The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Unfettered]

That is disorganized reasoning.

How is it disorganized?

Instead, consider a simpler & more specific approach....
- People claim that gods exist.
- They disagree with each other about which of these
mutually exclusive beings is singularly true.
- They try to offer evidence, but have nothing tangible.
- Instead of evidence, they offer personal feelings &
ancient books making unevidenced claims..
- Many of their claims are shown false.
- Many other claims are non-testable.

The most reasonable thing to do is not
believe their claim of having The Truth.

That is far more complex an approach than what I offered. I mean, mine was pretty binary.

The perspective of the typical non-believer.

I'm afraid that doesn't help; I'm not big into stereotyping. What is the perspective of the typical non-believer?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is it disorganized?

Using murky analogies.

That is far more complex an approach than what I offered. I mean, mine was pretty binary.

You introduced complexity by not rigorously
creating an analogy...one introducing a
different situation that shed no light.

I'm afraid that doesn't help; I'm not big into stereotyping. What is the perspective of the typical non-believer?

We don't believe in gods.
But we know their non-existence can't be proven.
Try surveying us heathens.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

We don't believe in gods.
But we know their non-existence can't be proven.

That could create murky waters, honestly, if an atheist ever enters a debate, and makes a positive claim, like "Gods don't exist."

If this was a response to an OP in which someone claimed that Gods do exist, the statement wouldn't be a positive claim. It would be a negative claim.

But say it happened out of the blue in a thread, or the atheist happened to create an OP suggesting that God doesn't exist.

The onus on them would still be to prove it. Doesn't matter what one's opinion is on whether it can't be proven, in such a case. If the other side can prove that the Burden of Proof is on the atheist, they'd have to try to prove that non-existence.

Such a situation doesn't happen often, though. Most people know better.

 

[Revoltingest]

That could create murky waters, honestly, if an atheist ever enters a debate, and makes a positive claim, like "Gods don't exist."

Nothing murky at all.
One can believe that gods don't exist.
Thousands of years of no evidence arising
isn't proof, but it is evidence.
I prefer the more rigorous mere disbelief.

If this was a response to an OP in which someone claimed that Gods do exist, the statement wouldn't be a positive claim. It would be a negative claim.

It was a response to another's post.
I see it as neither positive nor negative.
(I find those terms inappropriate.)

But say it happened out of the blue in a thread, or the atheist happened to create an OP suggesting that God doesn't exist.

The onus on them would still be to prove it.

One needn't prove a belief in order to hold it.
But one may give reasons & reasoning.

Doesn't matter what one's opinion is on whether it can't be proven, in such a case. If the other side can prove that the Burden of Proof is on the atheist, they'd have to try to prove that non-existence.

It does matter when one's beliefs result
in harm to others, eg, honor killings,
crusades, manifest destiny, slavery.

 

[Unfettered]

Using murky analogies.

I thought it was pretty clear.

You introduced complexity by not rigorously
creating an analogy...one introducing a
different situation that shed no light.

The analogy was simple, and I'm confident its elements are appropriate in the context of our discussion.

We don't believe in gods.
But we know their non-existence can't be proven.
Try surveying us heathens.

So I'm to filter everything through this lens? The perspective of the non-believer? Won't that lead only to a predetermined conclusion? I was being objective, avoiding the prejudicing of any outcome, just looking at what each choice meant to the question on the most basic of levels.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nothing murky at all.
One can believe that gods don't exist.
Thousands of years of no evidence arising
isn't proof, but it is evidence.
I prefer the more rigorous mere disbelief.

If they post their belief in a discussion, yes.

If they post it in a debate, you'd think they would have some interest in trying to defend it.

It was a response to another's post.
I see it as neither positive nor negative.

Depends on whether one goes by formal debate rules.

One needn't prove a belief in order to hold it.

True.

But one may give reasons & reasoning.

When it comes to reasoning, quality can differ sometimes.

It does matter when one's beliefs result
in harm to others, eg, honor killings,
crusades, manifest destiny, slavery.

Whether or not you meant it this way - that's a good way of appealing to the audience, by the process of emotions.

 

[Revoltingest]

So I'm to filter everything through this lens? The perspective of the non-believer?

If you're to discuss atheists, it's necessary to
recognize what they (we) actually believe.
Know that there is a spectrum from weak atheism
(not believing in gods) to strong (gods don't exist).

Won't that lead only to a predetermined conclusion?

I don't know what conclusions you envision.
Does recognizing what we actually believe
(or don't believe) lead to a predetermined
conclusion?

 

[Revoltingest]

If they post their belief in a discussion, yes.

If someone posts that they believe gods
don't exist, what's murky about that?

If they post it in a debate, you'd think they would have some interest in trying to defend it.

You'd have to ask the person posting.

Depends on whether one goes by formal debate rules.

RF isn't about formal debate.
Posters argue, discuss, insult, rant, & rail.

When it comes to reasoning, quality can differ sometimes.

I could name names.
But feelings would be hurt.

Whether or not you meant it this way - that's a good way of appealing to the audience, by the process of emotions.

I don't know what that means.

 

[Unfettered]

If you're to discuss atheists, it's necessary to
recognize what they (we) actually believe.
Know that there is a spectrum from weak atheism
(not believing in gods) to strong (gods don't exist).

We're not discussing atheists. At least I didn't think we were. I have been discussing the neutrality of what atheists believe. And I don't understand that question to be influenced by whether or not the atheist is weak or strong in his belief.

I don't know what conclusions you envision.
Does recognizing what we actually believe
lead to a predetermined conclusion?

I really don't think we're talking about the same things at this point.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If someone posts that they believe gods
don't exist, what's murky about that?

