Jayhawker Soule

Andrew,

Thanks for the kind evaluation of my comments. As for the above definition, I would suggest that teleology has yet to prove its value and is unworthy of serious consideration: when in doubt, doubt, don't pray.

It appears, by the way, that you did not notice my questions. I wonder if you would briefly define your theism. Specifically, what are your views on Baal, JHWH, Kali, and Zeus? I'd also be interested in the results of your open-mindedness when it comes to astrology and past life regression. Finally, where do you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate? Thanks.

madmax2976

<strong> Agreed. Most naturalists with which I am familiar appear to agree with this as well. I don't assume a priori that the supernatural is "impossible". I conclude that it is most unlikely that the supernatural exists based on the evidence available to me.

<strong> Not quite. While it is heathly to be skeptical of any claim, natural or otherwise, I have tons of evidence for natural causes for things. I have no evidence for supernatural causes for things. Thus I have ample precedent for favoring natural explanations over supernatural ones, even if I don't currently know the answer to something.

<strong> I am.

<strong> If there is nothing wrong with being a naturalist, then why is it a problem?

<strong> I am perfectly willing to defend my brand of naturalism. Just let me know if you wish me to do so. I think it would be fair if I were to defend it as the more reasonable position in contrast to whatever brand of theism you would see fit to espouse. This would be equitable as we both would have to support our respective worldviews.

Jayhawker Soule

Bravo! I encourage you to reproduce this offer as a new topic/thread. BTW, since I'm relatively new here, this may be a naive question, but: Has Andrew ever identified his brand of theism?

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

agapeo

1)What would it take . . .?
2)It would take a convincing miracle of the supernatural sort . . .
3)I don't believe in a supernatural existence, hence if miracles are of the supernatural sort . . .
4)No miracle would convince me.

Conclusion -- I can't even consider the possibility since nothing that is impossible can be possible.

Koyaanisqatsi

Except of course that one position--atheist--is not a "point of view!" You keep equating theism with atheism, as if they are merely flipsides to the same coin and they are not in any way, shape or form, save the letters in both words.

Theism is the irrational (and I mean that literally, not figuratively) belief that a mythological creature factually exists. As such, it is an addendum, not a presupposition, since it is not possible to presuppose such an abstract concept from birth. It must first be learned, then accepted.

Atheism is the absence of such beliefs. It is not a "point of view" or something that is learned. It is the default, natural starting point from birth and involves nothing abstract or mythological.

The proof is in the thousands of cult factions, the instructions of Jesus/Paul to preach the gospel (aka, tell other people something they do not yet know about) and the theistic use of the words "believe" and "faith;" both of which betray a state dependent upon discovery and acceptance, which cannot possibly be applied to atheism (with the exception of deprogramming).

This, in turn, means that only the theist has the burden of proof to establish the truth state of the claim.

This is irrefutable. It may be denied, but that does not alter the fact that it is irrefutable, so there is only one "point of view" being discussed here; the unnatural, forced, learned, unsupportable, accepted abstraction "God."

There is no "claim" nor is there any evidence nor can atheism be a "result of" something. It is the natural state of existence so unless you--as the only claimant here--can provide compelling evidence of a supernatural state of existence, then we have what is.

This, too, is irrefutable. The claimant must provide evidence. MUST. There is no "wiggle room" here. To make a claim of supernature, you MUST provide compelling evidence.

That is the only thing being addressed; there are no "flipsides" or equivalent counter-claims or anything at all other than a claim of supernature. That's it.

The claimant MUST prove the claim, or end of discussion. To redirect or attempt evasion by answering a question with a counter-question is nothing other than a transparent tactic to avoid the only salient issue.

We have abundant compelling evidence for the existence of nature. We have no compelling evidence for the existence of supernature (i.e., the mythological creatures of theism), therefore to make any further claim of supernature would require the claimant to provide their evidence.

To ask prior what evidence would be acceptable or that we "keep an open mind" to shoddy or laughable evidence such as fairy tales written thousands of years ago or claims of a broken bone "miraculously" healing itself when broken bones heal themselves on a regular basis as perfectly rational evidence of nature and not supernature (i.e., that a mythological creature intervened in the healing of the bone, thereby deliberately circumventing the natural process in order to effect healing directly) is a ludicrous request to make on behalf of the claimant.

Let me demonstrate:

The Skeptic is correct in his/her assessment and the Claimant properly chastised for wasting everyone's time.

The operative word here is "believe." It doesn't matter what you "believe." Atheism is the lack of belief. This too, is irrefutable.

Incorrect. Theism is learned (i.e., indoctrinated). Atheism is not, unless you count deprogramming as "learned."

