Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[Gunfingers]

Based on your religion tag, you believe that the Christian god exists, and if you are like the average Christian, you devote a significant portion of your time to activities that are based on your belief that the Christian god exists. Unless you can produce evidence that the Christian god exists, you "believe in something without any evidence whatsoever, to the point of devoting lifelong time and energy to it." The same is true for any devoutly religious person.

The average person devotes about as much time to their religion as i devote to watching Firefly reruns. I don't consider myself to have devoted lifelong time and energy to Firefly, but i spend more time with that than most people do at church.

 

[Magic Man]

And about "seeing" God. There are an infinite number of examples I could give to break apart your argument. An scientist would not be able to see micro-organisms if they refused to use a microscope. You would never know the sky existed if you never looked up. You can look at a Magic Eye and never see the picture, even though its their. You could be color blind. You could be blocking out memory. You could willfully close your eyes. You could be insane. The list goes on. The fact is that their are an infinite amount of unknowns vs. a finite amount of knowns. And you can't logic your way out of that fact. There is ALWAYS the possibility that what is not perceived is, in fact, perceivable, and that what is not known can become known.

Yes, it is possible. A lot of things are possible. There could be an invisible 2-foot-tall horned pegasus beneath my desk right now that I am willfully ignorant of. I don't think it's worth considering, though, just like I don't think God is worth considering. Yes, I could just not be seeing God because I'm insane or blocking it out. You can question anything with that line of reasoning. That kind of thinking is why we have "I think therefore I am". Nothing is provable. It's just not productive to go through life being skeptical of everything, though. So, usually the way that's accomplished is by looking at things in terms of what is likely and unlikely. It's possible that God exists and I'm just blocking him out, but it's not likely based on the rest of the knowledge we possess, just like that 2-foot-tall invisible horned pegasus is unlikely based on the rest of my knowledge about the universe, even though it's technically possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think you really understood my post. The question is: what if God is completely evident, and that humans willfully ignore him? You can use the exact same arguments to defend a theist position to defend an atheist position.

Well, I haven't noticed God yet, and I'm not wilfully ignoring Him. If I were doing something wilfully, I would know it: the word "wilfully" implies that it's done deliberately and consciously.

Effectively, if you argue that God is completely evident and that anyone who denies this is wilfully ignoring Him, you imply that every single atheist and every single theist who believes in some other form of God is lying, despite gaining absolutely no advantage from it (and, depending on which God is "completely evident" may be doing so at their great peril). I don't see how this position is defensible.

Yes, agreed. The point of the rather broad division I made is to emphasize that most of the world believes that there's more to the world than physical stuff and that the "more" isn't merely ephiphenomena. It's just as real or even more real than the physical stuff.

Fine, but there's quite a leap from "there's more to the world than physical stuff" to "God exists", IMO.

Not at all. I've only argued that X is believed by so few people that the most responsible epistemic stance to take with regard to X is skepticism unless and until X can show that its defiance of popular wisdom is justified.

And, as I've pointed, out, "X" can be filled with any particular version of theism in turn just as easily as it can be filled with atheism.

Bollucks. There may be things false in every religion, but it doesn't spread despite its truth. Rather, it spreads because it contains a great deal that IS true. To deny this requires nothing but old-fashioned prejudice.

Look at it this way: is Christianity right? Then Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism and countless other religions spread despite being false. Are the Hindus right? Then the Christians, Muslims and Jews have spread their religion despite it being false... etc., etc.; no matter which version of God is correct, all the incorrect ones spread in spite of the fact they were worshipping something that didn't even exist.

Thankfully, for my argument to succeed, I don't have to advocate for any one version of theism. I'm simply pointing out that atheism is massively weird.

Belief in no gods is "weird". So is belief in a triune God, belief in a unitarian God, and belief in many gods. All of these views are mutually exclusive, and each is only held by a minority of the people in the world.

And when you break these categories down further, each becomes weirder still: if belief in a monotheistic God is "weird" by itself, what about belief in God as a discrete entity, belief in a pantheistic God, belief in a panentheistic God, belief in a deistic God, etc., etc.?

