Theists and the Truth

[ppp]

Even though most theists like to proclaim their "belief in God" while most atheists will employ all manner of subterfuge to avoid actually admitting out loud that they don't believe any gods exist.

That statement is itself a form of subterfuge. Atheists "admit" that they do not believe that gods exist. It's the single defining characteristic of atheists. Most atheists also "admit" that there are certain gods that they believe do not exist. The subterfuge of your statement is the intentional attempt to blur the unambiguous distinction between the two "admissions".

 

[PureX]

Atheists don't claim to know the truth, we don't claim to know anything.

Most atheists presume that if God exists there would be evidence of it, and they would be able to recognize this evidence and judge it to be valid and convincing. They are so certain of this presumption that they are constantly proclaiming that they are seeing no evidence for the existence of God, and therefor it is logical that they assume no gods exist.

We just find that the God claim does not yet have sufficient evidence to be convincing.

Yes, because you are blindly and illogically assuming that if such evidence exists, you would know of it, and be able to judge it's validity. Convincing you, then, is in fact the criteria that you are holding onto for establishing the existence of God/gods. If you are not convinced, then it must be assumed that no gods exist.

Every atheist knows in his heart that this is completely illogical, which is why they try very hard not to actually say it out loud in this way. Yet they do say it all the time in one way or another. And they do assume that all theists are fools playing at make-believe regarding the existence of any gods because they "have no evidence".

Good luck, however, getting a single one of them to admit to any of this. Or to even seriously consider it. Because all that open-mindedness and free-thinking vanishes the instant they get called out in the way they are constantly calling out everyone else.

This discomfits theists for some reason. Perhaps they realize, deep down, that their claims don't stand up to scrutiny, and feel threatened by anyone pointing this out.

I think most theists understand that theism is about faith, not evidence and not blind, egotistical proclamations of belief. But some theists don't understand this, and those are the theists that the atheists constantly refer to and present as being "theists". Just as you have done, here. Because they are the ones you can most easily throw stones at.

 

[ppp]

I give you an example. Whenever I hear RFK Jr speak, it's like I sense that that's the Truth.
But many people, whenever I speak of him, tell me: but he has that voice, which is blah blah blah.
Because many people focus on appearance. His voice is like that. That is a fact.
But it's what he says that it's truthful.

I don't know what that paragraph is supposed to be saying. Nor what it is an example of.

 

[PureX]

That statement is itself a form of subterfuge. Atheists "admit" that they do not believe that gods exist. It's the single defining characteristic of atheists. Most atheists also "admit" that there are certain gods that they believe do not exist.

Sure, until you ask any of them to present their evidence for that belief. Then, suddenly, they don't believe that no gods exist, anymore, they DISBELIEVE that any gods do exist. And they all magically become agnostics who don't know what to believe!

Word games and double-speak used to hide the fact that they can't logically defend their own belief even as they constantly attack theists for not being able to defend theirs. When in fact, theists CAN logically defend their FAITH (not belief) if they are intelligent enough.

 

[Valjean]

That's easy, they both believe the truth is that they're right.

How does that work, when only one side's making a claim?

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know what that paragraph is supposed to be saying. Nor what it is an example of.

This thread is not about atheism vs theism.
It's about what Truth is...according to theists and atheists.

 

[ppp]

Sure, until you ask any of them to present their evidence for that belief. Then, suddenly, they don't believe that no gods exist, anymore, they DISBELIEVE that any gods do exist. And they all magically become agnostics who don't know what to believe!

Cool. Provide evidence for that. Here. Now.

 

[Stevicus]

I understand. But two or three people don't ruin the image of US public institutions.
I rely on what I see. JFK being murdered while being president, and his brother being murdered before he even had the chance to be elected president. I don't believe in coincidences.

If it's just two or three people, then they can be singled out and made into scapegoats in the eyes of the public. That would reinforce the image that "the system works" and that justice ultimately prevails. That's what some people thought after Nixon's impeachment and resignation. The man can be brought down, but the institution lives on.

