The Folly of Atheism

[PureX]

I find it presumptuous and arrogant to assert to know what others believe.

I don't care. I am posting my observations and opinions the same as anyone else, here.

Negative claims do not require evidence.

No assertion requires evidence. All they require is logically reasoned support. You materialists cry for "evidence" because you think existence is defined by matter. And it's not.

I do not believe Santa Clause exists either. That makes me a "non-believer" in Santa Clause.

An honest person would not need to stoop to such convoluted nonsense to avoid saying that they don't believe that Santa Claus exists beyond the cultural ideal. They would just say they don't believe that Santa Claus exists beyond the cultural ideal. Why are atheists so frightened by such honesty? Ask yourself.

One does not need to see a "compelling reason NOT to believe".

But you DO "believe". You believe that gods don't exist until and unless they can be proven to exist to your satisfaction. That's your "compelling reasoning".

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you explain why they would default to the assumption that gods don't exist until proven otherwise if they don't believe that the existence of gods could be proven to them, to their satisfaction, if gods did exist?

For the same reason you'd default to the position of not believing my claim that, say, I have an invisible pet dragon, or that I have a scientific theory that is better than Einstein, or that I'd been visited by the ghost of Elvis last Saturday afternoon.

You couldn't actually know that any of those claims are false, could you? So you'd have to, if pressed, be "agnostic", but I very much doubt that you'd believe me, so you'd be an a-dragonist, and so on. That's how you get agnostic atheists. Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief.

 

[PureX]

For the same reason you'd default to the position of not believing my claim that, say, I have an invisible pet dragon, or that I have a scientific theory that is better than Einstein, or that I'd been visited by the ghost of Elvis last Saturday afternoon.

I would not "disbelieve" any of these claims (assume these to be untrue). I would simply look for the proper context from which you are making them, or not, depending on my level of curiosity.

You couldn't actually know that any of those claims are false, could you?

I am not the arbiter of truth for other people. They don't have to align with my presumptions. We are all perceiving 'what is' from a limited and relative context. That's why I would ask for more information regarding the context from which you assert such "truths". I would not assume "disbelief" unless your proposed truth is irrational even from within your own context. And even then, "disbelief" would be a very weird word to apply to my reaction, as I do not assume that it's my place to believe or disbelieve anyone else's assertions. I either accept them as reasonably viable (from my experience and perspective), or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For the same reason you'd default to the position of not believing my claim that, say, I have an invisible pet dragon, or that I have a scientific theory that is better than Einstein, or that I'd been visited by the ghost of Elvis last Saturday afternoon.

You couldn't actually know that any of those claims are false, could you? So you'd have to, if pressed, be "agnostic", but I very much doubt that you'd believe me, so you'd be an a-dragonist, and so on. That's how you get agnostic atheists. Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief.

This is not about you per se. It is about some, but not all of the non-religious humans

That is a part of it. But not all - that it is the unknown, that is the tricky part.
You only know first person what you experience in your mind. You then properly claim, it makes sense to add "objective reality". You then add that you can trust your sense and reasoning and decide what, that which is independent of your mind, is as independent of your mind. But you see, that is unknown unless you are outside your mind and that is not the case, right?
So you have some basic beliefs, that you trust in, that it is so. That is what in effect you do, yet that trust, namely that you can trust objective reality to be what you believe it to, is not like religion at all. You don't really trust something bigger than you, objectively reality, so be fair(not a Boltzmann Brain, yet natural) and be independently of you as it appears to you in your mind.
No, you use the correct reasoning, because all other reasoning is incorrect, because your reasoning is not based on faith at all. That you can trust objective reality to be fair and natural and that you can trust your reasoning and senses is not anything like religion and it is not like, that what I call God, is what you call objective reality? No, not at all!!! Because you are special, you know that objective reality is real as you claim and that is not a belief.

I don't know if this applies to you. But it applies to at least one of the members of this forum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would not "disbelieve" any of these claims (assume these to be untrue). I would simply look for the proper context from which you are making them, or not, depending on my level of curiosity.
I am not the arbiter of truth for other people. They don't have to align with my presumptions. We are all perceiving 'what is' from a limited and relative context. That's why I would ask for more information regarding the context from which you assert such "truths". I would not assume "disbelief" unless your proposed truth is irrational even from within your own context. And even then, "disbelief" would be a very weird word to apply to my reaction, as I do not assume that it's my place to believe or disbelieve anyone else's assertions. I either accept them as reasonably viable (from my experience and perspective), or not.