False. Quite simply and utterly false. The only state of belief is the learned, accepted state of mythological creatures as factually existing; i.e., theism.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to reword or redirect, that is the baseline fact that we're dealing with here.

Theism is a claim based on "faith" and "belief." Atheism is not. It is the exact and literal opposite; the absence of belief.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend, other than it destroys your argument? A theism: Without Theism (aka, "without the belief in the existence of a god or gods").

"It" does not exist. "It" does not "thrive." I think that's the problem right there, the indoctrinated notion of personifying abstractions.

As for "some form of naturalism or materialism" being "true;" that is unquestionable. Nature is "true." The material quality of nature is also "true."

This is not in dispute no matter how you wish to pretend it is through pointless semantics plays.

Again, the only question is what accounts for this truth? That is what we're dealing with, not the actual truth state of nature, but what accounts for it.

The theist is the only one making the claim. The theist claims that nature is accounted for by the factual existence of mythological creatures; aka, supernatural "gods."

That's what we're dealing with and nothing else. That is the theist claim and nothing else.

There is no atheist claim being posited, assumed or proffered no matter how many times you (or any theist) pretend or proclaim that there is. Period.

Non sequitur.

Once again, your use of the word "believing" is unjustifiably equating that which cannot be equated. You are disingenuously hiding behind games of semantics in order to give the appearance that everything is equal, when it is not.

Again, there is only one claimant; the theist. To simply declare that there are other counter-claimants (i.e., materialists; atheists; naturallists; etc.) would necessarily mean that the theist claim has been proved to be the "natural" or default, baseline state of existence to which a counter-claim could be posited!

Let me demonstrate again. I bend down and pick up a handful of dirt. "Wow," I say for no apparent reason, "This is amazing."

You come along and say, "Not just amazing, but created out of nothing by a magical fairy god king!"

Only you are making a claim that requires compelling evidence to prove. I have no such requirements whatsoever, even if I were to say, "I don't believe in magical fairy god kings."

There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for me to present anything at all. I don't have to justify my statement until you could prove that magical fairy god kinds factually exist.

Understand? Then and only then would I be making a counter-claim, contradicting "what is."

More word play and unwarranted personification. Science is not a person. "It" is neither “willing” nor "unwilling" to "do" anything at all. What you should have typed, if you're actually attempting to be an honest presenter of the facts is that "Scientists, on the whole, do not consider mythological explanations for natural phenomena as part of the scientific process."

That is an honest, unbiased assessment of what the majority of Scientists do (or do not do) and renders your entire argument a non sequitur.

Bullshit. Pure and simple. If it gives you comfort to make such unsupportable, clearly biased declarations in order to continue to justify your beliefs, then by all means continue to do so, but do not for one second pretend that you are making a cogent, supportable argument by dressing that childish, assumptive, incorrect declaration with all of this other window dressing.

It is too disingenuous to be contemplated.

"Science" is a process used to try and determine as much information about our existence as is possible. Period. It isn't voodoo or the boogeyman or the devil trying to play upon your superstitions.

Science seeks answers; theism mandates them. Science is open; theism, especially christianity, was closed two thousand years ago.

The hypocrisy dripping off your words is truly overwhelming and you should be deeply ashamed.

While "naturalism" is a technical term, "nature" is not. Stop equivocating!

Scientists study what exists. If you want them to study what does not exist, then good luck, but you'd better have a damn good reason for it other than childish games of semantics and false accusations.

Totally irrelevant, except to your straw man, but I would be curious as to one thing: source?

"Belief." "Philosophy." "Point of view." Pointless semantics dances to pathetically equivocate. What's the point of doing this? Seriously, I ask you, what is the point of deliberately lying like this?

What are you trying to establish? That belief in magical fairy god kings is just as rational as studying what exists? That someone who states, "I am a Naturalist," is somehow equivalent with someone who states, "I am a Theist?" Why? To what end?

Childish semantics dances serve no purpose, other than rationalization of one's own delusions.

Another perfect example. You know, for the only ones to ever claim that only their delusions can establish "objective reality," you have no problems whatsoever discarding such a concept when it comes down to rationalizing your beliefs.

There is nothing established, correct? Every single element of existence is just a "philosophy," right, and all philosophies are equal, therefore...blah, blah, blah?

Again, what's the point? Dance around the pole all you want, but the simple fact will always remain, the pole exists and there is no evidence for a supernatural pole nor absolutely no need whatsoever for a supernatural pole.

