The Paradox of Atheism and God

[dybmh]

Your assessment sounds overall convoluted, in my opinion.

OK. My assessment is coming from verifiable observable data. I think your motive is noble, coming to come to the defense, but that is compromising objectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of those myths is, the online-atheist is more knowledgable about the OT than the religious adherents who study it. Just like any other religious person, they deny evidence which undermines the mythology.

The trend is no myth.

Who Knows What About Religion

The Pew Forum’s religious knowledge survey included 32 questions about various aspects of religion: the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, world

www.pewresearch.org

One can disagree about which sub-sets of heathens
& believers know more or less about this or that book.
But to call it a "mythology" is incorrect use of the word.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you scroll back, and read the original claim, it was a universal statement about all atheists. I am replying to that. If they wish to qualify their claim, then I will qualify my claim. Otherwise I think it's safe to conclude per common parlance that they were speaking generally about most atheists. I am also talking about most online-atheists.

Clarification is good.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

OK. My assessment is coming from verifiable observable data. I think your motive is noble, coming to come to the defense, but that is compromising objectivity.

Who's to say I'm literally coming to the defense of atheists here, rather than just taking a so-called objective look keeping in mind my own biases?

 

[dybmh]

Clarification is good.

Agreed. I am talking about a specific type of atheist. Not all atheists at all. It's only the ones who come to online venues for the purpose of arguing with religious people. These are generally ex-christians who think they know the OT better than the religious adherents who study it.

 

[dybmh]

Who's to say I'm literally coming to the defense of atheists here, rather than just taking a so-called objective look keeping in mind my own biases?

Who's to say my assessment is convoluted? Turnabout is fair play.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. I am talking about a specific type of atheist. Not all atheists at all. It's only the ones who come to online venues for the purpose of arrguing with religious people.

Some of us argue without quoting scripture.
I find that its meaning is often murky. So I rely
upon the faithful to tell me what they believe.
That's what a religion really is, ie, what people
believe...not necessarily what's inferred by others
from reading scripture.

 

[ChristineM]

Umm... my claim is directly above the words you typed. God-magic is not in the claim. Here:

View attachment 82626

And here it is zoomed in:

View attachment 82627

Regarding falsifiable evidence of the claim: that's easy. Although it does take a quite a few words and a few paragraphs to get there.

​

Premise: Online-atheist makes a claim about god in the OT commanding others to murder because of the story in 2 Chron 20. A religious adherent who studies the bible brings verses which undeniably show that the deaths in the story were self-defense NOT murder.​

​

Case 1: The online-atheist reads the verse; checks their own trusted translation; realizes they were wrong, assimilates this into their knowledge, and adjusts their conclusion. They no longer include 2 Chron 20 when making claims about god in the OT commanding murder. This would falsify the claim.​

​

Case 2: The online-atheist ignores the verse, doesn't read it, and denies the evidence that **they were wrong about the details of the story**. This confirms the claim is true. The online-atheist is NOT better at accepting evidence as you said. In fact, they deny what does not fit into their own mythology just like any other religious person.​

That's the falsifiable test. Here's a link to the thread where you did precisely what is described in the premise and case 2.

https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=8253721

Here is my post where the details of the story were given. You did not assimilate the information into your knowledge. The conclusion was not adjusted. This is not the first time this happened with you.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-satan-capable-of-good.271959/post-8254099

It happened in another thread recently. An online atheist got the story in Genesis 2-3 wrong. I showed them they were wrong. They ignored all of that, and said something about their preferred translation. I showed them their preferred tranlsation, which confirms they had the details of the story wrong according to their own preferred translation. That was ignored. I brought them a list of reasons they were wrong, including their preferred translation. None of that evidence was accepted. It wasn't denied explicitly. But your claim is: atheists are better at accepting evidence. That's evidentally false.

When it comes to being corrected on details of the story in the OT, online-atheists do NOT accept evidence. They deny whatever does not match their mythology just like any other religious person. And since most online-atheists are ex-christians, this makes sense. Old habits die hard.

And what if your interpretation (because interpretation is all you have) is wrong? I have read 3 bibles cover to cover, (one prior to me becoming an atheist, in fact it was one of the drivers in me ditching Christianity) and snippets of several others. I am quite happy that my interpretation aligns with what is written with no bias.


You need to learn the meaning of falsifiable evidence.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Who's to say my assessment is convoluted? Turnabout is fair play.

I said it, and it was an opinion.

Basically, I feel you made a great deal of complicated assertions. Even one or two of them being wrong, could collapse the whole notion.

I can't say with absolute certainty you are incorrect, though, much like I can't say with absolute certainty there are no unicorns. Generally, when it comes to social matters, there is a great deal of nuance, you see. And shades of meaning. And while I can't really point out how you're incorrect, I would just offer the suggestion.... that maybe you are seeing things in an unnuanced way.

 

[dybmh]

I said it, and it was an opinion.

Basically, I feel you made a great deal of complicated assertions. Even one or two of them being wrong, could collapse the whole notion.

I can't say with absolute certainty you are incorrect, though, much like I can't say with absolute certainty there are no unicorns. Generally, when it comes to social matters, there is a great deal of nuance, you see. And shades of meaning. And while I can't really point out how you're incorrect, I would just offer the suggestion.... that maybe you are seeing things in an unnuanced way.

