The Paradox of Atheism and God

[PureX]

If you have a debate where either side doesn't actually believe the position they defend, then that side is fundamentally being dishonest.

In a philosophical debate, no such claim is required nor expected. What is needed and expected is open-mindedness toward the opposing position. Otherwise there is not much point to debating in the first place, as no consensus will be reached, and neither side will learn anything new.

Sure, it can be a good exercise to become proficient in debating techniques. But to do it "for real" only makes you a liar and dishonest.

The real dishonesty begins when we decide to "believe in" truth proposals that we cannot possibly know to be true. It's why philosophers are almost never "believers" in any specific philosophical perspective. They are perpetual agnostics; always formulating and debating new ways of understanding the mystery of our existence. Similar to the way scientists never accept their theories as being 'the truth'. They know that they aren't in the truth-finding business. They're in the "test the theory" business. And so are the philosophers.

It is not a debate worth having. I prefer honest conversations where people actually mean and believe what they say.

Or, maybe you just don't want to engage in a debate dialogue unless you can feel like you "won" it.

 

[dybmh]

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

Done already. It's in the reply you quoted. And I don't need to interview "all" online-atheists to bring falsifiable evidence. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

 

[dybmh]

(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.)

Constant scrutiny? What are you even talking about? By whom? where? when? examples? anything? This seems like a bit of a grandiose delusion / demonization of the opposition to me.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Constant scrutiny? What are you even talking about? By whom? where? when? examples? anything? This seems like a bit of a grandiose delusion / demonization of the opposition to me.

I'd say in some of your posts in this thread, they apply scrutiny. As an example.

 

[ChristineM]

Done already. It's in the reply you quoted. And I don't need to interview "all" online-atheists to bring falsifiable evidence. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

View attachment 82634

Yes you do,it only takes one and your premise is screwed.

I'm sure and I'm also sure you don't

 

[Unfettered]

Before we get round to other questions, does this being exist in objective reality?

Or only as a concept / idea / thing imagined?

If the former, [he] has no description that I'm aware of appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not. All the descriptions are imaginary terms, like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.

Yes, God exists in objective reality. He has form and shape. He has eyes, a nose, arms, etc. He looks like you and me. Or better said, we look like him, because he created (organized) us. He reasons, feels, thinks, loves, cries, etc., like we do. He is the "father" of us all in a figurative sense, though real in the sense that our lives as moving, choosing beings are the result of his handiwork.

Does that suffice as a description of the real suspect (that made me laugh, lol), so to speak?

There is yet more of your post to respond to, but let's do a good job here. We'll pace it so that we don't get ahead of other questions.

 

[dybmh]

I'd say in some of your posts in this thread, they apply scrutiny. As an example.

Being on a debate forum invites scrutiny. My critical judgement is limited to those have agreed to be scrutized in a specific venue. The post I was replying to, I think you will agree, was making a grandiose claim about society... here let me check...

(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.)

Yup. a society where there is constant scrutiny. That is definitely not what I am doing. This forum is not society, and my scrutiny is no where near constant. A false claim was made about atheists being better at accepting evidence. I challenged that claim with a limited amount of scrutiny.

Now, question for you or others: Where is this society that scrutizes atheists constantly?

 

[lukethethird]

It's called a philosophical dialogue. Like a formal debate. Neither participant has to "believe" anything. They simply choose a position to propose and defend. In fact, it's far better if the participants are not "believers", as they will be more able to learn from the other's argument.

Your problem is that your presumed position as the judge in your own 'kangaroo court' depends on this idiotic nonsense about atheism = "unbelief". Wherein you get to attack the theist while never having to defend your own position (because you won't admit to having one). And then pretend that you get to define all the terms and impose all the criteria for what is and isn't a valid argument.

I don't have to assume anything and I certainly don't have to defend the fact that I don't share in your beliefs, it's just a given, and it's odd that you take offense to that.

 

[dybmh]

Yes you do,it only takes one and your premise is screwed.

