Photocrat

I would say (D) -- atheists are such because they believe that it is the most rational position.

OTOH, I am a theist, because I believe that it is the most rational... Irrational emotion (as in option C) has just never been one of my failings.

brighid

Rimstalker -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, then I am damned to hell and I will go there with my head held high for I will give into tyranny simply because there is a god label on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?


WILL NOT GIVE IN TO TYRANNY - that's what I get for NOT proof reading!! SORRY!!!!

Brighid

Wyrdsmyth

Andrew,

You wrote:

But I did respond to you. I simply didn't quote you and respond point-by-point. I noticed you didn't respond to all of my points, either. For example, you never responded to my comment that "If we don't have any evidence for or against unicorns, what should our default position be?" You've been very selective in which of my comments you've responded to. I suspect that is because you don't have adequate responses to many of my comments.

You put yourself on the hook, with your insistence that atheists find the idea of god "abhorrent." I'd like to know where you get such notions... Do you get them from atheists, or do you just contrive your own reasons why you think atheists don't believe in any gods? That is what I'm trying to get you to think about.

<strong> It is not so much that we think the universe is best explained without God, it is that we don't perceive any evidence for a god. Without any evidence in favor of divine intervention in our world, we look for naturalistic explanations. We can say rain is caused by the rain god, and just go with that assumption, or we can study clouds, cycles of precipitation and come up with a theory to explain why it rains, and then test it. It may not be perfect, but when it has some predictive power we begin to call it successful. On a greater scale, the same applies to cosmology and the origins of life. We can simply say, "God did it" or we can look for naturalistic reasons and attempt to construct theories about how all this came about. If we are still technologically and philosophically dumbfounded by many aspects of the universe, that does not support the idea of a deity. It doesn't rule one out, but it doesn't support the idea, either.

But I have been listening to you. I just don't agree with you. And what I see right now is you stuck on repeatedly quibbling over definitions for atheism. But I'm not going to bite. I find the semantic distinctions irrelevant. And I think I know what you're trying to do... It's just an argument tactic. You're playing the language game, you'd rather get bogged down in that than discuss the bigger issue, which is about a lack of evidence for deities.

Your insistence that we don't believe in gods not because we lack evidence, but because we don't want to believe is what has led to this. The fact that we atheists don't believe because we don't find there to be enough evidence is indirectly an attack on theism. If you want to discount our reasons for not believing, you have to show that there is enough adequate evidence for believing in some deity, and then show that we just don't want to accept it. Waving your arms around and saying, "The whole universe is evidence God exists" just won't cut it with me. It's a lazy way of thinking, and as with my lottery example in a previous post, I have shown you why IDist arguments are fundamentally unsound. It seems very arrogant and wrongheaded to me for us to say we've already ruled out all possible naturalistic explanations for how life could have evolved, and that the only answer left is "god." I think we have a long way to go before we get to that point, if ever. It took a long time for humans to understand the physical processes behind clouds, rain, lightning and so forth... It takes a lot of work and patience to come up with naturalistic theories. The easy way out has always been to say thunder occurs because Zeus is angry, or the rain god makes rain, or this flood must be happening because we were bad and some god is punishing us. People all over the earth have done this throughout history... it's called anthropomorphizing nature. Putting a face on the unknown. It's inferring an "intelligent design" behind the processes of nature, some divine agency causing things to occur. Thus, insurance companies still call destruction from floods, tornadoes and earthquakes "Acts of God." But nowadays, I doubt even most theists believe that such disasters are sent by a god. Theism has become more refined and subtle. Gods are no longer said to interact with the world, or live on Mount Olympus, or send plagues to punish nations. Gods have been pushed right out of our naturalistic world, into another dimension where they can't be interacted with or falsified.

Another debating tactic... To accuse me of changing the topic. Give me a break. Our conversation has quite naturally grown out of your initial responses and my replies. So what if it has gone beyond the initial topic? But perhaps you are anxious now to leave, and as Helen suggested, you only came here to advertise your own website. I don't know what to think of your claim that you don't have time to respond to the other posters, other than an angry quip thrown at Helen. You seem angry and accusatory, maybe because she's a self-avowed theist yet doesn't seem to be on "your side"? You seem to have plenty of time to converse on your own site. What's the difference if you spend some time here instead of there? Do you prefer an environment where perhaps more people will be on "your side"? Is that it? Maybe you're here, fishing for atheists to come to your site to debate with, but you really had no interest in discussing your ideas here with any great depth.

Yes... So you could have just chosen option (A), but you wanted to get your shots in. You didn't want to admit you fell into one of the three categories I created. But now you admit it, so I can respect that.

