Shifting more towards atheism

[Enai de a lukal]

So you can't say any observation by your own words?

I could, but I don't have time to write up a Remedial Earth and Planetary Sciences primer on a Monday morning. Do you? What's wrong with what I provided you?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Calling your belief that theism is an invalid proposition "unbelief" is clearly a deliberate deceit intended to help you avoid the uncomfortable fact that you have no logical way of justifying your belief via reasoning or evidential proof.

Whoa chief, dial back the aggression you're about to pull a hammy. You're right that the proposition that theism is invalid (whatever that even means, looks like category mistake- arguments can be invalid, but religions?) is disbelief, not mere unbelief, but you have no access to this person's mind so slow your role with the psychological speculation as to why they may prefer this term.

And on the other hand, its obviously silly and wrong to say that there is no logical way of justifying the belief that e.g. theism is false but that may just be the 16 energy drinks talking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

i find it insulting that you can impose your misunderstanding of atheism then call an atheist a liar because they don't agree with your nonsense.

I don't think he minds insulting atheists. In fact, he seems to take pleasure in it. Ironically, he doesn't mind lying in calling atheists liars. He does so with no evidence of a lie being told. He just assumes it and keeps repeating it.

Calling your belief that theism is an invalid proposition "unbelief" is clearly a deliberate deceit intended to help you avoid the uncomfortable fact that you have no logical way of justifying your belief via reasoning or evidential proof.

But you've identified no examples of deception. And what did you want me to "prove" to you? That I have no god belief? That I am agnostic about gods? Why would I? I'm content to make the claims. What do you suppose would be my incentive to lie here?

It's why you lot had to invent meaningless words like "unbelief"

Not meaningless. Actually, I have a private usage that distinguishes between unbelief (not believing) and disbelief (believing not). Those are two distinct ideas, and we have two words to distribute between them. You referred to clarity earlier. That's a move toward greater clarity compared to using the two words as synonyms and conflating these positions.

why you have to keep insisting that the term "atheism" means nothing.

I've never said that, and I don't recall reading it from anybody else, either. I've defined atheism for you, you reject the definition, and then claim that I say the word means nothing. That's what I mean by obfuscation and bad faith argumentation.

There are legitimate reasons for a person to choose atheism as a philosophical position, but almost no atheist on this site has any idea what they are.

No atheist has any idea what you consider legitimate reasons to be an atheist? If so, then you're probably wrong about your reasons being good.

lying to themselves and pretending they are the judges in some anti-religious kangaroo courtroom

That's what YOU do. Your posts are riddled with unjustified and mean-spirited judgment. The post I'm presently answering does that. You've judged me a liar based in your kangaroo claims. You impute base motives to my posting. I don't mind. Actually, I'm glad to see anything that reveals the ways theism and religion harm people and their neighbors. Whoever taught you to think like that did you a disservice and set you on a course to malign atheists. How much better for you if you were comfortable without a god belief and didn't hate atheists or engage in conflict with them on the Internet. And with you, it's not just disagreement, it's conflict. That diminishes you.

 

[PureX]

Whoa chief, dial back the aggression you're about to pull a hammy.

There was no "aggression" in that statement. It's just an observable fact.

You're right that the proposition that theism is invalid (whatever that even means, looks like category mistake- arguments can be invalid, but religions?) is disbelief, not mere unbelief, but you have no access to this person's mind so slow your role with the psychological speculation as to why they may prefer this term.

"This person" has posted hundreds of comments explaining exactly what he means. And what he and nearly all of his fellow 'atheist' cohorts mean, and tell us constantly, is that every proposed version of theism that they have ever encountered (this is actually religion, not theism, but they don't see a difference), they 100% believe to be invalid (i.e., false). And they are so convinced of this that they consider anyone that accepts any of these religious versions of theism to be true in any way as being highly irrational, superstitious, and quite intellectually inferior.

And on the other hand, its obviously silly and wrong to say that there is no logical way of justifying the belief that e.g. theism is false but that may just be the 16 energy drinks talking.

There is no logical way of justifying the belief that theism is false because the theist proposition is beyond our ability to falsify. Just as there is no possible way for a theist to justify their belief that theism is true because there is no way to falsify that assertion, either. The real point, here, being that what anyone of us BELIEVES about the nature or existence of God/gods is irrelevant. As none of it can be proven or disproved. Therefor, theism is not a truth claim. It's a truth PROPOSITION. It can only be determined logically valid or logically invalid. That's it. What we believe is irrelevant. And so, then is what we DON'T believe.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think he minds insulting atheists. In fact, he seems to take pleasure in it. Ironically, he doesn't mind lying in calling atheists liars. He does so with no evidence of a lie being told. He just assumes it and keeps repeating it.

Shows what sort of a person he is...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"This person" has posted hundreds of comments explaining exactly what he means. And what he and nearly all of his fellow 'atheist' cohorts mean, and tell us constantly, is that every proposed version of theism that they have ever encountered (this is actually religion, not theism, but they don't see a difference), they 100% believe to be invalid (false). And they are so convinced of this that they consider anyone that accepts any of these religious versions of theism to be true in any way, as being highly irrational, superstitious, and quite intellectually inferior.

