Theists and the Truth

[Valjean]

The existence of God is a philosophical proposition, not a mathematical one. The evidence you seek does not exist in the form you seek it. But you know this already. Which is why you keep demanding it. Again, it's the "me-judge" game.

We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about the assessment of evidence.

I maintain that the evidence commonly cited to support the God-concept is logically or factually flawed.

 

[Valjean]

It defines nothing. Rocks also "lack belief". So do many theists. It's just double-speak intended to avoid admitting that you believe no gods exist because you know you can't defend that belief.

I believe what I say I believe. I'm sorry if that offends, confuses, or threatens you.

So, what is your definition of "definition," and what is wrong with mine?

It's BS is what it is. You want to call everyone else's belief in gods wrong without having to defend your own belief that no gods exist.

I am calling the evidence wrong, not the conclusion derived from it. Yes, a conclusion derived from invalid evidence is, itself, invalid, but that's incidental to my assertion that the evidence or reasoning is flawed.

You're desperately constructing a straw man by insisting I and other atheists believe what we don't believe, and claiming we're lying when we explain our thinking. You're arguing against a fantasy of your own making.

Constantly ignoring the fact that what anyone believes about God is irrelevant to anyone else.

OK. Even if that's the case, so what?

I have no beliefs regarding the existence of God.

So you're an atheist?

There is nothing to threaten.

So stop circling the wagons and firing in all directions.

And you're attacking my imaginary theist beliefs because you know you can't defend your own atheist belief.

I'm not attacking anything. I'm pointing out errors, and claiming conclusions derived from erroneous reasoning are questionable, at best.
Lack of belief needs no defense. There's no positive claim to defend.
You keep insisting we have a burden of proof. We do not. Our lack of belief is the default. It's presumed.

 

[PureX]

We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about the assessment of evidence.

I maintain that the evidence commonly cited to support the God-concept is logically or factually flawed.

How does this logically result in your presuming that no gods exist? Because atheism is the antithetical position to theism, which proposes the existence of God/gods, and therefor the antithetical to it counter-poses that they do not exist. You call yourself an atheist and you stand by the position that no gods exist (I must assume). So ... you do so based on what? Evidence that you can't define? That you can't or won't look for, and wouldn't know how to assess if you found it?

Then how can you know that theism is wrong?

 

[PureX]

I believe what I say I believe. I'm sorry if that offends, confuses, or threatens you.

No one cares what you believe but you. None of this is about what anyone believes.

Theism proposes that God/gods exist, and in a way that effects and therefor matters to we humans (or the question is moot).

So, what is your definition of "definition," and what is wrong with mine?-09

Yours does not define anything that matters to anyone but you. No one cares what you don't believe. It tells us nothing about anything. No one cares what anyone else "unbelieves", either. For the same reason. Why would they? There's no "there, there". There's no actual content that can be used to define anything. It's just empty, blanket negation.

I am calling the evidence wrong, not the conclusion derived from it.

There is no "wrong" evidence. Evidence is just evidence. It does not require yours or anyone else's validation to be what it is. And it does not cease to be evidence because you or someone else determines it to be invalid according to some criteria you've chosen for yourself.

Yes, a conclusion derived from invalid evidence is, itself, invalid, but that's incidental to my assertion that the evidence or reasoning is flawed.

But you are not in charge of judging validity or reason for anyone but you. This is the "me-judge" game I was talking about: placing everyone else in the position of having to measure up to your preconceived notions of validity and reason and objectivity and evidence. Why is it wrong for a theist to decide that his personal subjective experience-based evidence trumps your obsession with materialism and the fantasy you hold to about "objective reality" being the source of all truth? Why do you assume that you are the one qualified to judge everyone else? Or that it's everyone else's job to overcome your intractable bias?

You're desperately constructing a straw man by insisting I and other atheists believe what we don't believe, and claiming we're lying when we explain our thinking. You're arguing against a fantasy of your own making.

I'm just posting your own absurd comments and arguments back at you.

OK. Even if that's the case, so what?

So you're an atheist?