Still, it's not as if these institutions had a very rosy reputation to begin with. So, it seems pointless to bend over backwards to uphold an image no one really believes in anyway.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No. What belief does atheism have?

But atheism doesn't claim that no gods exist. Atheists claim they don't find the case for gods convincing.

This does not represent all atheists. There are atheists that claim no gods exist, and it's not a small minority. There are those here that have come right out and said it.

Argument from ignorance.
You're claiming belief in something is justified until evidence for its non-existence surfaces. This is backwards.

Please don't take what I say out of context. You're better than this.

But since you bring it up, if one believes no gods exist and make the assertion that no gods exist, it is their claim and the onus is on them to support that claim. Nothing backwards about it.

Non-belief is the epistemic default. In the absence of evidence non-existence is logically assumed.

Of course.

The atheists have no burden. Their position's assumed. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim: the theists.

Atheists have a burden if they are the ones making the claim. You said it yourself. "The burden of proof is on the side making the claim."

 

[RestlessSoul]

Believe as in no possibility of doubt or change?

What?

 

[Whateverist]

Believe as in no possibility of doubt or change?

Given that he has just said that belief often goes hand in hand with doubt, probably not a needed question.

 

[Stevicus]

It's my experience that atheists are constantly proclaiming how open-minded and free-thinking they are, but when you present them with even the slightest suggestion to the contrary, they quickly become ultra-defensive and close-minded. Most of the atheists I encounter are far more certain in their opinion that no gods exist than most theists I meet are certain that their version of God, does. Even though most theists like to proclaim their "belief in God" while most atheists will employ all manner of subterfuge to avoid actually admitting out loud that they don't believe any gods exist.

Some of it might have to do with how they perceive the god concept in general. For most people raised in our culture, people tend to view it within the context of the Abrahamic framework and that perception of "God." But ultimately, if we're just talking about entertaining other people's wild guesses and speculation, then there's nothing really substantial to actually believe in.

Well, they certainly do like to proclaim their own righteousness. But honestly, what group of humans doesn't?

Something no one ever seems to consider around here, though, is ... In the same way that it's not the blowhard standing in the middle of the bar telling everyone how tough he is that you have to be careful of. It's the quiet guy sitting down at the end that isn't saying anything that you want to steer very clear of. Because he doesn't need to tell anyone how tough he is. He just is tough, and he knows it.

Same is true in many cases among the religious. The louder they proclaim the certainty of their religious belief, the less faith they actually have what they are saying. It's WHY they are always proclaiming it.

Well, I was just pointing out how, even people who start off with the same belief can end up disagreeing and breaking off to form their own sect. Like religions which disagree over whether to do the signs of the cross with two or three fingers or whether to do it at all. It's over things which seem quite trivial and mundane, which would indicate a certain degree of hyper-certainty and arrogance. I mean, we're talking about people who have the same basic beliefs, the same god - yet for some minor, trivial reason, they just have to break apart and form a different religion.

This phenomenon was parodied in Monty Python's Life of Brian when they showed people arguing over whether Brian was wearing a shoe or a sandal.

There are a thousand theists in the world for every one atheist. So of course there is less sectarianism among atheists.

Also, there are endless ways of imagining the nature and existence of God/gods. There is only one way of imagining the non-existence of any gods. So what is there for atheists to argue about?

I'm reminded of a Woody Allen joke where he talked about breaking off an engagement with a woman over religious differences. She was an atheist, and he was an agnostic. They couldn't decide which religion not to raise the children in.

 

[Valjean]

This does not represent all atheists. There are atheists that claim no gods exist, and it's not a small minority. There are those here that have come right out and said it.

This represents typical atheists, ie: "weak atheists." I believe these are the majority.

The only feature shared by all varieties of atheist is lack of belief. This makes "lack of belief" definitive. Other varieties must take a modifier. When just "atheist" is used, simple lack of belief is assumed.

