point out that this irrefutable proof, (and many others too)
come to me from communing with non-corporeal religious Beings,
you answer it with... ?

 

[Cephus]

either that or HELP would be selling the entire universe a little short don't you think?

so you suspect intelligent agency in this example, even though there is only direct evidence for a purely naturalistic/materialistic cause..

Similarly it's not entirely impossible that some sort of random reality generator spat this universe out for no particular reason, but do you honestly believe that is the best explanation?

How confident would you say you are of this 100% ?

No, I do not suspect intelligent agency because there is no actual evidence of intelligent agency. Until you can provide that, and you admit that you can't, then you have no rational cause to think that any intelligent agency actually happened. You just like to think that's how it happened because it gives you an emotional woody.

I'm not impressed by that at all.

 

[Willamena]

How about your belief in Thomas Cruz of South Texas. He has a very strong business building houses, makes good money, works hard, has a somewhat attractive wife and 3 kids.

Do you;
Believe he exists,
or do you not believe he exists?

Is there a third possibility? Maybe you hold neither belief?

I have no reason to form a belief about Thomas Cruz while he is just a collection of words. *nod*

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

This only explains why the experiencer might take offense at the notion that their experience was something other than what they thought - but they still must defend the assertion that their claim of extraordinary happenings was, in fact, extraordinary.

This is true of anything at all - Religious belief, alien abduction stories, Loch Ness Monsters, hidden codes in ancient manuscripts, anti-gravity devices, perpetual motion machines, psychic abilities - and even Scientific discoveries. Everything! The burden of proof will forever rest on the claimant - that is how it works. There is no skirting of this issue in logical debate or conversation. The reason that these debates persist is because most Theists fail to take ownership of the realities of logical discussion. (That is not an insult. It is an observation of these persistent cyclical conversations)

However there is a huge difference between supernatural conscious beings on the one hand
and supernatural physical devices or powers on the other.

For the latter, yes I do agree with what you say,
but when it comes to conscious beings (whether supernatural or not)
it is not possible to predetermine their behavior.

I cannot make Jesus speak to you any more than I can make Vladimir Putin speak to you.

But I can attest to the characters of those who have claimed to speak to Jesus.
There are countless records of Saints. To refute Christianity you would have to believe that
the entire history of Christianity is a monumental hoax and conspiracy perpetuated by
a group of people with the highest ethic the planet has ever known.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I do not suspect intelligent agency because there is no actual evidence of intelligent agency. Until you can provide that, and you admit that you can't, then you have no rational cause to think that any intelligent agency actually happened. You just like to think that's how it happened because it gives you an emotional woody.

I'm not impressed by that at all.

Well I hope you don't work for the coast guard!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I have no reason to form a belief about Thomas Cruz while he is just a collection of words. *nod*

Exactly, How is that different than Santa Clause? What is your reason for forming a disbelief about him, while he is just a collection of words? Or belief in gawd, while he is just a collection of words?

Is my authority not enough? What if I tell you emphatically that I made it all up and he does not exist? Will you form a belief then?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Of course. That's kind of the point of the question.

Are you saying you've seen invisible things?

If someone reported seeing a Brown Booby off the coast of Texas, I'd have no problem accepting it as fact based on authority. If someone reported a Brown Booby in Central Texas, I'd require either a photograph, or that the reporters credentials were immaculate. So yes a somewhat out of the ordinary claim can at times be accepted based on authority. IF someone reported a Blue Footed Booby in Texas, authority would be out of the question. Photographs and field notes would be required to accept the record. Authority would be completely insufficient. Even the most renowned ornithologist would understand this and it would give a lot of impetus to search for that particular bird and properly document it.

Just two days ago I came across a Diamond Back Terrapin at Powderhorn Ranch. There had been reports of the nearly extinct species in this area. One of the biologists had been frantically searching and even setting traps to document the presence of this species in this area. There have been 100s of verbal accounts. My friend, the TPWD biologist immediately jumped in his vehicle and drove 1/2 hour to meet me to photograph the Terrapin, weight it, take measurements, and make field notes. Until 2 days ago the presence of Diamond Back Terrapins at Powderhorn was only a myth, a fable, a rumor. Today it is documented fact, history, knowledge.

