The Paradox of Atheism and God

[dybmh]

Just to correct a misapprehension, in survey research, atheists score higher on religious knowledge than most Christian groups do.

From the study:
"Jews get 18.7 questions right, on average. Self-described atheists and agnostics also display relatively high levels of religious knowledge, correctly answering an average of 17.9 and 17.0 questions, respectively."

Christians and other groups score lower.

What Americans Know About Religion

Before you read the reportTest your religious knowledge by taking an interactive quiz. The short quiz includes some questions recently asked in the

www.pewresearch.org

Also... I was careful with qualifying my statement in scope. So, the myth is OT knowledge, and compared to those who study it.

Did Pew restrict their questions to OT knowledge? Did they restrict based on whether or not the individual studies the bible regularly?

 

[blü 2]

This all seems more like theology than the exercise I thought we were engaged in. The language before seemed more scientifically oriented. Have we taken a leap here?

I don't have a problem discussing theology, and ultimately it is probably unavoidable since we're discussing God; I just want to make sure that's where we are already.

Or maybe I'm overthinking things?

The question that concerns me is the manner in which God exists. Clearly [he] exists as an idea, a concept. But if [he] also has objective existence, then [he]'s out there somewhere in nature, no? Where? And what is [he]? If he's real, why no videos, interviews, practical help?

There seems to be a big gap between theory and practice, no?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah! Busted.

Which means what?

You just contradicted yourself. In context you are saying "No, I [ do not make claims about the details of sccripture ] I claim that believers..."

"Harry Potter & Star Wars are much better & more clearly written than scripture." contradicts with "No, I do not make claims about the details of scripture..."

You think that's a claim about scripture
in the context of inferring meaning?

It seems your goal is only to win some
argument, even if only tangential to the
thread. That's rather tedious.

 

[dybmh]

Which means what?

Contradiction.

You think that's a claim about scripture
in the context of inferring meaning?

The claim is: it's not written clearly. Then you say within minutes you don't make claims about what is written. That's impossible if you say it's not written clearly. You would have to use the txt itself to validate the claim unless it's vacuous.

If you make the assertion it's unclearly written and I show you it isn't. That would support my assertion.

It seems your goal is only to win some
argument, even if only tangential to the
thread. That's rather tedious.

Your reply to me at the beginning of the exchange implied an exception to the category online-atheists. I'm showing that it's not.

The contradiction is an opportunity to test my assertion.

There's two parts here: one is accuracy of the definition. The other is whether the assertion true.

Regarding the topic of the thread, I'm seeing a strong indicator of a paradox both in the concept of atheism and on the manner it supposedly accepts evidence in general when it does. That's a big picture issue.

It's all related, but I doubt we'll be able to discuss those issues, because of the denial of evidence flooding the thread regarding 2 Chron 20. There's also this Pew survey that popped up. I doubt I'll get answers to the questions I asked so I need to review the survey myself and see what those numbers actually mean.

After that maybe the paradoxes will get some airtime. But threads do what they do around here. Once the denial simmers down, maybe the thread will get back on track.

 

[Revoltingest]

Contradiction.



The claim is: it's not written clearly. Then you say within minutes you don't make claims about what is written. That's impossible if you say it's not written clearly. You would have to use the txt itself to validate the claim unless it's vacuous.

If you make the assertion it's unclearly written and I show you it isn't. That would support my assertion.



Your reply to me at the beginning of the exchange implied you were an exception to the category online-atheists. I'm showing that you're not.

The contradiction is an opportunity to test my assertion.

There's two parts here: one is accuracy of the definition. The other is whether the assertion true.

Regarding the topic of the thread, I'm seeing a strong indicator of a paradox both in the concept of atheism and on the manner it supposedly accepts evidence in general when it does. That's a big picture issue.

It's all related, but I doubt we'll be able to discuss those issues, because of the denial of evidence flooding the thread regarding 2 Chron 20. There's also this Pew survey that popped up. I doubt I'll get answers to the questions I asked so I need to review the survey myself and see what those numbers actually mean.

After that maybe the paradoxes will get some airtime. But threads do what they do around here. Once the denial simmers down, maybe the thread will get back on track.

I hereby extricate myself from this quagmire.

 

[dybmh]

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.

Yes, it may sound silly, but I was asking if God is limited in any way. Limited in form, in attributes, qualities, etc...