I'm an agnostic by reason and a theist by choice (faith). I don't believe or "unbelieve" in things I can't possibly know to be so, or not so, like the nature or existence of God/gods. And I don't have to resort to silly double-speak and empty "definitions" to hide or excuse myself from admitting it. Nor do I feel any need to attack what anyone else chooses to think or believe about God so long as they are being honest about it. Be a theist. Be an atheist. Be an undetermined agnostic. None of us knows so we are all free to decide for ourselves. There is no "wrong" choice or "bad" evdence. There are just the choices that are wrong, for us, in the moment. And the evidence we ignored or failed to appreciate when we could have.

Lack of belief needs no defense. There's no positive claim to defend.

It needs no iteration whatever. Because it means nothing to anyone. It's only being used to attack other people's belief while the attacker is pretending to hold no belief of his own. It's rude and dishonest. And it's becoming quite habitual among atheists these days. Because that "me-judge" game is just so fun and easy for the ego to fall into.

You keep insisting we have a burden of proof. We do not. Our lack of belief is the default. It's presumed.

Your "lack of belief" is just empty gibberish.

 

[Valjean]

How does this logically result in your presuming that no gods exist?

You're doing it again.

Your logical fallacy is strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Because atheism is the antithetical position to theism, which proposes the existence of God/gods, and therefor the antithetical to it counter-poses that they do not exist.

No. Not atithetical. There's no thesis at all.

Your logical fallacy is black or white

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

You call yourself an atheist and you stand by the position that no gods exist (I must assume).

Stop assuming. I and others have explained that is not our position, but you continue to insist it is. Is this straw man the only thesis you can argue against? Is this why you keep attacking a position we don't actually hold?

So ... you do so based on what? Evidence that you can't define? That you can't or won't look for, and wouldn't know how to assess if you found it?

I don't do so. I don't need evidence of non-existence. Non-existence is assumed till evidence emerges. Again, the burden's on you.
If you have evidence for God, please produce it. Otherwise I'll withhold belief till someone does.

Then how can you know that theism is wrong?

I'm not claiming it's wrong. I'm claiming it's, as yet, unevidenced or poorly evidenced, making it unfounded. Lack of belief in the unevidenced is reasonable.

 

[Valjean]

No one cares what you believe but you. None of this is about what anyone believes.

What I believe certainly seems to have you in a twist.

Theism proposes that God/gods exist, and in a way that effects and therefor matters to we humans (or the question is moot).

Yours does not define anything that matters to anyone but you.

What on Earth are you talking about? We're discussing an issue people have been fascinated by, argued about, even killed each other over, for millennia. It comes up again and again here on RF, so someone must be interested in it.

No one cares what you don't believe. It tells us nothing about anything. No one cares what anyone else "unbelieves", either. For the same reason. Why would they? There's no "there, there". There's no actual content that can be used to define anything. It's just empty, blanket negation.

I don't believe you. Moreover, your protestations indicate that the subject is if great interest even to you.

How can anything be discussed without definitions? What do you think a definition is?
I keep asking questions and you keep dodging them or calling them absurd. What's up with that?

There is no "wrong" evidence. Evidence is just evidence. It does not require yours or anyone else's validation to be what it is.

But it does. Some "evidence" is not evidence, and there are agreed upon criteria for evaluating evidence. Evidence is not belief.
What are we to base opinions on if not evidence? If we want our opinions to be correct, don't we need to evaluate the evidence they're based on?
Do you have any beliefs? What do you base them on, gut feelings? Emotion? Tradition?

And it does not cease to be evidence because you or someone else determines it to be invalid according to some criteria you've chosen for yourself.

No. They're not my criteria. They're agreed upon by logical thinkers worldwide.

Boolean Algebra (Boolean Expression, Rules, Theorems and Examples)

Boolean Algebra is a branch of algebra that deals with the boolean variables, which holds the values such as 1 and 0, that represent true and false respectively. Visit BYJU’S to learn boolean rules and theorems.

byjus.com

But you are not in charge of judging validity or reason for anyone but you. This is the "me-judge" game I was talking about: placing everyone else in the position of having to measure up to your preconceived notions of validity and reason and objectivity and evidence. Why is it wrong for a theist to decide that his personal subjective experience-based evidence trumps your obsession with materialism and the fantasy you hold to about "objective reality" being the source of all truth? Why do you assume that you are the one qualified to judge everyone else? Or that it's everyone else's job to overcome your intractable bias?