That's great, nevertheless, you don't have access to their mind, no matter how aggravating you find their conduct, and psychologizing your interlocuter does not stand in for an argument- this is patently fallacious- and it is poor form to boot.

There is no logical way of justifying the belief that theism is false because the theist proposition is beyond our ability to falsify. Just as there is no possible way for a theist to justify their belief that theism is true because there is no way to falsify that assertion. The real point, here, being, that what anyone of us BELIEVES about the nature or existence of God/gods is irrelevant. As none of it can be proven. Therefor, theism is not a truth claim. It's a truth proposition. It can neither be proven nor disproved, it can only be determined logically valid or invalid.

Ok so this is a complete trainwreck. Logically speaking, justifying atheism is no different than justifying any other position- there's no problem in principle here, because theism is not "beyond our ability to falsify". Theism entails a veritable laundry list of empirical claims which are testable, at least in principle:

- scriptural/doctrinal claims
- miracles/divine intervention
- prophecy
- intercessory prayer
- the apparent non-existence on non-resistant unbelievers
- the apparent non-existence of unnecessary evil/suffering
- overall consistency between religious experiences across time and place

As well as logical problems like the question of contrary attributes, the coherency of theism and so on.

Now whether any of this can be "proven", as in, "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" or "proven to a logical/mathematical certainty" isn't really relevant. We hold lots of beliefs that cannot strictly be proven. The quesiton is whether they are reasonable. And a belief is reasonable only if it is supported by sufficient evidence. Now, imo, the above suffices to make atheism reasonable.

And lastly, "proposition" and "truth-claim" are synonymous in philosophy. A proposition just is a truth-claim. So to say that theism is a proposition, is to say it is a truth-claim. ANd it is a truth-claim. Theism asserts that at least one deity exists, and it goes on to say a good deal about that deity that, if true, makes an observable difference in the world: a world in which theism is true looks different from a world where theism is false.

 

[jimb]

There was no "aggression" in that statement. It's just an observable fact.

"This person" has posted hundreds of comments explaining exactly what he means. And what he and nearly all of his fellow 'atheist' cohorts mean, and tell us constantly, is that every proposed version of theism that they have ever encountered (this is actually religion, not theism, but they don't see a difference), they 100% believe to be invalid (false). And they are so convinced of this that they consider anyone that accepts any of these religious versions of theism to be true in any way, as being highly irrational, superstitious, and quite intellectually inferior.

There is no logical way of justifying the belief that theism is false because the theist proposition is beyond our ability to falsify. Just as there is no possible way for a theist to justify their belief that theism is true because there is no way to falsify that assertion. The real point, here, being, that what anyone of us BELIEVES about the nature or existence of God/gods is irrelevant. As none of it can be proven. Therefor, theism is not a truth claim. It's a truth proposition. It can neither be proven nor disproved, it can only be determined logically valid or invalid.

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of faith, equating it with theism. Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity. With faith, there is no belief in the existence of a deity; there is knowledge in the existence of a deity. Once someone has a personal interaction with God, it transcends "belief".

It is as nonsensical as believing that one is alive. Either a person knows they're alive or not. It's the same thing with those of us who are born of the Spirit of God. We live in Christ. Acts 17:28a: For ‘In him we live and move and have our being'

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Shows what sort of a person he is.

I see him as afraid. I see it something akin to people becoming homophobes when they discover some same-sex attraction in themselves. That would be the worst thing that could happen to them, they believe, something that would cost them salvation or cause others to condemn them, so they lash out at gay people.

PureX has been forthcoming about his near demise from alcohol and his struggle to remain sober, which is where I assume his god belief arose - 12 step program. His thinking is pretty moral and coherent in other areas such as politics and economics, but he's a different person when discussing gods. Here, he's atheophobic and willing to make outlandish and incoherent claims, which I understand that to mean that he is grappling with atheistic tendencies, and sees that as a threat to his sobriety. If his theism helps him there, fine. But it doesn't account for his atheophobia.

And I would be a little more supportive of him if he wasn't so hostile to atheists. This is as empathetic as I can be with a guy who keeps calling me a liar.

Oh, and the eclipse is about 1/3 of the way to totality now (11:27 AM CST) where I am.

what he and nearly all of his fellow 'atheist' cohorts mean, and tell us constantly, is that every proposed version of theism that they have ever encountered (this is actually religion, not theism, but they don't see a difference), they 100% believe to be invalid (i.e., false).

You keep making the same mistake. Agnostic atheists, who are also skeptics, critical thinkers, empiricists, and the majority of atheists don't call god beliefs false. They call them unjustified.

And they are so convinced of this that they consider anyone that accepts any of these religious versions of theism to be true in any way as being highly irrational, superstitious, and quite intellectually inferior.

Theism is not doing you any good here. It may help you cope, but you would be a better person if you could do that without a god belief. You wouldn't feel threatened by atheism nor dislike atheists.

The real point, here, being that what anyone of us BELIEVES about the nature or existence of God/gods is irrelevant.