Now, what standard of truth do you think I'd use if someone claimed they saw a Phoenix, or a Pterodactyl, or an angel flying around south Texas?

To repeat your question in a different context;
If you see a Pterodactyl flying around South Texas, and you have no evidence to prove it exists; Wouldn't you consider it ignorant of them not to tell you've lost your mind, or imagined it, or didn't know what you were talking about, or don't know the difference between a Pterodactyl and a Brown Booby?

Well if somebody claimed to speak to Buddha whilst doing some unspeakable unethical pointless horrific act, then
that would count against his claim massively.

On the other hand,
I have spoken to John the Baptist and his insight has resulted in me fixing all the known problems in astrophysics,
including refuting relativity, and proving that gravity is an instantaneous force.

Now if you know zero about cosmology, then this is a bit pointless,
but here is the link anyway:
Computational analysis of LIGO gravitational-wave experiment GW150914

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Well if somebody claimed to speak to Buddha whilst doing some unspeakable unethical pointless horrific act, then
that would count against his claim massively.

On the other hand,
I have spoken to John the Baptist and his insight has resulted in me fixing all the known problems in astrophysics,
including refuting relativity, and proving that gravity is an instantaneous force.

Now if you know zero about cosmology, then this is a bit pointless,
but here is the link anyway:
Computational analysis of LIGO gravitational-wave experiment GW150914

LOL! I do not want to insult you, but I do not see you giving any credit to John the Baptist!!! Shouldn't you have listed him as secondary author or at least in the acknowledgments? Forgive me If I missed it, but I didn't see a section on acknowledgments.

Now when you say that the theoretical findings of Abbot are intrinsically flawed, did he bow up and say how dare you insult me? You must be insane to say that you did not see the same reult I saw? Astrophysics must be a much more brutal discourse than evolution and ecology.

More importantly, i admire your sources (JtB notwithstanding) but would be interested in any discussions of the merits of your work, as I am not an astrophysicist.

And with all that, even if you work is immaculate, then yes, I'm afraid I must insult you anyway by claiming to have had a conversation with John the Baptist. You are delusional, lying, or insane! You may take this as an insult. But it is nothing personal, merely a statement of the fact that your claim is an observational impossibility.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think there is a lot of semantical bamboozling that goes on here, but what we are looking at is a belief in an extraordinary claim without evidence and a lack of belief in that claim. The two are not equivalent and I don't care how you try to twist the words.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

For me there are two reasons. The first is that they are identical positions, they imply the same things, with the exception of true agnosticism. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the two are not the same, and it's absurdity is easily illustrated by a theist taking the position "I lack belief that there are no gods." There's no room for dishonesty in philosophy.

The second reason is because of why this little trick was made up in the first place, which is that it pretends the burden of proof is only on the theist. When hiding behind the burden of proof, the atheists can just shake their head and scream that they lack belief, without ever defending their positions, and can make absurd arguments like "babies are atheists." Not only is it dishonest, but it completely perverts the debate and philosophy itself.

There a bonus #3, which is that it's just so absurd and pointless to pretend the two are not the same. Nobody is going to care if you believe there are no gods, because that's how it's been the whole time, it's just how the logic of it works. Further, atheism is a position that can and and has been argued and evidenced many times over, making it pointless to hide behind the burden of proof.

Theists could exist without atheists.

Atheists could not exist without theists. Linguistically and logically, there would be no need for the word.

This is because theism is always a positive claim(something exists) where atheism never is(no it doesn't/haven't heard or considered the claim)

The burden of proof always rests with the one claiming 'something exists'. That's just how logic works sunshine.

Also, babies are incapable of absorbing the spoken and written rhetoric to adopt theism, and everyone who isn't theistic.. Including every baby ever..Is an Atheist.

 

[Curious George]

Theists could exist without atheists.

Atheists could not exist without theists. Linguistically and logically, there would be no need for the word.

This is because theism is always a positive claim(something exists) where atheism never is(no it doesn't/haven't heard or considered the claim)

The burden of proof always rests with the one claiming 'something exists'. That's just how logic works sunshine.

Also, babies are incapable of absorbing the spoken and written rhetoric to adopt theism, and everyone who isn't theistic.. Including every baby ever..Is an Atheist.

Only if one defines atheist as "anything not theist."