Sure, if you misapply the argument.

I don't think that an application of your argument in a way you don't like is necessarily a misapplication.

That's not the sort of spirituality claimed by theists of ALL types.

Is there a sort of spirituality claimed by theists of all types?

All theists acknowledge that the universe either is or is animated by something non-physical or supra-physical (or however you care to define it).

I doubt that's true. And some atheists believe this as well, so I don't see how it can be used as a unique characteristic of theism.

And most of those theists believe that this non-physical element is something we can interact with and detect at some level. Indeed, 95% of the world agrees on this level of description.

As do Buddhists (roughly), who normally can't be counted among theists, as well as some atheists who don't affiliate themselves with a specific religion.

In the end, it seems your definition of spirituality, which was supposed to divide theism from atheism, leaves members of both groups on either side of the line.

Atheism is simply bizarre on this account, so if you want to be an intellectually honest atheist, you had better justify your defiance of the wisdom of almost all other humans for almost all of human history.

Good luck with that.

I don't see it as an issue of wisdom at all. The various theistic viewpoints may work for other people; none of them work for me... which isn't actually that different from most theists, for whom, generally, all theistic viewpoints but one don't work.

Well, .9Penguin notes that all belief systems, when compared with minute variants on a belief system, is always held by a minority of people. That's true but trivially so. This is a misapplication of the argument because the argument is only intended to operate on a very broad worldview scale.

The variations in worldview amongst theists are much more than "minute variants on a belief system" and have major differences between them, even at the "very broad worldview scale".

But it's highly interesting to note, when taken on that scale, that atheism is a puny minority at all times and all places BAR NONE, except perhaps modern Europe for the past few decades (and that shows every sign of changing). Given the fact that at all times and all places atheism is a stark minority, I'd say that it ought not to be the favored "default" position. If anything, theism (taken extraordinarily broadly to cover all belief systems that affirm the existence of something other than physical stuff) ought to be the default position.

The problem with this is that "theism" is not a position in and of itself; it's a descriptor of many positions.

For example, a deistic panentheist, a Celtic Pagan, a theistic Satanist and a Catholic are all theists, but they likely do no hold the same position on the nature of god(s), the implications of faith in those god(s), or... well, on any issue of belief, really. Theism is no more a single religious position than "not anarchism" is a single political position.

Edit: also, by re-defining theism as "all belief systems that affirm the existence of something other than physical stuff", you implicitly re-define atheism as strict materialism. Your re-definition is so broad that is incorrect.

 

[Dunemeister]

Fine, but there's quite a leap from "there's more to the world than physical stuff" to "God exists", IMO.

I agree. That's not my argument.

And, as I've pointed, out, "X" can be filled with any particular version of theism in turn just as easily as it can be filled with atheism.

Not so. Take Abrahamic monotheistic belief. 2/3 of the world holds to it.

Look at it this way: is Christianity right? Then Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism and countless other religions spread despite being false. Are the Hindus right? Then the Christians, Muslims and Jews have spread their religion despite it being false... etc., etc.; no matter which version of God is correct, all the incorrect ones spread in spite of the fact they were worshipping something that didn't even exist.

Christianity does not hold that all competing religions have it all wrong. And what causes those other religions to flourish is what's right about them. Besides, to say that belief systems flourish despite whatever elements of falsity exist in them is trivially true.

Belief in no gods is "weird". So is belief in a triune God, belief in a unitarian God, and belief in many gods. All of these views are mutually exclusive, and each is only held by a minority of the people in the world.

How can a belief be "weird" when fully 1/3 of the world believes it? That's a highly significant minority (as opposed to the mere 5% of atheism -- truly a bizarre belief, statistically speaking). Perhaps all the various beliefs, taken severally, are believed by a minority. But what makes atheism unique is the enormity of its minority. A puny, nay almost insignificant, proportion of persons through the millennia have believed it, and even now, in its heyday (which is actually declining), perhaps 5% identify as atheist. Compare that with 95% of the world as theist, and atheism comes off as weird. Very weird.

