Rusting Car Bumper

No. Its not an ad hominem attack. Christians have even responded as I have claimed.

I saw a debate with Michael Shermer and he asked the audience to raise their hands if they were believers. About 80% did. Then he asked "If I refute the arguments of the theist here how many of you will give up your faith?" Not a single person replied in the positive. His point is that beliefs are not predicated on some robotic following of abstract argumentation. They are much more complex than that.

This should not be interpreted as an attack on Christians but merely a discussion fo the nature of belief.

DC

theghostinthemachine

By stupid comments like this:

"As an atheist who looks forward to reading (and critiquing) the best the god-talkers can muster in their and our forums, there is nothing like the mix of disappointment and disgust when yet another version of the ontologicalifragilisticexpialidosis song and dance is trotted out as proof for the existence of a god-thing (or not-thing, I suppose). "

That above quote is from you. "God-talkers", "ontologicalifragilisticexpialidosis", etc, ad nausium.


If you consider responding to ad homs with abrubtness to be snide and whiny, then so be it. Take a look at the thread however adn read it.

Yes, I have been there. And...I usally let the atheist have the last word! I think it makes them feel good. Maybe too good however, because I see threads like this with comments like yours. My favorite thing is when these internet atheists disagree with the majority of contemporary atheistic thinkers without knowing it - such an example being the logical problem of evil. You can of course try to point out the errors, but beyond this, it is a matter of persuasion, not rational arguments.

First, you do not start out with the same assumptions that I do. I think you will find our assumption quite different - but here we have atheists asking theists to justify their assumptions, while the atheist feels no need to justify theirs.
Secondly, I find that most atheists in these forums do think that atheism is the default position. Certainly, you have heard of the invisbile pink unicorn? Adn if you do not consider atheism as a prima facie truth, would you care to demonstrate the truth of atheism?

Hypnos

Hmm. I don't think so - but put it to the vote by all means. As I said, I think atheists argue because they find it interesting. Some probably think "It would be nice if there was a God, who was all powerful and would ensure only good prevailed (though he seems to be on a coffeee break at the moment)". But, after examining the evidence, and coming to the best conclusions from the available evidence (like the black box in the desert) most atheists can no more believe in God than in the invisible pink unicorn you mention, or fairies, ghosts, goblins, vampires, aliens or anything else for which there is no evidence. They may exist, but it doesn't follow from the available evidence.

Beyond evidence, faith is all very well. I can't argue with you or anyone who says they have an internal conviction that there is a god, or that they personally comunicated with god, etc, because that cannot either be proved or disproved.

However, I'd put it to you as I like to put many things. Before you instantly believe anything (and humans are inherently "believeing machines" - they want to "believe" things rather than "not believe" them) ask yourself "What is more likely?". That (i) you actually had a personal communication with an all powerful deity who controls everything and created the universe or (ii) the chemical soup that makes up your brain sometimes gives you comfortable ideas to base your life around, so you can go on with your purpose, which is to live long enough to procreate and ensure your genes are passed on.

An equivalent example is "Deja Vu". A lot of laypeople assume that there is something spooky about "feeling this happened before". That it means something significant. Consider what is more likely however. You brain has machinery that is designed to tell you when you have seen something before, to better help it learn and survive. This machinery, like all of our brain, is not perfect, and gets it wrong sometimes, so that something we haven't experienced before, is registred as something we have. Of course, other bits of our brain say "hang on, that doesn't seem right", so the combination is the strange double feeling we call deja vu. Nothing spooky though.

So look at the universe, look at the evidence, and come to the most likely conclusion. Take the bible in that by all means. What is more likely though? A divinely inspired manual for existence, or the collection of writings of desert nomads, describing things that happened long past, making the occasional mistake as they try to put together a sense of meaning in a world that has little meaning. (A valid thing to do of course). But looking at it now, it is no more than that.

What, exactly is irrational about this approach?