For example, maybe God would never choose to reveal itself in the form of a cow. Maybe God would never choose to lie. But that's different than being limited by saying "God cannot take that form". Or anything phrased "God cannot ... "

So my question is about applying limitations on God. Is God limited to this human from your view? If God chose to take a different form, could God choose to do it. Yes, even a cow.

 

[Unfettered]

This helps. Good post.

The question that concerns me is the manner in which God exists. Clearly [he] exists as an idea, a concept. But if [he] also has objective existence, then [he]'s out there somewhere in nature, no? Where? And what is [he]? If he's real, why no videos, interviews, practical help?

There seems to be a big gap between theory and practice, no?

Yes, if God exists in the objective reality, he is out there somewhere. So how do we fill the gap between theory and practice? I appeal to the provision you offered other yet-to-be-discovered things alluded to here:

"Does anything exist—in actuality—in your objective reality that isn't already known to the senses?"

The answer is, yes, we find out new facts every day (a fact being an accurate statement about a real state of affairs). So the little rascals are out there, but so are the non-facts ─ hence the need for winnowing.

It is clear to me from the above that once a certain threshold is crossed, assumptions do become acceptable when the question is the possible existence of things not yet known to exist. So where in our objective reality, here, is that line drawn? I could be wrong, but I would not expect you to ask of some yet-to-be-discovered species of whatever, "If [it's] real, why no videos?" etc.

Please understand that I am not using this as a defense. There is nothing yet to defend. We need to clearly know the parameters here. We need to examine the reasonableness and objectivity of extending existential latitude to one unknown thing (the little rascals), but not to another (God). If it's "winnowing," where is that line drawn? How do we know when to winnow and when not to? It is a question of time? A question of...what?

The last part of the question, "why...no interviews...no practical help?" touches on theological considerations that I don't think should be looked at yet. At least, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to do so yet. Otherwise we prejudice the question of existence with assumptions of purpose and intent.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, if God exists in the objective reality, he is out there somewhere. So how do we fill the gap between theory and practice? I appeal to the provision you offered other yet-to-be-discovered things alluded to here:

[[U: "Does anything exist—in actuality—in your objective reality that isn't already known to the senses?"​

[[b: "yes, we find out new facts every day (a fact being an accurate statement about a real state of affairs). So the little rascals are out there, but so are the non-facts ─ hence the need for winnowing."​

It is clear to me from the above that once a certain threshold is crossed, assumptions do become acceptable when the question is the possible existence of things not yet known to exist. So where in our objective reality, here, is that line drawn? I could be wrong, but I would not expect you to ask of some yet-to-be-discovered species of whatever, "If [it's] real, why no videos?" etc.

Well, yes and no. In this case our subject is "God" who is said to be active all over the world but (being the Christian God) particularly where Christians are found. Yet as I said, [he] doesn't appear, doesn't say, doesn't do. And that may suggest [he] ─ and gods generally ─ are cultural artifacts, stories, perhaps explanatory in origin like eg a thunder god, from our past that have been part of our particular cultural identity, along with customs, language, stories, heroes, and so on.

The last part of the question, "why...no interviews...no practical help?" touches on theological considerations that I don't think should be looked at yet. At least, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to do so yet. Otherwise we prejudice the question of existence with assumptions of purpose and intent.

One of the problems of theology ─ or delights, depending on where you're standing ─ is that it has no useful definition of "truth". If I insist that the Holy Ghost is the office-boy of the Trinity, third amongst equals, and you reply that no, the HG is as equal as the other two, both of us are as right and as wrong as the other, no?

That would be why the absence of God from objective reality ─ nature ─ as an independent natural entity, seems to be a problem. Nature gives us a test for objective truth. Naked conceptualization may not.

 

[Kfox]

The point was to dhow the alternative to your comment...

It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim...

... They are god

Perhaps to you, but not to the Atheist.

 

[Kfox]

I understand the point you are trying to make BUT I believe it to be the same.

So what did you mean when you said you should have put an "s" at the end?

 

[Aupmanyav]

By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them.

Some religions? Are there any true notions of God? If any religion proposes God; and on top of it, proposes prophets/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi sent by their God, then it is false. Have these religions ever provided any evidence for it? Atheists are closer to truth in rejecting the idea of God.

It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim they don't exist simply because there are those who choose to call them God. Remember; atheists reject ALL God claims; not just the one of the Christianity.