And when you break these categories down further, each becomes weirder still: if belief in a monotheistic God is "weird" by itself, what about belief in God as a discrete entity, belief in a pantheistic God, belief in a panentheistic God, belief in a deistic God, etc., etc.?

As I've said, monotheism isn't weird. Worldwide, it's mainstream. Christian triune theism is believed by about 1/3 of the world. Again, far from weird. Panentheism is again not weird. It's believed by almost all the aboriginal societies that remain in the world, and proportionally, atheists can't hold a candle to them. Pantheism is believed by most religious Indians, not to mention not a few converts and semi-converts (like Richard Gere) worldwide. Add to that the aberrant semi-adoption of semi-Hinduism by New Age folks, and you've got quite a lump of humanity right there. Compared to atheism, these are downright common. Atheism? Still weird.

I don't think that an application of your argument in a way you don't like is necessarily a misapplication.

If that's all you'd done, I'd agree. However, the point of the division I've made is to show that there is something in common held by all theists -- an immaterial or spiritual element to the world -- that atheists deny. Atheists rail against the common wisdom of all mankind for all history. Therefore, atheism should not be given pride of place or be considered the default view. Nor should skepticism of theism be the default view, as argued by not a few atheists beginning with Antony Flew in the sixties (although he's changed his tune of late).

Is there a sort of spirituality claimed by theists of all types?

By "spirituality" I didn't mean specific spiritual practices. I meant only the view that the universe was essentially spiritual in some sense, either because it is god, it was created by god, or whatever. But whatever which way, we humans interact with that divinity in some way. Most of the world affirms something like this, which makes atheists downright weird.

I doubt that's true. And some atheists believe this as well, so I don't see how it can be used as a unique characteristic of theism.

In that case, you're in doubt about the way concepts and words work.

As do Buddhists (roughly), who normally can't be counted among theists, as well as some atheists who don't affiliate themselves with a specific religion.

Bhuddists aren't theists, but they're not materialists, either, so they'd still more comfortably fit on the theist side. They believe in souls, for example, which is highly unusual for atheists. But even when we account for atheists who believe in souls (and throw in those who believe in ghosts and demons and whatnot), I don't think this blunts the force of my argument one whit.

In the end, it seems your definition of spirituality, which was supposed to divide theism from atheism, leaves members of both groups on either side of the line.

Okay, let's clean it up anyway you like. Let's say that I'm only targeting materialistic atheism. That still represents the vast majority of that puny number of atheists. Atheism is still weird, statistically speaking. And remember, that doesn't amount to "atheism isn't true." It only means that atheists cannot presume that it's proper to remain skeptical of theism as a default view. The shoe's on the other foot. Given the uniqueness and peculiarity of atheism as compared with the actual beliefs of the entire world, perhaps we should be skeptical of a position that denies theism.

I don't see it as an issue of wisdom at all. The various theistic viewpoints may work for other people; none of them work for me... which isn't actually that different from most theists, for whom, generally, all theistic viewpoints but one don't work.

Well, if it works for the entire world but not for you, where's the problem? With the world or with you?

The variations in worldview amongst theists are much more than "minute variants on a belief system" and have major differences between them, even at the "very broad worldview scale".

Fair enough. But my argument still stands given that I'm comparing a materialist worldview with materialist-plus-something-spiritual worldview. So the parsings, distinctions (major or minor) among theisms actually don't make a difference.

The problem with this is that "theism" is not a position in and of itself; it's a descriptor of many positions.

For example, a deistic panentheist, a Celtic Pagan, a theistic Satanist and a Catholic are all theists, but they likely do no hold the same position on the nature of god(s), the implications of faith in those god(s), or... well, on any issue of belief, really. Theism is no more a single religious position than "not anarchism" is a single political position.

Edit: also, by re-defining theism as "all belief systems that affirm the existence of something other than physical stuff", you implicitly re-define atheism as strict materialism. Your re-definition is so broad that is incorrect.

