Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 08-21-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Billions of people believing in theistic entity/ies probably have some basis for their believe, even if you do not accept it.

That they have a basis for their beliefs doesn't mean the basis is sound. People used to believe the world was a flat disc, and they had good reason to believe so: it looked flat to them, and acting as if it were flat had no apparent adverse consequences, and in fact things seemed to get along pretty well under the assumption that it was flat. Unfortunately, their perspective was limited and they were wrong. But their basis for believing the world was flat was reasonable, until new knowledge came to light. Then their perspective had to change. There is no way modern spaceflight could be possible using scientific models of the earth as a flat disc.

Quote:

Let me just say this: If it walks like a duck, and if it looks a duck, and if it quakes like a duck, then it might just be a duck.

Yep, but it might not be. A more sophisticated examination of the situation could reveal it to be an automaton, or the guy seeing a duck might be hallucinating. The superficial examination of the duck would give you a reasonable basis to believe it is a duck, but like all scientific beliefs, it is subject to revision when better data come in. What was reasonable to believe in light of yesterday's knowledge is often absurdly wrong in light of today's.

SophistiCat · 08-21-2007, 07:09 PM

weltschmerz,

I still don't have your clarification as to whether you regard self-proclaimed atheists as liars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Of course, that was my original proposition in my original post in this thread that atheist tend to practice debating to deny what is obvious. I guess that I stand there still after this exchange.

Ditto Timetospend.

Here is my question again:

You stated that everyone believes in God, that God's existence is evident to everyone at all times. Now, a number of people have stated (and I concur) that they do not, in fact, believe in God and that God's existence is not at all evident to them. Before we continue any further, I would like to ask you something. When people say something that they know is not true, they are lying. Do you believe that we lie to you?

If you believe that we lie to you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Otherwise, you should clarify or amend your statement.

kennethamy · 08-21-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamondH

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

How is it self-contradictory? What is the self-contradiction? You can't just state that something is self-contradictory-you have to show it. Otherwise I'll think that you are self-contradictory. And I bet you wouldn't like that one bit!

The last two sentences are just expressions of emotion.

How does an all-good god tolerate evil?

How do you know the mind of god?

Well, one answer is that every evil is a necessary evil for a greater good. And there are other answers too. But how does any of this show that the notion of God implies a contradiction? The problem of evil might be an argument to show that an all-good, and all-powerful God cannot exist if there is evil in the world, but that doesn't show that God is an inconsistent notion. It could show (if it showed anything) only that God and evil cannot co-exist. Maybe the existence of evil is reason to think there is no God, but the existence of evil is not a reason to think that the notion of God is self-contradictory. There is a difference. (Do you know what it means to say that an idea is self-contradictory?)

Suppose I don't "know the mind of God". How does that show that God is self-contradictory?

kennethamy · 08-21-2007, 08:54 PM

Somehow, this thread transmutes from the presumption of atheism, to the presupposition (or assumption) of atheism, which are quite different things, just as the presumption of innocence in the law is quite different from the assumption of atheism. To assume atheism is to assume that atheism is true, and to imply that one believes it is true. But to presume atheism is not to assume that atheism is true, nor to imply belief that atheism is true. Just as to assume someone is innocent is to assume it is true that he is innocent, and imply belief that he is innocent. but to presume that someone is innocent is not to assume it is true that he is innocent. not to imply belief that he is innocent. So, the presumption of atheism has nothing to do with whether it is believed that atheism is true. (In the law, the prosecution presumes that the defendant is innocent even if the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty as hell).

weltschmerz · 08-21-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autonemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

Hello,

You say that if God exists then there should be some method(s) by which we can verify this. What method(s) are you speaking about specifically?

The same methods we use to verify that anything real exists. Observations, induction from observations, and testing those inductions by more observations. If gods are not subject to these methods, then they are not like the other things we consider real, they are instead unreal.

Hello,

We don't use the same methods to verify all facts. We don't use the same method of verification of mathematics that we do to observe wave refraction on beaches. You in fact, have not observed me so how do you know that I am real? It seems to me that you are inconsistent with your own stated views on how we know what we know (epistemology).

Thanks,

~ Alexander

post tenebras lux · 08-22-2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Could you kindly explain how your god reveals himself to an hour old newborn baby, whether this baby has been born into a loving family or has already been dumped in the latrine and left to die?

Hello,

We are creatures of God and hence God created (whether this creative power was through evolutionary processes or some other manner) us to function in such a way (throwing in a little Plantingian flavor) that given properly working cognitive functions, we know God. For a baby, this is obviously a process that develops as her cognitive abilities increase. In short, we are made to know God.

Thanks,

~ Alexander

So, in plain english, you think that my cognitive functions are not working properly?

Do you think that my cognitive disfunction affects me in any other way (other than not being able to "know god")? Am I unsafe to drive, am I not competent to enter into legal contracts or be a witness in a court case, etc.?

forty2oz · 08-22-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Let me just say this: If it walks like a duck, and if it looks a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then it might just be a duck.

This is the kind of mentality that modern science dispells on a regular basis. The earth looks flat when you're standing on it so for many years folks thought it to be so. We were wrong. The sun rises and sets, so for many years we thought it revolved around the earth. Wrong again. When we heard a thunder clap, we dreamt up mythological powers as the source of the mighty sound. Survey says?

...Bzzt!

The last time it looked walked, looked, and quacked like a duck for me personally, it was in fact not a duck at all. (It was a computer generated image in an AFLAC television commercial).