You are rare. Or rather you are one of the few humans, I have met, who thinks like that. I don't know if you are "rare". You are rare to me.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, that is true. People do have different god beliefs even though there is only one true God.

So people don't actually believe in God then they just believe in their own fantasy version of what they believe he should be?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So people don't actually believe in God then they just believe in their own fantasy version of what they believe he should be?

Yes, that is the same with objective reality. It is the one True Thing, yet we have all of these different beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, what is better for us all, what the good life is and so on. Yet objective reality is the one True Thing according to people. Well, the one True Thing is to me the one True God.
I just call it God and they call it objective reality. And then we fight with words.

 

[ArtieE]

First, God is not my friend...
Second, nobody can prove God exists.
So I am off the hook.

LOL That might be true about the particular version of god you believe in but if the Christian God could show Moses his backside he can show up at any scientific institution and do the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

LOL That might be true about the particular version of god you believe in but if the Christian God could show Moses his backside he can show up at any scientific institution and do the same.

Do you want me to find a fundamentalist anti-religious non-religious human and then hold you to that standard? I can do it.
Stop doing that. A non-religious human is not responsible for another non-religious human's view. They can't even agree on e.g. agnosticism.
So don't do that with religious humans.

 

[ArtieE]

This is not true. Most atheists believe that God does not exist,

How many? Quote statistics.

Here is what they actually believe: that if God/s were to exist, they (the atheist) would be able to recognize and verify God's existence to their (philosophical materialist's) satisfaction. And because they have not done so, they presume that God must not, therefor, exist. It is their 'we default to non-existence' that gives them away. As that is not the default position of someone who is simply unconvinced, or unable to determine a position due to a lack of sufficient information. That default position would be "I don't know", i.e., agnosticism. And this is NOT the position of any atheist, soft, hard, or moderately squishy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many? Quote statistics.

And even that is not correct, since I am a deist.

 

[ArtieE]

And even that is not correct, since I am a deist.

The chart is correct deists are just not mentioned specifically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The chart is correct deists are just not mentioned specifically.

Okay, then yes, I am in the broad sense a theist, but I only believe in God as the first unmoved mover.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would not "disbelieve" any of these claims (assume these to be untrue). I would simply look for the proper context from which you are making them, or not, depending on my level of curiosity.

Technically, I didn't actually say anything about "disbelieve" (scare quote or otherwise), I said that you wouldn't believe me (form a belief that what I said was true).

That aside, I don't actually believe that you would not "disbelieve" those claims. There is no question of the context - they are statements about the real (intersubjective) world - if the "context" is anything else, they would be false statements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Technically, I didn't actually say anything about "disbelieve" (scare quote or otherwise), I said that you wouldn't believe me (form a belief that what I said was true).

That aside, I don't actually believe that you would not "disbelieve" those claims. There is no question of the context - they are statements about the real (intersubjective) world - if the "context" is anything else, they would be false statements.

Some statements I don't consider true or false as such. I know they might be contradictory to each other, but since they are unknown, I treat them as different subjective beliefs.
There is a God versus there are no gods. They are contradictory, yes, but also unknown.
So I evaluate them as believed by some and not believed by others.
So I would believe you if you say there are no gods. I just don't believe that myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

There appears to be a technical problem: I clicked "continue as guest" and just got a blank page with a box at the top.

If you want to sign up, you can go to the main page.
Delphi Forums Home
And then you can go to my forum..
Delphi Forums Login
If that does not work, let me know.

Here we go again...

Go one then, where is this objective, verifiable evidence (there is no other kind) that atheists "don't like"?

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that God exists.
There is another kind, Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

So people don't actually believe in God then they just believe in their own fantasy version of what they believe he should be?

Not exactly but close.
They just believe in their own version of what they believe God is.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL That might be true about the particular version of god you believe in but if the Christian God could show Moses his backside he can show up at any scientific institution and do the same.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Do you mean the Christian God could prove He exists scientifically?
How did the Christian God show Moses His backside?

 

[ArtieE]

Not exactly but close.
They just believe in their own version of what they believe God is.

You also just believe in your own version of God. It hasn't been established that there is a god at all, so all people do is make up their own version and believe in that.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Do you mean the Christian God could prove He exists scientifically?
How did the Christian God show Moses His backside?

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 33:17-23 - King James Version
If this god does the same thing to any reputable scientific institution he won't be hard to prove to exist.