Well, you're right and you're wrong. You're right that my very broad characterization wouldn't pass muster as a highly philosophical argument and requires fine-tuning. I'm not going to bother to do that apart from my attempts earlier in this post, although I think it can be done in such a way as to preserve the argument intact. After all, reflective atheists tend to be materialists. Of course, that's not all of them, but if a few thousand people fall outside that definition, it's no concern for me and doesn't blunt my argument.

You're also right that "a deistic panentheist, a Celtic Pagan, a theistic Satanist and a Catholic are all theists, but they likely do no hold the same position on the nature of god(s), the implications of faith in those god(s), or... well, on any issue of belief, really." But it doesn't matter. The point on which all these people would agree is that the atheist is wrong to assume that there's nothing to the world apart from physical stuff. And so what we find is that there is (admittedly thin) common ground among the bewildering vareity of theisms, a common ground against which the atheist sticks out like a coal pile in a ballroom, making the differences between the theisms seem downright petty and insignificant. So I think that my argument stands. And once more, the argument runs like this (and please note the conclusion because you've misstated it several times in your previous posts):

(a) As a matter of principle, it is epistemologically responsible to be skeptical toward views that are held by a very small minority of persons and that fundamentally subvert common wisdom, unless that minority can produce very strong arguments in its favor. In other words, the "default position" should be skepticism toward such views.

(b) Atheism is held by a very small minority of persons, and it subverts a perspective (theism) that has been (and is) held by the vast majority of persons for the vast majority of time.

(c) Therefore, the "default position" should be skepticism toward atheism unless and until atheists can produce very strong arguments in favor of its position.

Note that (c) does not entail the truth of theism or the falsity of atheism. Theism, for all its common sense and truthiness, might still be wrong. Despite the fact that only a very few have seen the light atheism, it may well turn out to be true. But as a person who has adopted theism or is puzzled about whether to be some variant of theist or an atheist, I think the path of wisdom is to be much more skeptical of atheism than theism (whichever brand you choose).

Your argument seems to be to take issue with (b). Should I assume, then, that you take no serious issue with the truth of (a) or the validity of the conclusion (c) as drawn from the conjunction of (a) and (b)?

 

[tomspug]

Yes, it is possible. A lot of things are possible. There could be an invisible 2-foot-tall horned pegasus beneath my desk right now that I am willfully ignorant of. I don't think it's worth considering, though, just like I don't think God is worth considering. Yes, I could just not be seeing God because I'm insane or blocking it out. You can question anything with that line of reasoning. That kind of thinking is why we have "I think therefore I am". Nothing is provable. It's just not productive to go through life being skeptical of everything, though. So, usually the way that's accomplished is by looking at things in terms of what is likely and unlikely. It's possible that God exists and I'm just blocking him out, but it's not likely based on the rest of the knowledge we possess, just like that 2-foot-tall invisible horned pegasus is unlikely based on the rest of my knowledge about the universe, even though it's technically possible.

We've been through this childish reasoning before. There is a difference between believing in an imaginary creature and believing in a source of order and morality to the universe. Not only that, I believe in a God that is actively involved with the lives of each of us. And that is more than belief, it is justified belief. The only thing you can do is doubt my own experience, but you can't just imagine my experience away. Either I'm deluding myself, or you are. But a true skeptic would have to logically understand that it must be one or the other, and that neither can be proven by evidence to be more right.

I know you really want to have logic on your side, but the truth is that neither of us do. Logic is unbiased. Our experience IS biased, and it is our experience, not logic, from which we derive our belief.

It is completely possible that one experience could completely alter your beliefs. You must accept that at least?

 

[Magic Man]

We've been through this childish reasoning before. There is a difference between believing in an imaginary creature and believing in a source of order and morality to the universe. Not only that, I believe in a God that is actively involved with the lives of each of us. And that is more than belief, it is justified belief. The only thing you can do is doubt my own experience, but you can't just imagine my experience away. Either I'm deluding myself, or you are. But a true skeptic would have to logically understand that it must be one or the other, and that neither can be proven by evidence to be more right.