Please don't take what I say out of context. You're better than this.

But since you bring it up, if one believes no gods exist and make the assertion that no gods exist, it is their claim and the onus is on them to support that claim. Nothing backwards about it.

Quite so, but atheism makes no such assertion.

Atheists have a burden if they are the ones making the claim. You said it yourself. "The burden of proof is on the side making the claim."

Agreed, but most of us make no such claim. The burden's on the theists.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The burden's on the theists.

If they are the ones making the claim and wanting others to buy in to that claim, I agree.

 

[Audie]

Given that he has just said that belief often goes hand in hand with doubt, probably not a needed question.

The semantics of is why I asked.

Could you just say ?

 

[PureX]

How does that work, when only one side's making a claim?

The other side is lying by omission.

 

[PureX]

Cool. Provide evidence for that. Here. Now.

Just read their posts. Read your own. I can't overcome your willful blindness for you. And its not my job.

This is what happens when atheists fall into the constant habit of presuming themselves to be the 'me-judge' of what is and is not "evidence". They become so habitualized to dismissing any evidence that doesn't support their beliefs that they can't see anything else at all, anymore.

 

[PureX]

Some of it might have to do with how they perceive the god concept in general. For most people raised in our culture, people tend to view it within the context of the Abrahamic framework and that perception of "God." But ultimately, if we're just talking about entertaining other people's wild guesses and speculation, then there's nothing really substantial to actually believe in.

Those are just the artifice theists use to PRACTICE their faith in the great mystery that "God" actuslly is to us all. Atheists refuse to acknowledge this because it's so easy for them to attack and disparage and dismiss the artifice, while ignoring the practical reality of acting on faith. And there are plenty of ignorant theists that aid them in doing this by not understanding what religious artifice is, themselves.

Well, I was just pointing out how, even people who start off with the same belief can end up disagreeing and breaking off to form their own sect. Like religions which disagree over whether to do the signs of the cross with two or three fingers or whether to do it at all. It's over things which seem quite trivial and mundane, which would indicate a certain degree of hyper-certainty and arrogance. I mean, we're talking about people who have the same basic beliefs, the same god - yet for some minor, trivial reason, they just have to break apart and form a different religion.

Humans don't like to face their own unknowing. They'd rather isolate themselves with those who "believe in" the same vision of knowing that they have, just to maintain the illusion that they know. But this is as true of atheists as it is of theists. It's a human thing. But because God is the greatest unknown, the subject of it tends to bring this out in us all.

This phenomenon was parodied in Monty Python's Life of Brian when they showed people arguing over whether Brian was wearing a shoe or a sandal.

I'm reminded of a Woody Allen joke where he talked about breaking off an engagement with a woman over religious differences. She was an atheist, and he was an agnostic. They couldn't decide which religion not to raise the children in.

We are that way. It's true.

 

[Audie]

That statement is itself a form of subterfuge. Atheists "admit" that they do not believe that gods exist. It's the single defining characteristic of atheists. Most atheists also "admit" that there are certain gods that they believe do not exist. The subterfuge of your statement is the intentional attempt to blur the unambiguous distinction between the two "admissions".

Admission is reluctant confession.
But anyway the subterfuge fools your friend
and thats the prurpose.

 

[PureX]

This represents typical atheists, ie: "weak atheists." I believe these are the majority.

The only feature shared by all varieties of atheist is lack of belief. This makes "lack of belief" definitive. Other varieties must take a modifier. When just "atheist" is used, simple lack of belief is assumed.

That's meaningless jibberish. I am a theist and I also "lack belief" in God. So do a great many agnostic theists. A "lack of belief" defines nothing.

Quite so, but atheism makes no such assertion.

Atheism is the antithetical to theism and is therefor a counter-assertion. Belief and unbelief have nothing to do with it. It's an assertion and a counter-assertion.

Agreed, but most of us make no such claim. The burden's on the theists.

That's the whole game of the huge majority of atheist's these days ... to play the "me-judge".