Hypnos

I guess if you say that "I will start with no assumptions" is an assumption or default position. I think atheists like to start with "Cogito ergo sum" and then move on from there. I think that's as close to "no assumptions" as you can get. Theists of course start with many aummptions, one of which is "There is a god, how do I go about proving it" or "The bible is innerrant" or something like that.

As always, the onus is not on atheists to prove there is no god (or no invisible pink unicorn for that matter) - the onus is onn theists to provide some evidence for god.

theghostinthemachine

Which proves...? First, you could of course cite me the source for this debate, who Shermer was debating, and the full context of his comments. Shermer is known for quite a bit of word play in my opinion, and his monthly column in Sciam is a great demonstration of that. Secondly, most believers are not trained in philosophy, and it does not surprise me that most would not surrender their belief. Had Shermer asked if they were convinced that their belief was wrong, I doubt the answers would have been the same.


Hmmm...perhaps you could explain these comments:

"As an atheist who looks forward to reading (and critiquing) the best the god-talkers can muster in their and our forums, there is nothing like the mix of disappointment and disgust when yet another version of the ontologicalifragilisticexpialidosis song and dance is trotted out as proof for the existence of a god-thing (or not-thing, I suppose). "

(me) That is pretty insulting making reference to theists as god-talkers.

"In fact, I can't quite figure just what McHugh's god is good for -- er, excuse me, not-good for besides a vague, warm-fuzzy tingle that piggy-backs somewhere inside that fleeting and pathetic intui-wish that *shucks* the universe luvs me."

(me) Pure rhetoric.

" More to the point, I read philosophical paper after philosophical paper from these armchair Truth seekers and theists, and maybe it's just me, but after proffering yet another anemic variant of some tired and long-since demolished argument, or re-treading the now well-shelled ground of previously shot-down god-talkers, they can't seem to help themselves and almost always conclude their papers/sermons with some breed of “..since I have shown blah blah blah in the preceding piece, therefore, God exists.”

(me) Now theists can't be philosophers? Plus a nice dose of rhetoric since many maintain that the ontological argument has never been clearly refuted. And I am inclined to agree. My friend however, thinks it a long gone conclsion that the argument is worthless, adn that his assertion on the matter is all that is needed.

"Or is it really not like that – is the success or failure of their arguments to withstand serious scrutiny from opposing viewpoints ultimately irrelevant to their belief in a god? If one can claim “faith” as a source of belief, shouldn’t he or she openly admit to forgoing any sort of reasoned stance to their theism? If so, what of this entire project? Isn’t it more than a bit disingenuous and dishonest on the theist’s part who engages in debate, if he or she also doesn’t admit to riding that roller coaster I just mentioned? That is, either they believe on faith, and we have nothing to discuss .. or they believe because of reasoned arguments, and when said arguments are soundly beaten down, their stance on the god issue must (if only temporarily) reverse. Why do I not get the feeling any debating theists would agree with this post?"

(me) Or we could reverse this situation on the atheist. Why debate a atheist, they only misrepresent theistic arguments and no amount of evidence would convince them because they do not want to believe. Would you care to examine that side of the issue? And what are we to make of the atheists presuppositions that are believed, not based on evidence, but...faith.

"My theory is that many "intellectual" theists are not satisfied by faith, and need to reassure themselves that they are being rational to a certain extent. Their minds want to work on concepts, and not just accept them. It gives them something for their minds to work on, endlessly chewing over the same things so they feel like they are very clever.
It's true that most of the main arguments do not stand up to real scrutiny, but it's enough to comfort a very intelligent person who really doesn't want to think he's just taking things on faith, and nothing else."