I know you really want to have logic on your side, but the truth is that neither of us do. Logic is unbiased. Our experience IS biased, and it is our experience, not logic, from which we derive our belief.

It is completely possible that one experience could completely alter your beliefs. You must accept that at least?

You realize I'm not completely disagreeing with you, right? My point is just that, while it's possible for you to be right, I see no evidence of it. I could see no evidence because I'm insane or blocking it out, but that seems unlikely considering what we do know. I don't argue with people over whether or not there's a God. I may argue over some specifics that don't make sense, but not the existence of such a being. I don't have logic on my side because I'm an atheist.

You have to realize that atheism and theism are just different ways of experiencing things. Explaining things you see in reality by way of theism makes the most sense to you. I explain things through atheism, or more accurately through philosophies that include atheism. You could be right about the way things are, and I'm the one who's delusional or insane, but I don't consider that a possibility worth considering.

 

[tomspug]

I challenge any theist to find another situation where they would believe in something without any evidence whatsoever, to the point of devoting lifelong time and energy to it.

Theists don't believe in anything without evidence. Their evidence is their own experience, and so is yours. You aren't an atheist because there is no evidence for God in the world. You are an atheist because your own experience does not contain evidence. That justifies your belief, but not mine. Their 'evidence' is a direct relationship with God, which includes communication, conflict, emotions, wants and needs, fulfillment, and growth.

If you want to disprove my relationship with God, explain away those things. How can you grow in experience with something imaginary? How can you cultivate a relationship with something that doesn't exist? You can reason away my experiences by comparing them to your own, but you can never disprove them. If you want to be a real atheist, you're going to have to learn to deal with that fact.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm a software engineer by trade. Everything i work with doesn't exist and i make a living off of it.

 

[tomspug]

You realize I'm not completely disagreeing with you, right? My point is just that, while it's possible for you to be right, I see no evidence of it. I could see no evidence because I'm insane or blocking it out, but that seems unlikely considering what we do know. I don't argue with people over whether or not there's a God. I may argue over some specifics that don't make sense, but not the existence of such a being. I don't have logic on my side because I'm an atheist.

You have to realize that atheism and theism are just different ways of experiencing things. Explaining things you see in reality by way of theism makes the most sense to you. I explain things through atheism, or more accurately through philosophies that include atheism. You could be right about the way things are, and I'm the one who's delusional or insane, but I don't consider that a possibility worth considering.

Well I appreciate the fact that you made the effort to understand my argument. You've always been an excellent atheist to debate with. And don't think that I'm focusing on the idea that all atheists are delusional or anything like that. I think that the key difference between theism and atheism is perspective, like you say. And our experiences incline us towards one or the other, but doesn't necessarily point to a logical conclusion. This is because we never know what will come next. A loved one could die, a major relationship could fall apart, a dream could come true, a goal fulfilled, a revelation even. The difference between atheism and theism, perhaps, is the perspective in which we OBSERVE our experience. One might look at the present, while the other is futuristic. One might see order, the other disorder. One might see purpose, the other chaos. THIS is the real difference, not the argument for evidence and logic.

Everyone uses evidence and logic. I'm extremely logical, and I'm a Christian, so what gives? It makes no sense to attribute logic to one belief over another, because logic is only a tool, not a god (as much as people cling to it like it is one).

 

[Halcyon]

As an ex-Christian who very much wanted to believe in the existence of a god, I have spent years investigating. But years of investigation have turned up no evidence for a god.

Right, so your basing your assumption/belief/conclusion on that investigation.

Without evidence either way, we still need to come up with a base assumption.

Not necessarily, no. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable stance for many situations.

With a poorly-reasoned base assumption, we would either burn in hell or waste our lives praying to an empty sky, neither of which seems to be a very good alternative. Luckily, the logic is already available: I don't wear armor to work because I have seen no evidence of dragons, so similarly I don't pray in the morning because I have seen no evidence of god.