Not all opinions or beliefs are equal, or equally valid, or equally true. Facts are not whims. Truth values vary, and can be evaluated.
I'm sorry you're unaware of this, and I wonder why it is you hold whatever opinions you hold, and why you're on a talkboard if you've no ideas to discuss.

I'm just posting your own absurd comments and arguments back at you.

I'm an agnostic by reason and a theist by choice (faith). I don't believe or "unbelieve" in things I can't possibly know to be so, or not so, like the nature or existence of God/gods. And I don't have to resort to silly double-speak and empty "definitions" to hide or excuse myself from admitting it. Nor do I feel any need to attack what anyone else chooses to think or believe about God so long as they are being honest about it. Be a theist. Be an atheist. Be an undetermined agnostic. None of us knows so we are all free to decide for ourselves. There is no "wrong" choice or "bad" evdence. There are just the choices that are wrong, for us, in the moment. And the evidence we ignored or failed to appreciate when we could have.

???? -- this is nonsense.

I'm sorry, but It needs no iteration whatever. Because it means nothing to anyone. It's only being used to attack other people's belief while the attacker is pretending to hold no belief of his own. It's rude and dishonest. And it's becoming quite habitual among atheists these days. Because that "me-judge" game is just so fun and easy for the ego to fall into.

Your "lack of belief" is just empty gibberish.

I'm sorry, but discussion is impossible when you're raving like this.

 

[PureX]

If the term atheism doesn't mean anything at all, as you keep trying to assert, then why use it at all? And why keep asserting that you don't believe in anyone else's idea of God when you have no idea of God of your own, and "no evidence" upon which to base your objections? What's the point of insulting everyone else's thinking about God when you have no thoughts whatever about it of your own to offer even as a rebuttal? What's the point of sitting around saying "I don't like the way you think" if it's not just to massage your own ego? And why shoud anyone care whether or not you like the way they think? Especially when you aren't offering any thoughts, at all, yourself. You're just negating everyone else's.

Can you see why I have such a low opinion of this brand of phony atheism?

 

[Estro Felino]

If the term atheism doesn't mean anything at all, as you keep trying to assert, then why use it at all? And why keep asserting that you don't believe in anyone else's idea of God when you have no idea of God of your own, and "no evidence" upon which to base your objections? What's the point of insulting everyone else's thinking about God when you have no thoughts whatever about it of your own to offer even as a rebuttal? What's the point of sitting around saying "I don't like the way you think" if it's not just to massage your own ego? And why shoud anyone care whether or not you like the way they think? Especially when you aren't offering any thoughts, at all, yourself. You're just negating everyone else's.

Can you see why I have such a low opinion of this brand of phony atheism?

Honestly, I think this: evil hides from people's sight, so that's why we don't know the Truth. Because there's something evil, which is hidden, and corrupts the Truth.
I hope that both Theists and Atheists acknowledge that we must be coworkers of the Truth.
As the Third Letter of John, verse 8, states.

 

[PureX]

Honestly, I think this: evil hides from people's sight, so that's why we don't know the Truth. Because there's something evil, which is hidden, and corrupts the Truth.
I hope that both Theists and Atheists acknowledge that we must be coworkers of the Truth.
As the Third Letter of John, verse 8, states.

I think the truth is that we humans don't have access to the truth. Not because anything evil is hiding it from us, but because we do not possess the necessary intellectual ability to cognate it. And we should probably be grateful for this, because in our ignorance, we get to decide for ourselves what we choose to stand by as "the truth". And in doing that we get to create and define who we are as individual autonomous beings within an existential event that is singular and holistic. And event in which nothing gets to be truly autonomous. If we knew "it all", we would not longer have the freedom to choose our own version of truth. And then, what's the point of any of it?

 

[Estro Felino]

I think the truth is that we humans don't have access to the truth. Not because anything evil is hiding it from us, but because we do not possess the necessary intellectual ability to cognate it. And we should probably be grateful for this, because in our ignorance, we get to decide for ourselves what we choose to stand by as "the truth". And in doing that we get to create and define who we are as individual autonomous beings within an existential event that is singular and holistic. And event in which nothing gets to be truly autonomous. If we knew "it all", we would not longer have the freedom to choose our own version of truth. And then, what's the point of any of it?