I'm sure and I'm also sure you don't

Nah, that's false too. 1 example could be an outlier or an exception. It doesn't defeat the claim. You'd need at least 2 examples to push the claim into agnostic territory: "maybe-so-maybe-not". This ignores, of course, your own immediate denial of evidence in this thread.

Go ahead and bring an example. That will get the ball rolling. And the right thing to do is admit I brought falsifiable evidence, eventhough you denied it. And I didn't need to bring "all" online-atheists in order to have evidence. You were wrong about that too. Based on the pattern... my assertions have good odds of being true.

 

[PureX]

I don't have to assume anything and I certainly don't have to defend the fact that I don't share in your beliefs, it's just a given, and it's odd that you take offense to that.

You don't even know what my "beliefs" are. So whatever you think you don't share in, you're making it up. That's the problem with defining atheism as the mindless automatic negation of whatever the atheist imagines theism to be. Which is usually, and quite wrongly, religion.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, God exists in objective reality. He has form and shape. He has eyes, a nose, arms, etc. He looks like you and me. Or better said, we look like him, because he created (organized) us. He reasons, feels, thinks, loves, cries, etc., like we do. He is the "father" of us all in a figurative sense, though real in the sense that our lives as moving, choosing beings was the result of his handiwork.

Does that suffice as a description of the real suspect (that made me laugh, lol), so to speak?

There is yet more of your post to respond to, but let's do a good job here. We'll pace it so that we don't get ahead of other questions.

Thank you for saying this. I have a question I've been wanting to ask someone who holds this point of view. I don't want to argue. I just have a question, and I'd like to listen to your answer. I may have a few clarifying questions following, depending on your reply.

In your view, is God limited to that form and to the qualities listed above?

 

[ChristineM]

Nah, that's false too. 1 example could be an outlier or an exception. It doesn't defeat the claim. You'd need at least 2 examples to push the claim into agnostic territory: "maybe-so-maybe-not". This ignores, of course, your own immediate denial of evidence in this thread.

Go ahead and bring an example. That will get the ball rolling. And the right thing to do is admit I brought falsifiable evidence, eventhough you denied it. And I didn't need to bring "all" online-atheists in order to have evidence. You were wrong about that too. Based on the pattern... my assertions have good odds of being true.

Enjoy your assertions and bias against atheists, I'm done playing silly games

 

[dybmh]

Enjoy your assertions and bias against atheists, I'm done playing silly games

That's because you have nothing to say in rebuttal. You've demonstrated the phenomena I described, added another example / more evidence to the list. And been wrong repeatedly about what it means to provide falsifiable evidence.

Because of this, it makes sense that you would make a false claim about the virtues of atheists in regard to accepting evidence. You don't seem to understand what those words mean or there is a double standard where applying them.

This is not bias. It's demonstrable fact.

 

[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.

Claiming "scripture's meaning is murky" is making a claim about the details of the story. That means doing so would include you in the category I described. If evidence of clarity is not accepted, that supports my assertion.

 

[ChristineM]

That's because you have nothing to say in rebuttal. You've demonstrated the phenomena I described, added another example / more evidence to the list. And been wrong repeatedly about what it means to provide falsifiable evidence.

Because of this, it makes sense that you would make a false claim about the virtues of atheists in regard to accepting evidence. You don't seem to understand what those words mean or there is a double standard where applying them.

This is not bias. It's demonstrable fact.

Nope,its because we speak 2 different languages, you will never understand me and i will never understand you so there is no point in continuing. It's always the same when we try to communicate. I should realise it will never change so...

I make no false claims, it's not who i am, but you make claims about atheists based on ignorance, bias and dare i say, hatred.

And sorry to break it to you but belief is not evidence, and certainly not falsifiable evidence.

 

[Unfettered]

Thank you for saying this. I have a question I've been wanting to ask someone who holds this point of view. I don't want to argue. I just have a question, and I'd like to listen to your answer. I may have a few clarifying questions following, depending on your reply.

In your view, is God limited to that form and to the qualities listed above?

Qualities as in physical attributes? Or as in character attributes? Not sure what you're asking there.

