JCS

That is pretty dog damn funny, as assertions go. Since assertion is the methodology of the day, I borrowed yours with minor changes in order to make a counter assertion. Boy that was easy, saved a lot of time and typing.

My position is that theists do willfully invent knowledge of God. This amounts to not telling the truth even though they know that God does'nt exist. This is noted in the crucial concept of self-deception of which I believe is going on in the psychological state of the believer. I have no doubt that theists do not like to hear this and are offended by it. But be that as it may, I think it is a fair claim to make if I have good reasons for making my claim, which takes me to the point of my opening post:

The presumption of theism, I find, is a position that has no merit and has little to no warrant. It essentially begs the question against the atheist by assuming at the outset what has not been established: A presumption of theism in such a manner that takes for granted one's epistemology.

post tenebras lux

After all, that's why theists are sad at funerals and why they rarely really leave affairs in the supposed hands of their purported god.

SophistiCat

OK, this answers my question, and as I said, there is then no point in continuing the discussion.

Nah, the proposition is too silly to be offended by it.

But I do wonder, given that you knew from the outset that atheists were not going to respond in good faith, as it were, what was the point of asking your question?

SophistiCat

Just one more comment (not aimed at weltschmerz, since, as far as he is concerned, I am just making stuff up in order to deny God :Cheeky.

Something has to be taken for granted, and epistemology seems like the most reasonable candidate: after all, once you settle on an epistemology, you have the tools for deciding on all your other beliefs. It is good to pay attention to your assumptions, however. Epistemology is such a basic assumption that it is often made implicitly within an argument. Yet unstated differences in epistemology are often the main reason for disagreement.

Which is where Yahzi Baseball Bat Reality Test sometimes comes in useful to bang out, as it were, a sound epistemology

weltschmerz

Hello,

In my experience, yours is the usual response from atheists when they encounter the claim that no true atheists exist. However, it should be pointed out that this is not a name-calling game and a simple reversal of my claim is not a rebuttal or sufficient reason to dismiss my claims. If you are willing to argue for your claims, then that is another matter. But the topic under discussion is whether or not there is a presumption of atheism and whether of not such a presumption is warranted.

Thanks,

~ Alexander

weltschmerz

Hello,

Why is that topic off limits? Why is that claim not open to discussion? Dismissing it as silly because you don't like the claim doesn't mean that the claim is not open for discussion. If an atheist tells me that I engage in wishful thinking, that I believe in a Sky Daddy to make myself feel better (which are typical reasons that skeptics provide for god-belief), I may think it is a silly claim but I don't dismiss it. I say, "OK, let's hear your reasons." People engage in self-deception, the parent of a child who does not behave ("he is a good child..."), the drug addict ("I am not an addict...I don't have a drinking problem), the sick ("I am not sick..."), etc. etc. It is a fair claim to make, I think, if there are reasons to make such a claim (a reason not to make this claim would be -- as one poster responded to me in jest -- to ridicule or insult someone).

The point of my question was to discuss whether there is a presumption of atheism and whether this presumption is warranted. It is, really, a question concerning epistemology and how we know what we know.

Thanks for your thoughts,

~ Alexander

weltschmerz

Hello,

This makes no sense to me. The basis of how we know what we know should be the last thing we should take for granted. While it can be used as a starting point, it should be rigorously defended and be shown to be rationally warranted in some manner.

Thanks,

~ Alexander

SophistiCat

Who said it's off limits? You are free to defend your assertion that you know what everyone believes and why, though, from your perspective, I don't see a point. According to you, everyone already agrees with you, and if they say otherwise, they are lying.

Which leads to my main point. If you come here with the presupposition that atheists are not going to answer your questions truthfully (else they could not call themselves atheists), then how on earth do you expect to have a meaningful discussion?

And how can you show something to be rationally warranted without first having criteria for determining which beliefs are rationally warranted (which is what epistemology is all about)?

RAFH

And how do you know any of what you claim to know? You claim to know atheists know god exists, yet you provide no evidence of such. You claim to know god exists, yet you provide no evidence of such. It is you who is presumptuous. It is you who is engaging in assertion without support.

I can honestly state I do not know god exists. I can honestly state there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of god. I can honestly state there is no objective evidence, objective in the sense it is evidence with an empirical basis which can be obtained by anybody. Not that it will be obtained but that it can be obtained.

Can you honestly make those statements?

If you state you can, then can you present said evidence for my review and consideration? Can you assure me the evidence is such that most rational people would consider it objective and empirical?

If you can, then please do so.

You see, I am not the one living in a fantasy. I may well be missing something that is hard to sense or experience but I am definitely not see a false positive. Can you make the same statement? If you can, then you should be able to present empirical evidence and a coherent argument.

JCS

In my experience, yours is the usual response from atheists when they encounter the claim that no true atheists exist. Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle. I was just admiring how black you are.

However, it should be pointed out that this is not a name-calling game Well since I didn't call anyone any names....

and a simple reversal of my claim is not a rebuttal or sufficient reason to dismiss my claims. So says you, anyway your claims deserve no rebuttle since they are unsupported as such, so dismissing is not only prudent, it is all that can be done.

If you are willing to argue for your claims, then that is another matter. But the topic under discussion is whether or not there is a presumption of atheism and whether of not such a presumption is warranted. Let me see if I get this right, you're the decider concering all the ground rules and what people really think also what constitutes a proper rebuttle and you are the decider of what is sufficient for anyone to dismiss your bald assertions. Did I get it all? This is a freaking joke right?