Right, you don't pray because you see no evidence that indicates there is something to pray to, that's not a default or "base" assumption, its been created from experience (or in this case lack of anticipated experience).

I agree that if this were a mathematical proof, a base assumption about existence would be a gaping hole in argument. But such base assumptions are necessary to apply to how we live and act.

Can you honestly say that you don't make base assumptions in order to live your life? I sincerely doubt it.

Honestly, I would say the vast majority of my assumptions are based on past experience, not generated from pure thought alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. That's not my argument.

Not so. Take Abrahamic monotheistic belief. 2/3 of the world holds to it.

There is no single "Abrahamic monotheistic belief". At very minimum, you have to divide it between trinitarianism and non-trinitarianism.

Christianity does not hold that all competing religions have it all wrong.

Many versions of Christianity do. The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, certainly does.

And what causes those other religions to flourish is what's right about them. Besides, to say that belief systems flourish despite whatever elements of falsity exist in them is trivially true.

It's not trivial. It's an illustration of the fact that all sorts of traits and tendencies, including religion, are strongly tied to family history and culture. The fact that a region has a traditional cooking style isn't some sort of endorsement that this style is "better" thank some other type of cuisine; the same is true of the region's traditional religion. Both are elements of a culture that, while it works for them, is not necessarily objectively "right" or "wrong".

A puny, nay almost insignificant, proportion of persons through the millennia have believed it, and even now, in its heyday (which is actually declining), perhaps 5% identify as atheist. Compare that with 95% of the world as theist, and atheism comes off as weird. Very weird.

But again, my point is that this is a false dichotomy. Your argument is very much like using the fact that libertarians, conservatives, liberals, fascists and communists all include some form of government in their political model to imply that anarchism is incorrect, while ignoring the fact that the ideological distance from anarchism to libertarianism is a whole lot less than the distance from libertarianism to fascism or communism.

As I've said, monotheism isn't weird. Worldwide, it's mainstream. Christian triune theism is believed by about 1/3 of the world. Again, far from weird.

It's still a minority, so it can't be automatically assumed to be any sort of "default" position.

Panentheism is again not weird. It's believed by almost all the aboriginal societies that remain in the world, and proportionally, atheists can't hold a candle to them.

Panentheism still has a pretty small number of adherents, though. Heck, I'd say that the number of people in the world who even know what panentheism is is a pretty slim minority.

Pantheism is believed by most religious Indians, not to mention not a few converts and semi-converts (like Richard Gere) worldwide. Add to that the aberrant semi-adoption of semi-Hinduism by New Age folks, and you've got quite a lump of humanity right there. Compared to atheism, these are downright common.

But still a slim minority in worldwide terms.

Atheism? Still weird.

But no weirder than any other position, which is my point.

If that's all you'd done, I'd agree. However, the point of the division I've made is to show that there is something in common held by all theists -- an immaterial or spiritual element to the world -- that atheists deny.

What is that, specifically?

Atheists rail against the common wisdom of all mankind for all history.

No, they don't. There is virtually nothing that is "common" to all theism. Any wisdom in one form of theism is denied by some other form.

The majority of people in the world deny the trinity. So do atheists.
The majority of people in the world deny the existence of a unitarian God. So do atheists.
The majority of people in the world deny the existence of multiple gods. So do atheists.


Hang on for part 2...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Therefore, atheism should not be given pride of place or be considered the default view.

And I'm not arguing that it should be; I'm simply arguing that "theism" should not be considered the default position, in part because it's not a position at all.

In reality, the "default view" is whatever an individual person comes to if not influenced from outside. I suspect that it's different for everyone, as well as a useless abstraction, since everyone is influenced from outside.

Nor should skepticism of theism be the default view, as argued by not a few atheists beginning with Antony Flew in the sixties (although he's changed his tune of late).

So... unless prompted to in some way, people should not question theistic belief systems? That seems an unreasonable thing to ask.