As to the question of form, if you're asking if God is limited to the form that he is, yes, God is limited to what he is. He is not a cow and cannot be a cow. He is not a mountain and cannot be a mountain. Etc. Again, I may not be understanding the question. If you think some additional context would be helpful, please offer it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, God exists in objective reality. He has form and shape. He has eyes, a nose, arms, etc. He looks like you and me. Or better said, we look like him, because he created (organized) us. He reasons, feels, thinks, loves, cries, etc., like we do. He is the "father" of us all in a figurative sense, though real in the sense that our lives as moving, choosing beings are the result of his handiwork.

I believe that God exists in in objective reality since God does not exist only in our minds.
Objective refers to a reality that is outside of your mind, and subjective refers to the inner reality of your mind.

However, I do not believe that God has form and shape, eyes, a nose, arms, etc. or that God looks like you and me, nor do I believe that humans look like God.

The Bible says that God is Spirit, which means that God is not a flesh human, nor does God have the qualities of a flesh human..
That humans were made in the image of God means that we were made with the capacity to reflect the spiritual qualities of God, not that we can reflect the physical qualities of God. Since God is not a physical being, humans cannot reflect physical qualities of God.

I believe that God has a mind, so God reasons, feels, thinks, and loves, but the Mind of God is not like the mind of a human since God is not a human.

I believe that God is the Father of us all, but only in a figurative sense. God cannot be our father in a biological sense since God is not a human.

 

[PureX]

Nope,its because we speak 2 different languages, you will never understand me and i will never understand you so there is no point in continuing. It's always the same when we try to communicate. I should realise it will never change so...

I make no false claims, it's not who i am, but you make claims about atheists based on ignorance, bias and dare i say, hatred.

And sorry to break it to you but belief is not evidence, and certainly not falsifiable evidence.

You're demanding "falsifiable evidence" for the details within a mythical religious story? WHY??? How can you not understand that this is a completely insane demand? It's like demanding mathematical quantitative verification proving that sunsets over the bay of Bengal are beautiful. Or that broccoli tastes bad (I love the stuff, myself).

Myths are a form of artifice. Like a painting. They require personal interpretation to deliver a personal revelation to the individual partaking it. Nothing about mythical literature is falsifiable or verifiable because it isn't real. It's representational. It's artifice. It's a language of symbolic story-telling. And like all language, myths have to be interpreted to make any sense. And both the interpretation and the "sense" that results are going to be personal to the interpreter, and therefor anecdotal. There is nothing to "falsify" because it's not an objective phenomenon.

And even if the person you're talking to doesn't understand this, YOU SHOULD! And if neither one of you understands this, ... then I guess you deserve each other.

 

[ChristineM]

You're demanding "falsifiable evidence" for the details within a mythical religious story? WHY??? How can you not understand that this is a completely insane demand? It's like demanding mathematical quantitative verification proving that sunsets over the bay of Bengal are beautiful. Or that broccoli tastes bad (I love the stuff, myself).

Myths are a form of artifice. Like a painting. They require personal interpretation to deliver a personal revelation to the individual partaking it. Nothing about mythical literature is falsifiable or verifiable because it isn't real. It's representational. It's artifice. It's a language of symbolic story-telling. And like all language, myths have to be interpreted to make any sense. And both the interpretation and the "sense" that results are going to be personal to the interpreter, and therefor anecdotal. There is nothing to "falsify" because it's not an objective phenomenon.

And even if the person you're talking to doesn't understand this, YOU SHOULD! And if neither one of you understands this, ... then I guess you deserve each other.

Why because @dybmh said he was probiding falsifiable evidence. Please keep up.

 

[PureX]

Why because @dybmh said he was probiding falsifiable evidence. Please keep up.

"You're demanding "falsifiable evidence" for the details within a mythical religious story? WHY??? How can you not understand that this is a completely insane demand? ... And even if the person you're talking to doesn't understand this, YOU SHOULD! And if neither one of you understands this, ... then I guess you deserve each other."