I agree. But the reason why we can't get to the absolute Truth is because we are imperfect beings.
What matters is the restless search for the Truth.
Unfortunately most human beings (let's say the great majority) won't search for It, because what they basically do, is to construct an artificial truth for themselves, that makes them feel good So they still have their own truth. . But that's something horrifically ephemeral. As worldly existence is.

 

[PureX]

I agree. But the reason why we can't get to the absolute Truth is because we are imperfect beings.
What matters is the restless search for the Truth.

It's our imperfections that set us free.

Unfortunately most human beings (let's say the great majority) won't search for It, because what they basically do, is to construct an artificial truth for themselves, that makes them feel good So they still have their own truth. . But that's something horrifically ephemeral. As worldly existence is.

Our own truth is all the truth we'll ever get, so long as we are human. Developing our own truth seems to be our purpose, here. As it's what we have been designed by the existential event to do.

 

[Estro Felino]

Our own truth is all the truth we'll ever get, so long as we are human. Developing our own truth seems to be our purpose, here. As it's what we have been designed by the existential event to do.

I think there's an objective Truth, valid for all, that contains the secret of universal happiness. Individualistic, artificial truths create individualistic happiness, that is often incompatible with others' happiness.

That's why as a Christian I want to know the Truth, otherwise this life would be utterly meaningless. What I see is humans who are clones of one another, who imitate each other, doing the same things over and over again. Nobody wants to be original because they are afraid of the Truth. They prefer to construct artificial, individualistic, ephemeral truths.

 

[PureX]

I think there's an objective Truth, valid for all, that contains the secret of universal happiness. Individualistic, artificial truths create individualistic happiness, that is often incompatible with others' happiness.

That's why as a Christian I want to know the Truth, otherwise this life would be utterly meaningless. What I see is humans who are clones of one another, who imitate each other, doing the same things over and over again. Nobody wants to be original because they are afraid of the Truth. They prefer to construct artificial, individualistic, ephemeral truths.

So, that's your truth, then. "Yours" because like the rest of us, you can't know it to be so.

 

[Estro Felino]

So, that's your truth, then. "Yours" because like the rest of us, you can't know it to be so.

Exactly. It's my truth, not the Truth, so it's irrelevant.
That's why I said I can't wait to be told the real Truth, in the Afterlife.

 

[PureX]

Exactly. It's my truth, not the Truth, so it's irrelevant.
That's why I said I can't wait to be told the real Truth, in the Afterlife.

I'm happy to wait.

 

[stvdv]

So do you believe there is no objective truth?

Hi Estro Felino,

This Universe is in constant motion
There is this concept of evolution
If I evolve I become more aware

Objective Truth never changes in Time
Finding this with our dual senses
Seems impossible to me

I only focus on evolving
Knowing follows automatically

I just saw below short(22min) YouTube, and liked how Satguru explained about why we do (not do) things, how it is related to awareness etc.

He explains things as a response to a question about sexual drive, desire...if it means not being spiritual. Many useful things are said, and I found it enlightening, hence I share it with you

 

[Estro Felino]

Hi Estro Felino,

This Universe is in constant motion
There is this concept of evolution
If I evolve I become more aware

Objective Truth never changes in Time
Finding this with our dual senses
Seems impossible to me

I only focus on evolving
Knowing follows automatically

I just saw below short(22min) YouTube, and liked how Satguru explained about why we do (not do) things, how it is related to awareness etc.

He explains things as a response to a question about sexual drive, desire...if it means not being spiritual. Many useful things are said, and I found it enlightening, hence I share it with you

Interesting, I will watch it when I have time.
I don't know whether you have ever seen the movie Cast Away...from 2004.
It's the movie of a person who shipwrecks on a desert island, and feels totally sad and lost. Not because of the hostile environment, but because he feels so lonely. He even turns a ball into his friend. And yet he was a person who used to take human relations for granted, when he was home and safe.

I think that that movie shows that the frenetic life of the 21st century prevents us from seeing the others as an end and not as a means. As an instrument to feel less lonely.
Meditation and thought: that's what make us understand the value of the other. And the more we understand the others, the more we understand ourselves. And we would never feel lonely on a desert island.