If I recall, I said something like.... It could get murky if..... and then presented a hypothetical scenario in which the burden of proof could be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God in a debate.

And the reason that could get murky, is you suggest that non-existence of God can't be proven.

RF isn't about formal debate.
Posters argue, discuss, insult, rant, & rail.

Most debates aren't formal. Though, it might depend on the terms you agree to with the other person you're debating.

I could name names.
But feelings would be hurt.

They probably would, so it's better not to, in general.

Though, if I'm one of those names you're thinking of, you could always tell me, even if it's through PM.

As for people other than myself, though, I probably wouldn't really recommend naming their names.

I don't know what that means.

It's not super important, really. Just me talking about things in a stuffy debate sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're not discussing atheists. At least I didn't think we were.

You brought this up in post# 106.
I responded to it.
Moreover, the thread is about atheism.

I have been discussing the neutrality of what atheists believe.

I don't understand why you think "neutrality"
is salient, or even what it means.

And I don't understand that question to be influenced by whether or not the atheist is weak or strong in his belief.

I really don't think we're talking about the same things at this point.

I too sense incomplete meeting of the minds.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I recall, I said something like.... It could get murky if..... and then presented a hypothetical scenario in which the burden of proof could be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God in a debate.

And the reason that could get murky, is you suggest that non-existence of God can't be proven.

Most debates aren't formal. Though, it might depend on the terms you agree to with the other person you're debating.

They probably would, so it's better not to, in general.

Though, if I'm one of those names you're thinking of, you could always tell me, even if it's through PM.

As for people other than myself, though, I probably wouldn't really recommend naming their names.




It's not super important, really. Just me talking about things in a stuffy debate sense.

I've nothing to add.

 

[Unfettered]

You brought this up in post# 106.
I responded to it.
Moreover, the thread is about atheism.

I don't understand why you think "neutrality"
is salient, or even what it means.

I too sense incomplete meeting of the minds.

Well, if you think it's worth a re-alignment, here is where we started. I entered the thread with:

My understanding of atheism, generally—and this constitutes, perhaps, the greatest impediment to a given atheist finding the path to God—is that it is an a- theistic position. Meaning, "against God" or "one who denies God," etc. If that is correct, then it is that prejudice of the question that would seem, to me, to doom the atheist to indefinite ignorance on the question. Because that which is denied is denied without evidence, not because of evidence. IE, "I deny the existence of God because I have no evidence of God." How is that any different than denying any other thing simply because one cannot observe the thing? Or, even if one changes the position to "I deny the existence of God because I have evidence that seems to conflict with the idea of God's existence," the atheist still denies on the basis of that which he does not know, rather than what he knows, or can observe.

IE, atheism is not inherently scientific, but inherently dogmatic. It is as "religious" as is theism in the sense that it informs the atheist's understanding of things that transcend the natural world.

Ironic, if you ask me.

The salient point I intended to make here was this:

Part 1: Because atheists disbelieve that God exists on the basis of no evidence, they prejudice the question of whether or not God exists.

Part 2: Since atheism it is prejudicial to the question of God's existence, atheists doom themselves to indefinite ignorance on the question.

You replied with a post about how I needed to make my definition of atheism more accurate.

I considered your post and asserted that with the corrected definition, the prejudice remains. It was in your next post that the first mention of neutrality entered the discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if you think it's worth a re-alignment, here is where we started. I entered the thread with:


The salient point I intended to make here was this:

Part 1: Because atheists disbelieve that God exists on the basis of no evidence, they prejudice the question of whether or not God exists.

Part 2: Since atheism it is prejudicial to the question of God's existence, atheists doom themselves to indefinite ignorance on the question.

You replied with a post about how I needed to make my definition of atheism more accurate.

I considered your post and asserted that with the corrected definition, the prejudice remains. It was in your next post that the first mention of neutrality entered the discussion.

Well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add except that there is
nothing more prejudicial than religion,
ie, faith without evidence or reason.

 

[Unfettered]

Well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add.

Very good. 'Til we meet again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Very good. 'Til we meet again.

I edited the post.

 

[Unfettered]

Well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add except that there is
nothing more prejudicial than religion,
ie, faith without evidence or reason.

I have no choice but to disagree, if only for my own part. I claim to possess evidence that God exists and on that basis, I believe. Therefore my belief is not prejudicial; it follows the evidence to where the evidence points.

Atheists do not claim evidence. They disbelieve without evidence. And therein lies the prejudice.

Of course, the evidence I claim is not directly transmissible. So it is rejected by others. That is fine.

But on the point of prejudicing the question, the beliefs of theists and atheists are on opposite poles; one is based on evidence and the other is not.

-

Your inclusion of "reason" in the mix was a surprise, but I don't know that we need to treat that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I claim to possess evidence that God exists....

Such as?

 

[Unfettered]

Such as?

I posted this in response to another poster in a different thread who asked essentially the same question:

Revelation is the first evidence I would present. Meaning that God has given me knowledge I did not have, could not have obtained, and did not obtain in any other way than through his communicating those things to me. Sometimes revelation has followed a request for answers to questions I've had or to address situations I've faced; other times it has come unsolicited (though still in response to my regular requests to be given wisdom from him to aid me in my journey in life).

So that's the first evidence I offer: revelation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I posted this in response to another poster in a different thread who asked essentially the same question:

Revelation is the first evidence I would present. Meaning that God has given me knowledge I did not have, could not have obtained, and did not obtain in any other way than through his communicating those things to me.

IOW: It's a feeling that you had, ie, a telepathic message from God.
This is mere belief.
It isn't evidence in the sense that it can be offered to persuade anyone else.