I think the tension occurred with you not wanting to admit you lined up well with one of my pre-made answers, and instead asserted it told you what I think of theists (as if I were being arrogant) and you wanted to take me down a peg. But as I've already stated, I encouraged theists to give their own reasons if not covered in the given options. I think you engaged the debate, willingly, by not saying "option (A) for me." But so what if there is some tension... I think we've had a civil discussion so far.

I can't speak for other atheists, so I don't know about that. Personally, I don't rule out the supernatural on a priori grounds. I don't start with the premise that no supernatural is possible or that "I don't like it." I have never seen an atheist state that as their initial premise, either. I have seen many theists assert that atheists have this as their fundamental presupposition. But I think this may only be a tactic in argument. There is an important difference from a priori rejection of even the possibility of the supernatural, and saying "I don't think we've exhausted all the naturalistic explanations... Let's not put a god sticker on this just yet -- let's keep looking." I hope you can see that difference.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Hello Wyrdsmth,

Just read your reply. I'll continue to respond as long as you care to since you started the thread. However here on the sec web I never reply to everyone as there are at least 10 atheists to every theist and it becomes a war of attrition.

Anyway good reply well thoughtout. I will respond tomorrow time permitting. As for the charge of just plugging my site? I have been a member of this board, Cygnus board and the Holysmoke echo long before I had my own site and will continue to do so long after. This is something I enjoy! Well okay most of the time.

Andrew_theist

Greetings Wyrdsmyth,

Lets take this from the top. This is the issue we are primarily arguing about, my answer to your question.

I think many atheists spend a great deal of time, effort, considerable intelligence and imagination convincing and reassuring themselves this world is free for us to do as we please with no meddlesome God to interfere. I think the atheists who participate in boards like this are less sure of their convictions and do so to help shore up their beliefs.

Hopefully we agree this is the point I am defending and I am free to defend it as I see fit.

What I am saying here is that atheists use intelligence and imagination to reassure themselves there is no God. As a result you seem to want me to submit evidence for God so I can see this is not the case. However I don’t need to do that to prove my point Instead I will submit the evidence you have provided in this dialog concerning the meaning of atheism.

Regarding our dialog about the meaning of atheism you have employed intelligence and imagination to avoid the meddlesome meaning it really has. I submitted a quote from the Oxford dictionary, which was intellectualized as being written by some undergraduates. I then submitted quotes from atheists on the board including Mark Carrier and the Sec Webs dictionary, which were trivialized as quibbling over definitions. Now if you can use intelligence and imagination to re-invent what atheism means how can I possibly present any evidence for God that you won’t intellectualize away? And what evidence can I possibly submit that your fundamentalist belief won’t refute by simply saying is not?

But I have been listening to you. I just don't agree with you. And what I see right now is you stuck on repeatedly quibbling over definitions for atheism. But I'm not going to bite. I find the semantic distinctions irrelevant. And I think I know what you're trying to do... It's just an argument tactic. You're playing the language game, you'd rather get bogged down in that than discuss the bigger issue, which is about a lack of evidence for deities.

You’re absolutely right that the problem is you just don’t agree. It doesn’t matter what evidence I present or if I quote fellow atheists because this is a fundamental belief you are espousing and facts and evidence be damned. If you can use your intelligence and creativity to re-invent the meaning of atheism in light of powerful evidence to the contrary what chance is there for evidence of God?

I’d also like to point out why it is so advantages to argue in a thread that is at least 7 to 1 in favor of atheism. Because if I insisted on a point being true in light of evidence to the contrary half as strong as I presented I would be flamed on this thread from here to kingdom come. I would be branded a hopeless fundamentalist who believes in things in spite of the evidence. Yet you won’t hear a peep out of the so-called objective free thinkers on this board. So you can get away with things that I would be skinned alive for.

Secondly why are you so animated about this definition of atheism? Because by defining atheism as merely a lack of belief you frame the question is such away to avoid any real discussion or comparison of alternatives. You can launch salvos against the claims of theism while never having to defend the counter belief of God not existing or natural and material forces alone accounting for all we observe. By framing the question this way all any atheist need to is provide the slightest objection to any evidence and claim this refutes it. Then use this shallow victory to substantiate the claim that no God exists while never having to defend that statement. Now could you possibly ask for a greater advantage to make sure the outcome comes out the only way you are willing to accept it?

Your insistence that we don't believe in gods not because we lack evidence, but because we don't want to believe is what has led to this. The fact that we atheists don't believe because we don't find there to be enough evidence is indirectly an attack on theism. If you want to discount our reasons for not believing, you have to show that there is enough adequate evidence for believing in some deity, and then show that we just don't want to accept it. Waving your arms around and saying, "The whole universe is evidence God exists" just won't cut it with me.