 

[stvdv]

Interesting, I will watch it when I have time.
I don't know whether you have ever seen the movie Cast Away...from 2004.
It's the movie of a person who shipwrecks on a desert island, and feels totally sad and lost. Not because of the hostile environment, but because he feels so lonely. He even turns a ball into his friend. And yet he was a person who used to take human relations for granted, when he was home and safe.

I think that that movie shows that the frenetic life of the 21st century prevents us from seeing the others as an end and not as a means. As an instrument to feel less lonely.
Meditation and thought: that's what make us understand the value of the other. And the more we understand the others, the more we understand ourselves. And we would never feel lonely on a desert island.

Thank you for sharing.

I can relate to your example. Being thrown back to myself was challenging but I learned and evolved through it. Realizing what is really important and how we all interact...aware or not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wonder whether atheists are saddened by the fact that certain truths will never be revealed. In life, I mean.

This one isn't. One benefit of atheism is the opportunity to eventually accept and be content with ideas such as that many questions have no answer and others will not be answered until we are gone, that consciousness might end with death and that death is not to be feared, that there is no unseen protector or judge watching over us or giving us commands to obey, and the like.

It is interesting to me, generally speaking, that the theists say they don't know the whole truth now, but will know it eventually, while the atheists think they already know the whole truth because there is no whole truth to be known. One is ignorant, but hopeful, while the other is arrogant, and hopeless.

When a theist tells me that I am hopeless or purposeless because I am an atheist, that is understood to me as he has nothing in his life that that gives him either of these things but his god belief.

It's you who is being arrogant presuming to know what the atheist's inner life is like when they tell you otherwise. You disregard what you read from them, then call them liars when they disagree with you. For example, you wrote, "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." Here you are telling agnostic atheists that they claim no gods exist despite denying that, then say they change their story when you ask.

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 here you go again claiming that agnostic atheists are lying when they tell you that they do NOT claim that gods have been ruled out.

I think most theists understand that theism is about faith, not evidence and not blind, egotistical proclamations of belief.

Most theists claim to have evidential support for their beliefs probably because they're uncomfortable saying otherwise. Faith is always blind. That's what distinguishes justified belies from faith-based belief. One is evidence based, the other not, that is one depends on the evidence of the senses, and the other bypasses that, hence is blind.

theists CAN logically defend their FAITH (not belief) if they are intelligent enough.

They can say that their faith-beliefs feel right to them or are useful to them as yours has been useful to you, but they cannot defend their god belief according to scientific and legal standards for interpreting evidence and deciding truth.

The other side is lying by omission.

Here you go again. According to you, they're lying because they won't say what you insist they believe.

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.

You're projecting. It's you that dismisses what you are told when it doesn't conform with your caricature of atheistic thinking.

Very few of us are actually searching for truth. We are searching for more control.

I think you're projecting again. I'm not looking for more control or power. I couldn't use more, whereas your faith is a lifeline for you as you've explained. A great existential threat to you was related to a lack of self-control which you fortunately recovered from with the help of a god-belief. That is what allows you to control destructive impulses, and it's understandable why you value that control and will do whatever it takes to maintain control over those impulses.

Pursuing truth was the path to control of my life. Forming an accurate map of the world with which to navigate it guided me to this time and place. And it was painful at times. Emancipating myself from religion was like quitting cigarettes was. But my new commitment to empiricism over faith as the path to truth demanded it and I was repaid for the effort.

Can you see why I have such a low opinion of this brand of phony atheism?

I understand what motivates your contempt for atheists, which is irrational, but very human. Atheism is a threat to you. Not atheists, but atheism - just like it is to a preacher experiencing doubt - and so you misdirect your insecurity and demean atheists.

 

[Estro Felino]

This one isn't. One benefit of atheism is the opportunity to eventually accept and be content with ideas such as that many questions have no answer and others will not be answered until we are gone, that consciousness might end with death and that death is not to be feared, that there is no unseen protector or judge watching over us or giving us commands to obey, and the like.

My questions is: since atheists don't believe in an Afterlife where any Truth will be exposed...
do they strive for it on Earth, at least?