There is only one reason for this nonsense on your behalf; the desperate need to justify your rationalizations. Such an intelligent individual wasting considerable time and energy to equivocate irrational belief in magical fairy god kings with a careful, reasonable process of evaluating the fabric of "what is" for one purpose and one purpose only: the discovery of "what is" continuously demonstrates that holding onto irrational beliefs in magical fairy god kings is nothing more than ignorant, superstition and/or the product of deliberate indoctrination into a cult through inculcation.

For god's sake, just wake up and smell the goddamned coffee! It's delicious and filling and gets the day off to a perfect start!

You are not describing "most theists." You are describing agnostics.

Again with the personification! Enough already! You're giving me a keppy ache.

A "creator." An "agency." More equivocation. What you mean is a fictional, mythological, anthropomorphic creature!

Hiding behind semantics just demonstrates the levels of desperation, not the honest, open-minded search for "the answers" to "what is" and "why it is." Theism, even in it's broadest sense as you're attempting here (bordering on agnosticism) is a closed system! God did it.

That's it. There is, ultimately, nothing else to theism. God did it. So the only remaining question would be "which God?"

Closed system.

Bullshit! It is entirely up to the "claims of theism" to prove those claims! It is the theist's job to prove his or her claims or admit there is no such proof and that their beliefs are entirely based on nothing more than "faith," which, if you'll recall, is the primary mandate of at least one form of pervasive theism to ever curse mankind.

So, again, why are you arguing this non-argument? What is the goal other than your own continued self-justification and rationalization? No matter how you dance around the words the facts will always trip you up.

There is no compelling evidence that supernature (i.e., anthropomorphic, mythological fairy god kings) exists. This is the claim of the theist and the theist must provide evidence to support it or accept that there is no rational basis for their beliefs. Period.

Leaving the default to what? Tabla rassa? Preponderance of evidence? The preponderance of evidence demonstrates belief in a mystical fairy god king magically blinking everything into existence to be not just incorrect, but incredulously unsupportable.

Straw man bullshit. Once again, since you cannot prove your claim, you will instead pretend that others are equal to you in their own inability to prove their claims so we're all equal, therefore, what the hell, why not believe in a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked everything into existence (in order to punish it, I might add)?

The desperation of your self-delusion is your own problem, my friend. Not ours.

Since only a handful here are, we'll pass along your approval.

The great equalizer, eh?

No, they are not. No matter how many times you want to proclaim this it will never, ever be true.

Ever.

Period.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

P.S. The password is "childish."

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

babelfish

Koy,

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

agapeo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE: The only case I can think where that is true is in the case of an infant who can’t evaluate the claims of theism or atheism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---Incorrect. Theism is learned (i.e., indoctrinated). Atheism is not, unless you count deprogramming as "learned."---

Umm, let me see if I understand this. Atheism is based on what is more reasonable to accept in regards to the existence of a diety. Since no evidence exists to support a reasonable conclusion that such a diety exists the atheist is more reasonable than a theist.

So what "reason" does a child use to support his natural-born atheism?

99Percent

theophilus: I'm afraid you've proven more than you meant to. Since all these, or similar, questions can be pressed against any phenomenal event, life becomes utterly inexplicable unelss we presuppose God to be directing events.

I drop a ball, it falls to the floor and bounces until it comes to a rest. Does this demonstrate:
a) an actual miracle by Jesus
b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.
c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd
d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.
e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.

It will not do to say, as atheists normally do, that phenomena are controlled by mere physical laws. That begs the question. As an assertion, it bears the burdern of proof and, as you've so ably demonstrated, such proof is impossible.

I have been posting here for two years and you have done, in this one post, a better job than I in demonstrating that life can only be explained from a Christian starting point.

I am afraid you are making a grave mistake. The difference between the "miracle" of a ball dropping and that of a severed head coming back on its place on its own is that the ball dropping is completely reproducible and not only that it can be done so within our human abilities and can be explained in our human ability to understand, namely because we formulate an isolatable cause which is gravity. The severing of the head coming back to its place is something that cannot be reproduced and cannot be explained precisely because it is not reproduceable. If it were then it would cease to be a miracle, wouldn't it?

Koyaanisqatsi

NO, goddamnit! Atheism--the ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN DEITY.

IT IS NOT A "BELIEF" SYSTEM!

Do you comprehend those painfully simple words?

ONLY the theist is making a claim. Repeat, ONLY the theist is making a claim.

Therefore, ONLY the theist must support that claim. Repeat, ONLY the theist must support the claim.

Do you comprehend those painfully simple words?

No "reason" is required since there is no such thing as "natural-born atheism" in the sense you are implying. Atheism--the absence of belief in a god or gods.

There is no "reason" necessary to not believe in fictional creatures! Fictional creatures are fictional creatures; that is an irrefutable fact.

Do you comprehend those painfully simple words?