I have shown above the futility of evidence to persuade you regarding something you have made up your mind about. The problem will be the same as it was above its not that you won’t listen you just won’t agree. What could possibly be ‘adequate’ evidence? I have offered a preponderance of evidence regarding the definition of atheism and it was rejected in favor of a intelligent rationalizing and imagination.

It's a lazy way of thinking, and as with my lottery example in a previous post, I have shown you why IDist arguments are fundamentally unsound.

You did? Here is the conversation:

It shouldn't. Imagine the odds of you winning a certain lottery are 1 in 500 billion, to the billionth power (i.e., really unlikely). Yet amazingly, you win. Now tell me, what can you infer from this? That a supernatural being must therefore exist, and arranged it so you won? After all, it was "astronomically unlikely" for you to win. So you may decide that it makes more sense for some "guiding force" to have intervened, than to say you won merely by "blind chance."

Of course it won’t for the person who is not really giving consideration for any possibility other than the one they have already concluded is true. Your fundamental commitment to blind chance, not the odds is what ices it. If I hit the lottery with one chance given the odds above it wouldn’t be proof of divine intervention but it would be over whelming evidence to any reasonable person that a fix was in place. The only reason a sane rational person would think otherwise is if they had already concluded a fix wasn’t possible. This underscores exactly the point I was making about using considerable intelligence and imagination. Not that to no one’s surprise you will respond with more rationalizations because you have already concluded the only answer you find acceptable.

There was no response to my rebuttal. Yet amazingly in your own mind this was a victory of showing how fundamentally unsound my argument was. As I mentioned to your earlier there is no amount of evidence that can be presented to someone who has shown how willing they are to wrap reality around their pre-conceived notions and vein imaginations. Of course I anticipate your response will be utter denial, which is seen as acceptable on a board where the overwhelming majority are in agreement with you.

I noticed you didn't respond to all of my points, either. For example, you never responded to my comment that "If we don't have any evidence for or against unicorns, what should our default position be?" You've been very selective in which of my comments you've responded to. I suspect that is because you don't have adequate responses to many of my comments.

Actually I did comment on this one early on only I used the Santa red herring instead of the unicorn one. In fact I used it as another example to support the position I am defending. That atheists use intelligence and imagination to avoid the issue of God.

Here is the most popular one. There is no more evidence for God than there is for Santa. This is sheer nonsense. The answer Santa is to the question why are there presents under the tree on Christmas morning? The answer Santa can be easily falsified with a naturalistic explanation that is vastly superior, repeatable and demonstrable. If the two invocations are essentially the same why haven’t atheists produced some naturalist explanation that is as good or superior? Because there isn’t any and the analogy is false. So in my opinion many atheists prefer an unknown naturalistic explanation because they just as soon there are no meddling deity raining on their parade.

Jack the Bodiless

The problem here is that YOU are trying to tell US what WE believe. just as many Christians insist on option A because their Bible tells them that all men know (the J/C) God exists: apparently it doesn't matter what WE say, their minds are made up.

As atheists, we have the right to declare what WE believe. If that doesn't match your preferred definition, then your definition is wrong.

Atheism is, quite simply, a lack of belief in God. We know this, because we ARE atheists. You seem to be equivocating "denying" with the psychological state of being "in denial". I deny that the Earth is flat: that doesn't mean I'm "in denial" because I secretly know it's flat but cannot admit it. I am also prepared to accept the possibility that the Earth is indeed flat and there is a worldwide conspiracy to conceal this: however, I don't lie awake at night worrying about this, just as I do not worry about the possibility that there is a God of some sort.

HelenM

Andrew if you were upset with me because it seemed like I was getting in the way of your conversations here, I apologize.

It wasn't 'personally' directed; you might be right though, if you are thinking I seem to oppose what theists say here more than atheists.

I guess I just don't feel like defending theists much at the moment.

But I do try to be respectful. Pretty often I hold myself back from joining in 'anti-Christian' rants, in fact . (Or even, starting them )

Or maybe it's actually the Holy Spirit who does that.

And I do oppose what non-Christians say, when I believe it's wrong and I am moved to do so. (I don't believe anyone could respond to every post...even though I might have tried at one time...! )

love
Helen

jojo-sa

In my humble opinion atheist are atheist because they just have to little knowledge....

Peace be with you all

HelenM

So you have more knowledge than them and that's given you a 'humble opinion'?

The Apostle Paul is said to have written:

(1 Cor 8b)

So much for knowledge...

Ohhh, you are a non-Christian theist . What do your authoritative texts say on this, then?

love
Helen

jojo-sa

helen

It says Iqraq. Quran 96:1

read ,study, analyse and pass on the knowledge .

This means read up on everything.