Not to me. What I believe including my beliefs about gods is VERY relevant to me. What others believe much less so.

 

[shunyadragon]

Calling your belief that theism is an invalid proposition "unbelief" is clearly a deliberate deceit intended to help you avoid the uncomfortable fact that you have no logical way of justifying your belief via reasoning or evidential proof. It's why you lot had to invent meaningless words like "unbelief" in the first place. And why you have to keep insisting that the term "atheism" means nothing. But you aren't fooling anyone but yourselves. And the more you have to sink to such dishonest tactics to maintain your anti-religious bias the more anyone with eyes can see that it IS just a bias.

There are legitimate reasons for a person to choose atheism as a philosophical position, but almost no atheist on this site has any idea what they are. Because lying to themselves and pretending they are the judges in some anti-religious kangaroo courtroom is just so much easier then having to actually think and reason it through.

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision based on what one believes, and there of course is no evidential proof (classic misuse of proof) whether God, Gods, souls, other spiritual worlds or the after life exist or not.

I believe there is more rational justification of one of various versions of philosophical naturalism than trying to rational justify an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

 

[jimb]

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision based on what one believes, and there of course is no evidential proof (classic misuse of proof) whether God, Gods, souls, other spiritual worlds or the after life exist or not.

I believe there is more rational justification of one of various versions of philosophical naturalism than trying to rational justify an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

Again (and again and again ... and again): FAITH IS BEING SURE OF WHAT YOU HOPE FOR AND CERTAIN OF WHAT YOU DO NOT SEE. How can it be any more direct than that? There is no belief in that statement. People who lack faith can theorize all they want to, but that doesn't change this FACT one bit.

 

[jimb]

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision based on what one believes, and there of course is no evidential proof (classic misuse of proof) whether God, Gods, souls, other spiritual worlds or the after life exist or not.

I believe there is more rational justification of one of various versions of philosophical naturalism than trying to rational justify an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

You can believe otherwise, but you would be wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Again (and again and again ... and again): FAITH IS BEING SURE OF WHAT YOU HOPE FOR AND CERTAIN OF WHAT YOU DO NOT SEE. How can it be any more direct than that? There is no belief in that statement. People who lack faith can theorize all they want to, but that doesn't change this FACT one bit.

According to the Oxford English dictionary (religious) faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

 

[shunyadragon]

Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

You can believe otherwise, but you would be wrong.

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision based on what one believes, and there of course is no evidential proof (classic misuse of proof) whether God, Gods, souls, other spiritual worlds or the after life exist or not.

I believe there is more rational justification of one of various versions of philosophical naturalism than trying to rational justify an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

 

[jimb]

According to the Oxford English dictionary (religious) faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

So what? According to the Bible, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So, the Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong!

Here is a better non-Biblical definition than the one you gave: Faith is the fuel of the Christian life, the opposite of doubt and the means by which we come to God and put our trust in Him for salvation. Faith is unquestioning belief in God, his promises, and his character.

 

[jimb]

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision based on what one believes, and there of course is no evidential proof (classic misuse of proof) whether God, Gods, souls, other spiritual worlds or the after life exist or not.

I believe there is more rational justification of one of various versions of philosophical naturalism than trying to rational justify an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

Reasoning as to what one believes remains a subjective highly variable decision. This applies to you!

BTW, present faith is not an ancient mythical world view of God or Gods based on the various conflicting ancient tribal text without provenance.

 

[ChristineM]

So what? According to the Bible, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So, the Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong!

Here is a better non-Biblical definition than the one you gave: Faith is the fuel of the Christian life, the opposite of doubt and the means by which we come to God and put our trust in Him for salvation. Faith is unquestioning belief in God, his promises, and his character.

Tell ya what, contact the OED and complain that they are not using your bias in their definition.

I'll stick to the OED rather than some cobbled together, 2000 year old book or a bit of Christian dogma

 

[jimb]

Tell ya what, contact the OED and complain that they are not using your bias in their definition.

I'll stick to the OED rather than some cobbled together, 2000 year old book or a bit of Christian dogma

Why should I waste my time doing that? I'll stick to the Bible, a book that has stood the test of time.

The Bible is the world's most published book, with estimated total sales of over five billion copies, and has existed for thousands of years. In contrast, the OED has been around for a mere 167 years.

 

[ChristineM]

Why should I waste my time doing that? I'll stick to the Bible, a book that has stood the test of time.

The Bible is the world's most published book, with estimated total sales of over five billion copies, and has existed for thousands of years. In contrast, the OED has been around for a mere 167 years.

Your life, waste it however you want.

Most published, yes, when its been around for 1600 years one would expect it has a huge head start on other books.

Sales, not so much, sure plenty have been given away but as far as book sales go, I don't believe it's in the top 100 best selling books.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? According to the Bible, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

According to the Bible.... So what? I don't give a tinker's damn what the Bible says.
The Bible is not a dictionary used for defining words.

So, the Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong!

No, the Bible got it wrong.

 

[metis]

Sales, not so much, sure plenty have been given away but as far as book sales go, I don't believe it's in the top 100 best selling books.

Sales of Bibles is declining here in the States.