I disagree. It seems extemely simple and I only recall 1 assertion. The details of the story are not accepted. The test cases are simple and easy to demonstrate. The root cause? OK.. that's different. But the phenomena is observable and verifiable.

The way to resolve this, imo, should be equally simple. Evidence. If there are examples of online-atheists accepting corrections about the details of the story and adjusting their conclusions as a result, then, I will also adjust my conclusion. I brought 2 recent examples. If 2 more examples are brought, I think that's enough to *at least* render my assertion back into agnostic territory. If those examples are brought, I will admit I was wrong and thank you ( or whomever ) for the correction.

This is an open ended offer. I'm not asking anyone to scour the forum looking for examples. There is no deadline. If it doesn't happen in this thread, then the examples can be sent to me via PM. I will start a thread in Member Annoucements forum admiting I was wrong and thanking whomever for the correction.

Fair?

 

[dybmh]

And what if your interpretation (because interpretation is all you have) is wrong? I have read 3 bibles cover to cover, (one prior to me becoming an atheist, in fact it was one of the drivers in me ditching Christianity) and snippets of several others. I am quite happy that my interpretation aligns with what is written with no bias.


You need to learn the meaning of falsifiable evidence.

@PoetPhilosopher , sorry... correction. Based on the above post, the count has now been raised to 3 recent examples confirming my assertion is true.

Christine, the literal words on the page are "the details of the story". Those details are not interpretation. I brought you the test conditions which produce falsifiable evidence. At this point you are literally proving my case for me.

 

[PureX]

Oh ye of strong belief
and empty claims.

Like the claim that people commit moral crimes because their religions tell them to? At least I was able to explain why that's logically a false claim. All you could do was this. Talk about empty claims!

 

[ChristineM]

@PoetPhilosopher , sorry... correction. Based on the above post, the count has now been raised to 3 recent examples confirming my assertion is true.

Christine, the literal words on the page are "the details of the story". Those details are not interpretation. I brought you the test conditions which produce falsifiable evidence. At this point you are literally proving my case for me.

Sorry bud, that s not a falsifiable test, unless of course you can inform us how it is falsified.

 

[viole]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

The problem with that, is that reason, logic and evidence, tend to dismiss the existence of such a transcendent reality to start with. There is zeromevidence of its existence, nor there is no need to invoke it to explain anything.

So, your argument can be applied to astrology, too, since the same reason, logic and evidence, seem to treat astrology the same way they treat your transcendent reality. Whatever you mean by that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Some of us argue without quoting scripture.
I find that its meaning is often murky. So I rely
upon the faithful to tell me what they believe.
That's what a religion really is, ie, what people
believe...not necessarily what's inferred by others
from reading scripture.

If someone said Harry Potter is the headmaster at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is actually Voldemort in disguise, is that murky?

How about Star-Wars? If someone says Yoda initiated the murder of all the "younglings" in Star Wars 3, is that murky?

 

[dybmh]

Sorry bud, that s not a falsifiable test, unless of course you can inform us how it is falsified.

Did that. Here ya go. If you are claiming it's not falsifiable, your task is to show how this is not falsifiable evidence. Your claim, your burden. Falsifiable means that a test can be developed which would prove the claim is false. I did that.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I disagree. It seems extemely simple and I only recall 1 assertion. The details of the story are not accepted. The test cases are simple and easy to demonstrate. The root cause? OK.. that's different. But the phenomena is observable and verifiable.

The way to resolve this, imo, should be equally simple. Evidence. If there are examples of online-atheists accepting corrections about the details of the story and adjusting their conclusions as a result, then, I will also adjust my conclusion. I brought 2 recent examples. If 2 more examples are brought, I think that's enough to *at least* render my assertion back into agnostic territory. If those examples are brought, I will admit I was wrong and thank you ( or whomever ) for the correction.

This is an open ended offer. I'm not asking anyone to scour the forum looking for examples. There is no deadline. If it doesn't happen in this thread, then the examples can be sent to me via PM. I will start a thread in Member Annoucements forum admiting I was wrong and thanking whomever for the correction.

Fair?

Sounds almost like a self-fulfulling prophecy:

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

For that reason, I may choose not to take the bait.

 

[ChristineM]

Did that. Here ya go. If you are claiming it's not falsifiable, your task is to show how this is not falsifiable evidence. Your claim, your burden. Falsifiable means that a test can be developed which would prove the claim is false. I did that.

View attachment 82631

Actually you made the claim that it was falsifiable evidence. I am waiting for you to identify how you intend showing it is falsifiable. Good luck interviewing all those "online" atheist

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(I have a suspicion (but no data) that the seeming moral superiority of atheists will vanish in a society where atheists aren't a minority that is under constant scrutiny.)

Seems reasonable.

 

[dybmh]

Sounds almost like a self-fulfulling prophecy:

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

For that reason, I may choose not to take the bait.

Nah. It's perfectly objective. All that needs to happen is @ChristineM, to acknowledge that 2 Chron 20 should be omitted as an example of God's unjustified killing, aka murder. Poof. That's 1 example right there. Of course, it only cancels out 1 of 3.