By "spirituality" I didn't mean specific spiritual practices. I meant only the view that the universe was essentially spiritual in some sense, either because it is god, it was created by god, or whatever.

Your "whatever" includes a fairly large slice of atheism.

But whatever which way, we humans interact with that divinity in some way. Most of the world affirms something like this, which makes atheists downright weird.

The non-Buddhist atheists, perhaps, but it makes the deists weird along with the "weird" atheist. Like I pointed out before, the distinctions you're making aren't really between theists and atheists. You're setting up a straw man.

In that case, you're in doubt about the way concepts and words work.

No, I'm in doubt that every form of theism includes the concept of a creator or sustainer god.

Bhuddists aren't theists, but they're not materialists, either, so they'd still more comfortably fit on the theist side.

The distinction between theism and atheism is belief in deities, not materialism, so no.

They believe in souls, for example, which is highly unusual for atheists. But even when we account for atheists who believe in souls (and throw in those who believe in ghosts and demons and whatnot), I don't think this blunts the force of my argument one whit.

It does, because your definition of "theist" includes people who don't believe in any sort of god, and some of your definitions of "atheist" have included people who do.

Okay, let's clean it up anyway you like. Let's say that I'm only targeting materialistic atheism. That still represents the vast majority of that puny number of atheists.

I disagree.

Atheism is still weird, statistically speaking. And remember, that doesn't amount to "atheism isn't true." It only means that atheists cannot presume that it's proper to remain skeptical of theism as a default view.

Why not? To do as you suggest would be to assume that theism is unassailable, which I don't think is defensible... especially since most forms of theism assail other forms of theism all the time.

Well, if it works for the entire world but not for you, where's the problem? With the world or with you?

Neither. I feel no more compulsion to adhere to European, Middle Eastern or Asian cooking techniques than I do to follow their religions.

Fair enough. But my argument still stands given that I'm comparing a materialist worldview with materialist-plus-something-spiritual worldview. So the parsings, distinctions (major or minor) among theisms actually don't make a difference.

It seems like you've moved the goalposts so far that you're not even playing in the arena where you started. Materialism vs. non-materialism is not the same thing as atheism vs. theism.

After all, reflective atheists tend to be materialists. Of course, that's not all of them, but if a few thousand people fall outside that definition, it's no concern for me and doesn't blunt my argument.

You're wrong. All you've done is re-defined the non-materialistic atheists as theists.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

You're also right that "a deistic panentheist, a Celtic Pagan, a theistic Satanist and a Catholic are all theists, but they likely do no hold the same position on the nature of god(s), the implications of faith in those god(s), or... well, on any issue of belief, really." But it doesn't matter.

Yes, it does matter.

Like I alluded to before, your argument is much like lumping the libertarians, communists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, military coup supporters, liberals, etc. together as "governmentalists" in contrast to anarchists and pretending like this is any sort of defense or support at all for any beliefs within the wide "governmentalist" umbrella.

The fact that lots of people are not anarchists does not say anything at all about the correctness or "default" nature of being a monarchist, fascist, or libertarian. In the same way, the fact that lots of people are not atheists does not say anything at all about the correctness or "default" nature of any theistic position.

The point on which all these people would agree is that the atheist is wrong to assume that there's nothing to the world apart from physical stuff.

Actually, I'd say that's a characterization of many theistic positions, as I noted in this other thread.

And in any case, atheism does not equal materialism.

And so what we find is that there is (admittedly thin) common ground among the bewildering vareity of theisms, a common ground against which the atheist sticks out like a coal pile in a ballroom, making the differences between the theisms seem downright petty and insignificant. So I think that my argument stands.

I disagree. The way you've re-defined "theism", it has no common ground whatsoever... not even belief in any sort of god.

And once more, the argument runs like this (and please note the conclusion because you've misstated it several times in your previous posts):
[...]

(c) Therefore, the "default position" should be skepticism toward atheism unless and until atheists can produce very strong arguments in favor of its position.

Frankly, I'm still not sure what you mean by "default position". If you mean what people will believe when left to their own devices, well, that is what it is, and as I said before, it's likely different for everyone.