One who would say that is not an atheist at all. What others believe is not the concern of the atheist. Yeah, not just the Christian God, but all Gods and Goddesses. I am an atheist Hindu and I do not believe in existence of any Gods or Goddesses (including those in Hinduism).

 

[Unfettered]

Well, yes and no. In this case our subject is "God" who is said to be active all over the world but (being the Christian God) particularly where Christians are found. Yet as I said, [he] doesn't appear, doesn't say, doesn't do. And that may suggest [he] ─ and gods generally ─ are cultural artifacts, stories, perhaps explanatory in origin like eg a thunder god, from our past that have been part of our particular cultural identity, along with customs, language, stories, heroes, and so on.

I understand. So I'm going to wave the white flag here concerning this neutral foundation I've been trying to establish, and weave in the theological elements. They don't appear to be able to be divorced from the question of God's existence. Which is fine.

Let's keep going then, because the next bit seems like a better starting place...

One of the problems of theology ─ or delights, depending on where you're standing ─ is that it has no useful definition of "truth".

Doesn't that depend on the theology in question? They're not all equal.

Do you mind if we first apply your definition of truth? How would you define truth?

 

[Heyo]

This helps. Good post.

Yes, if God exists in the objective reality, he is out there somewhere. So how do we fill the gap between theory and practice? I appeal to the provision you offered other yet-to-be-discovered things alluded to here:

It is clear to me from the above that once a certain threshold is crossed, assumptions do become acceptable when the question is the possible existence of things not yet known to exist. So where in our objective reality, here, is that line drawn? I could be wrong, but I would not expect you to ask of some yet-to-be-discovered species of whatever, "If [it's] real, why no videos?" etc.

The nice thing about physical entities is that they are measurable with scientific instruments. And even if we can't know anything definitive about them unless we get hold of a specimen, we can deduce a lot about what they are not.
Many scientists assume that there may be life outside of Earth but we can be pretty sure that there is no technological life anywhere near us (in a 100 ly bubble).
If any cryptids like Sasquatch exist, we can say that they must be very rare, don't venture anywhere where we have placed camera traps, hide their excrements very good and destroy any bodies.
In other words, when you actively look for something and there is no evidence of it, it probably isn't there or it doesn't have any attributes we assumed it has.

 

[Unfettered]

The nice thing about physical entities is that they are measurable with scientific instruments. And even if we can't know anything definitive about them unless we get hold of a specimen, we can deduce a lot about what they are not.
Many scientists assume that there may be life outside of Earth but we can be pretty sure that there is no technological life anywhere near us (in a 100 ly bubble).
If any cryptids like Sasquatch exist, we can say that they must be very rare, don't venture anywhere where we have placed camera traps, hide their excrements very good and destroy any bodies.
In other words, when you actively look for something and there is no evidence of it, it probably isn't there or it doesn't have any attributes we assumed it has.

I understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

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.

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

Debate to me is about presenting and defending your case.
Why would you try and present / defend a case you think is false?

Nothing stops you from doing that while acknowledging you could be wrong.

 

[PureX]

My friend. I understood. I explained the situation. @ChristineM either did not understand my claim, or was hasty reading it, or perhaps was setting up a strawman. After this mismatch was explained with quotes and screenshots, I gave the falsifiable evidence of my own *actual* claim. This evidence was, naturally, not accepted adding to the support of what I said.

You are effectively in a "kangaroo court" where the atheist has already condemned you before the "trial" even starts, and then assigns themselves the right to define all the terms, the authority to set all the rules, and ultimately the position of deciding the outcome. All before you say a single word.

Why are you bothering?

 

[PureX]

Debate to me is about presenting and defending your case.
Why would you try and present / defend a case you think is false?

So as to actually learn from the process. Not just feed the ego.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So as to actually learn from the process. Not just feed the ego.

Obviously.

 

[blü 2]

Do you mind if we first apply your definition of truth? How would you define truth?

Fair question. In my view, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (That's called the 'correspondence' definition.)

Its great advantage is that it's capable of giving an objective test for 'truth'.

 

[ChristineM]

The claim is: "not accepting evidence". you're off-topic. its not cherry picking to bring an example and stick to the topic.

If you need to change the subject that means you've lost the debate.

.sorry bud, you introduced your own topic by cherry picking the bible and tried to drag me into it, like i said, I'm not playing childish games

Also like i said, physician heal thyself