If anyone claims that fictional creatures are not fictional creatures then they are the ones who must prove their claim.

Do you comprehend those painfully simple words?

Andrew_theist

Some more responses…

If the evidence for these events was overwhelming, say as good as the evidence for ionic dissociation in water, I might, possibly, consider the possibility of a little god, a god of healing who was overworked and underpaid and who couldn't get round to doing even a tiny fraction of the healing that needed to be done. Or perhaps a lazy god who sat on his cloud ignoring the world. Or perhaps an incompetent god who tried to do his magic spells and only rarely got them right.

This is the ‘God isn’t performing the way I expect argument’ this serves only to obscure the issue of whether there is a designer/creator of the universe. If there is God whether you like him or not is a separate issue.

It appears, by the way, that you did not notice my questions. I wonder if you would briefly define your theism. Specifically, what are your views on Baal, JHWH, Kali, and Zeus? I'd also be interested in the results of your open-mindedness when it comes to astrology and past life regression. Finally, where do you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate? Thanks.

For the sake of discussion my theism is the belief that a creator designer is responsible for this universe and life. Of course I have personal beliefs extending much further beyond that but I am neither defending nor promoting those views. If no God exists my personal views on God are moot. If some creator/designer exists then my views even if mistaken are still better then the view of no creator.

If by JHWH you mean Yahweh I would have an opinion on that. As for Baal, Kali and Zeus I don’t have an opinion one-way or the other. You see there is a difference. I don’t bill my self as an aZeus or aBaal. If I did make such a stand then I should be accountable to give reasoning for my point of view. There is a big difference between simply ignoring something and making a public statement about the truthfulness of something. What many atheists want to do is make a public statement declaring their unbelief in theism then claim it is the responsibility of theists to prove their belief under this silly notion that negative claims can’t or don’t have to be defended. That would be like me creating a web site denying the holocaust occurred then demanding those who say it did happen have to prove it. If they fail to do so to my satisfaction then we must conclude the holocaust didn’t occur. So I am allowed to enter a statement into the market place of ideas without having to defend it. If someone presents people who were in a concentration camp I can say they are victims of mass hallucination. If they show me scars inflicted by torture I can say prove this wasn’t the work of aliens.

About the evolution/creation debate?

You tell me. If I claim to be an ‘aevolutionist’ (a negative claim) does this mean those who are evolutionists have to prove to me their positive claim to my satisfaction? If they fail to do so should we conclude evolution is wrong? Since evolution is a fact claim wouldn’t the burden of proof be heavier than a belief claim like theism?

I am perfectly willing to defend my brand of naturalism. Just let me know if you wish me to do so. I think it would be fair if I were to defend it as the more reasonable position in contrast to whatever brand of theism you would see fit to espouse. This would be equitable as we both would have to support our respective worldviews.

Absolutely. I made this offer in another post,

Lets see if anyone here is really interested in hearing my evidence for God. I will be happy to engage them in a debate. Only it will be on a level playing field. The debate would be titled the cause of the universe designed or natural? I would be happy to defend the designed side while my opponent defends the natural side. Then there would be an even playing field that would make it much more difficult to employ creative imagination. Any takers?

Except of course that one position--atheist--is not a "point of view!" You keep equating theism with atheism, as if they are merely flipsides to the same coin and they are not in any way, shape or form, save the letters in both words.

Its not my fault you have bought into the delusion that atheism is not a worldview. Of course it is a worldview. It is the view that this world is best explained some way other than a creator/designer. They are flipsides to the same coin. The answer God, Creator/designer is to the question why are we here? Is there purpose to life? Are we here as the result of design or by chance and random forces. Theism is the answer God atheism is the answer to those questions not God. What disturbs me about this is how often I see atheists accepting some thought they read from some other atheist and they believe it as gospel truth without the least resistance or a shred of critical thinking.

Atheism is the absence of such beliefs. It is not a "point of view" or something that is learned. It is the default, natural starting point from birth and involves nothing abstract or mythological.

Again you are regurgitating something you read without giving it any thought at all. At birth you may have a point. I assume between then and now you have given the matter some thought and come to a conclusion.

The proof is in the thousands of cult factions, the instructions of Jesus/Paul to preach the gospel (aka, tell others people something they do not yet know about) and the theistic use of the words "believe" and "faith;" both of which betray a state dependent upon discovery and acceptance, which cannot possibly be applied to atheism (with the exception of deprogramming).

Nonsense Koyaanisqatsi. No one except you is talking about the gospel. Atheism regardless of your denials is a knowledge claim. If you merely doubt the existence of God then you are a skeptic or a weak believer. To be an atheist by definition (not by poetic interpretation) is the positive claim that no god or deity exists.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>