If you mean that theism should be initially assumed to be correct, well, I disagree. I think it should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as anything else, and shouldn't have any special status in that regard.

Your argument seems to be to take issue with (b). Should I assume, then, that you take no serious issue with the truth of (a) or the validity of the conclusion (c) as drawn from the conjunction of (a) and (b)?

Actually, I've got issues with (a), (b) and (c).

 

[crystalonyx]

I said no such thing. If I meant that, then it would be logical to conclude that theism is also an unacceptable stance. All I am trying to say is that skepticism and atheism are not synonymous at all.

No, but the percentage of people who are atheists and skeptics is much higher than those who are theists and skeptics. Goes with the territory. That faith thing and all.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Here's another brilliant example of in-depth thinking from an atheist. :sarcastic

Irony. Pure irony.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So yes, I argue that atheists are blind to certain aspects of reality.

Many would argue that theists are "seeing things" that aren't real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought I'd jump back to this, since I glossed over it the first time:

And once more, the argument runs like this (and please note the conclusion because you've misstated it several times in your previous posts):

(a) As a matter of principle, it is epistemologically responsible to be skeptical toward views that are held by a very small minority of persons and that fundamentally subvert common wisdom, unless that minority can produce very strong arguments in its favor. In other words, the "default position" should be skepticism toward such views.

(b) Atheism is held by a very small minority of persons, and it subverts a perspective (theism) that has been (and is) held by the vast majority of persons for the vast majority of time.

(c) Therefore, the "default position" should be skepticism toward atheism unless and until atheists can produce very strong arguments in favor of its position.

Note that (c) does not entail the truth of theism or the falsity of atheism. Theism, for all its common sense and truthiness, might still be wrong. Despite the fact that only a very few have seen the light atheism, it may well turn out to be true. But as a person who has adopted theism or is puzzled about whether to be some variant of theist or an atheist, I think the path of wisdom is to be much more skeptical of atheism than theism (whichever brand you choose).

Your argument seems to be to take issue with (b). Should I assume, then, that you take no serious issue with the truth of (a) or the validity of the conclusion (c) as drawn from the conjunction of (a) and (b)?

Dealing with each point in detail:

I disagree with (a). It is responsible to be skeptical of views that are not well supported, but mere adherence to a particular view by a number of people is not support in and of itself.

I disagree with (b). While the majority of the world's population holds some sort of theistic belief (though, as I've pointed out, no specific theistic belief is held by the majority), atheism is held by a significant number of people. I think that your assessment of this number as a "very small majority" has come from your mischaracterization of a large number of atheists as theists, as I pointed out in a previous post.

Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say that atheism "subverts theism". I'm not even sure how it would be possible to do such a thing.

I disagree with (c), partly because I disagree with your premises (a) and (b) on which you've based it, but also because you seem to be implying that theism as a whole, and therefore its constituent parts, should be given a higher standard of trust than atheism for no other reason than you don't think there are that many atheists. If this is the case, then it's an example of the appeal to popularity fallacy.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Bollucks. There may be things false in every religion, but it doesn't spread despite its truth. Rather, it spreads because it contains a great deal that IS true. To deny this requires nothing but old-fashioned prejudice.

I would submit that religion spreads because many people are not mentally strong enough to face reality without a crutch.

I see no prejudice in that, but perhaps you do.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Theists don't believe in anything without evidence.

Apparently, the term "evidence" is up for discussion.

 

[3.14]

I would submit that religion spreads because many people are not mentally strong enough to face reality without a crutch.

I see no prejudice in that, but perhaps you do.

wel atleast its religion and not drugs that are used as a crutch, though i realy wish they would stop waving there religion around like a cane

 

[tomspug]

Apparently, the term "evidence" is up for discussion.

Exactly. Evidence is based on experience. That was the whole point of this thread. Atheists ignore what a theist considers evidence, while a theist accepts what an atheist considers evidence. It's a completely one-sided debate.