What you assume to be self evident could easily be bunkus, and what atheists are trying to tell you is that they already believe just that. Capeesh?

Gawen · 08-22-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

I would assume that you would agree that this is rare, not the norm.

I agree this is not the norm. Would you also agree that the bible is not 100% correct then?

Quote:

(By the way, I find evidence for this tribe to be a little spotty, the only report using the exact words that you used, word for word.)

Ask Marty Leipzig

Quote:

I would not be surprised for a tribe to exist somewhere or which existed some time in the past; I have yet to see any compelling argument for one. Even if one exists, the norm, by far, is for human societies to be theists, which is the more important point.

Again, you must agree if the report is true that the bible is not 100% correct in the matter that all men know/realise a god is evident in creation.

Quote:

Billions of people believing in theistic entity/ies probably have some basis for their believe, even if you do not accept it.

For the most part, these billions of people have achieved their beliefs through indoctrination and most of these when they were children. Because billions of people believe does not make the belief true.

Quote:

The universe in which I live is readily seen. Earlier tonight I was reading a thread on whether shorelines exist. Before reading it, I thought that they did, but afterwardsâ€¦ If we try hard enough, we can use theoretical rhetoric unaligned to reality to convince ourselves of just about anything.

I can do the same thing with any god I choose.

Quote:

I used first cause because of its excellence in showing that God exists and the difficulty in defeating it. I think that design is much better than I see represented on this data base, even though it is discussed ad nauseum.

The 1'st cause argument does not in any way prove or provide evidence of any god, or any creation of any god if one existed.

Quote:

I did not quote your three or four reasons. Let me just say this: If it walks like a duck, and if it looks a duck, and if it quakes like a duck, then it might just be a duck.

This is a very weak (if nonexistant) excuse for evidence of any god, or any creation performed by any god that may or may not exist. When you find the pillars that hold up the Earth, let me know. I may reconfigure my stance on the subject.

Quote:

To use created, contrived rhetoric to convince yourself that it is not a duck, regardless of how profound those words might be, is not really beneficial to anyone.

Quote:

Of course, that was my original proposition in my original post in this thread that atheist tend to practice debating to deny what is obvious. I guess that I stand there still after this exchange.

Yes, in this forum, you're mostly alone. Of all the diverse creation stories in the world, why do you deny them over yours? Then again, I take insult at you telling me that I deny what is NOT obvious. Typical Christian attitude...

Quote:

I respectfully disagree.

Unlike you, I will not say that many Christian theist come here to practice their faith and that they deny evolution (what we see as obvious).

Quote:

Once again, which deity is believed to be the cause of the universe will be assumed prior to the argument and in any case is often the catalyst for developing such arguments anyway.

Quote:

I agree with this. I believe that I have stated that my originally stated argument does not allow one to focus on the God of the Bible.

When you can show us a god that created, without using faith or presupposing a god for an argument without evidence, your argument will have a bit more punch.

Quote:

Thanks again.

No worries

weltschmerz · 08-22-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Quote:

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

Hello,

We are creatures of God and hence God created (whether this creative power was through evolutionary processes or some other manner) us to function in such a way (throwing in a little Plantingian flavor) that given properly working cognitive functions, we know God. For a baby, this is obviously a process that develops as her cognitive abilities increase. In short, we are made to know God.

Thanks,

~ Alexander

So, in plain english, you think that my cognitive functions are not working properly?

Do you think that my cognitive disfunction affects me in any other way (other than not being able to "know god")? Am I unsafe to drive, am I not competent to enter into legal contracts or be a witness in a court case, etc.?

Hello,

No, I think your cogitive functions work just fine. Part of my beliefs is that you do believe in God. Or, if one did not wish to press that far, one could say that your cognitive functions work because they were designed by God to work, at least for the most part. Your lack of belief in the latter claim would be explained by a cognitive mishap of some kind or it could be that God has not made His truth known to you yet.

Thanks,

~ Alexander

SophistiCat · 08-22-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

No, I think your cogitive functions work just fine. Part of my beliefs is that you do believe in God. Or, if one did not wish to press that far, one could say that your cognitive functions work because they were designed by God to work, at least for the most part. Your lack of belief in the latter claim would be explained by a cognitive mishap of some kind or it could be that God has not made His truth known to you yet.

I don't see how one can believe in something without knowing it. If I don't know that I believe in God, then I don't believe in God. And in no sense can God's existence be evident to me.

You still haven't answered my question. Here it is, for the third time.

You stated that everyone believes in God, that God's existence is evident to everyone at all times. Now, a number of people have stated (and I concur) that they do not, in fact, believe in God and that God's existence is not at all evident to them. Before we continue any further, I would like to ask you something. When people say something that they know is not true, they are lying. Do you believe that we lie to you?

If you believe that we lie to you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Otherwise, you should clarify or amend your statement.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2007, 08:54 PM	#74
kennethamy Contributor Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 34,421	Somehow, this thread transmutes from the presumption of atheism, to the presupposition (or assumption) of atheism, which are quite different things, just as the presumption of innocence in the law is quite different from the assumption of atheism. To assume atheism is to assume that atheism is true, and to imply that one believes it is true. But to presume atheism is not to assume that atheism is true, nor to imply belief that atheism is true. Just as to assume someone is innocent is to assume it is true that he is innocent, and imply belief that he is innocent. but to presume that someone is innocent is not to assume it is true that he is innocent. not to imply belief that he is innocent. So, the presumption of atheism has nothing to do with whether it is believed that atheism is true. (In the law, the prosecution presumes that the defendant is innocent even if the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty as hell).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.