(me) You don't find this to be insulting towards theists? These 'intelligent' theists just want to feel good about their faith, so even though the arguments have been refuted, the arguments are enough of a comfort..." Yeah right, and would you mind telling me why atheists are the standards of good arguments and bad arguments? WHy are you the standard? Because from what I am hearing, you are all acting like you are that standard. Most intellectual theists would disagree with the above quote, and maintain that atheists are the ones acting irrational by not accepting the arguments. Trying to convince the atheist, does not make the atheist the standard for good and bad arguments. The ontological argument is a valid argument by the way - atheists however maintain that it is not sound. And this is in part, a matter of persuasion, in which theists maintain that atheists are not convinced because they don't want to be - not because the argument is unsound. So do us all a favor, and step down from that high horse - atheist were not appointed judges of good and bad arguments at the creation of the universe.

"The need to believe in the supernatural has nothing to do with intelligence, which leaves the intelligent believers in it with the problem of making it seem sensible.

Since it is only sensible in terms of their need, if they are not able to admit it (unlike our very own Emotional) they are obliged to propose a mix of convoluted and spurious arguments.
Attempting to knock them down is as futile as attempting to knock over one of those big wobbly clown figures which always comes upright because it’s standing on a weighted, semi-spherical base."

(me) Those theists just won't admit it, so they propose a mix of convoluted and spurious arguments. Another insult.

"Streamline, though they are few and far between, every once in a while we *do* have posters who, when all their attempts at logical justification are beaten down and shown to be irrational, break away from their belief, and de-convert.

By and large, though, Stephen and scumble have the right of it."

(me) One of the dumber moderators. I would say he reaches dumbassdom in fact. But no, that is not insulting is it?

"I think this is a very valid question. My feeling over many years of "arguing" with Xtians is that only two results occur:

(i) they get upset and cry
(ii) they disappear into the sunset, leaving me a bible and a note that says I can still be saved.

I think they argue because they naively think they can convert us, and we argue because its all terribly interesting that anyone could be so silly."

(me) I bet this makes you feel good all over. Yo smart atheist, you go!

"There's also the problem of cognitive dissonance. The "intelligent" theist can't reconcile his/her irrational belief, so they go to great lengths to make it appear rational. The problem is, of course, that the entirety is skewed from the beginning, because it's based on a false premise that is presupposed to be true.

To them, they're arguing rationally because this initial false premise has turned a zero into a one prior to any processing; thus any crunching of zeroes and ones from that point forward is always off. The process may be the same, but the outcome will always be incorrect, because of the false initial premise.

That's why the accept circular reasoning to be valid; they have no choice. It's all circular when you begin with a presupposition of truth."

(me) Yeah sure.

"You left out denial too.The argument cannot be refuted unless the theist achknowledges that he is delusional and impertinent.Thats an important theist criteria.God is my saviour, and his son is my heavenly saint

[rolls over and sobs in corner]"

(me) This is not an attack or insult on theists? Be honest now.

"quote:That is why these debates are generally a waste of time.

Thats not necessarily true.There are plenty of laughs to go around, so its not all in vain"

(me) And this is not an insult? Yeah right, the list goes on...Not one of you are looking for rational discusions - you are looking to insult, mock, and stroke your fake ego. In my non-christian days, I would have told you to piss off because the fact that you are morons is pretty obvious. And what do yo know? Not much has changed...I won't tell you to piss off, but you sure are acting like a bunch of morons when your only counter-arguments seem to be insults, and the high and mighty "We have long refuted that argument, lets get together and talk about it!" "Lets talk about how right we are, maybe theists will actually believe us if we assert that we are right enough times."

Hypnos

Ghostie.

I am not sure why you are here.

While I will admit some of the posts you have pointed out are a little unfair, many of them are not unreasonable, and you yourself are not too short with insults.

And while you may think my comment on crying and bibles was trite, it has happened to me twice. This is why I stopped talking about christianity to anyone I know is a devout christian - I don't want to cause them to be unhappy by arguing against their faith(and I am *not* being patronising). In general, theists here are a little more robust, and take the witty to and fro of banter as part of the whole thing.

Another thing - for the most part, writers on this forum on the atheist side have already done a lot of reading and thinking, whereas quite a few (but not all) of the theists wander in blindly having never really given much of the philosophy any thought (many do not know what the ontological argument is) and think they are going to quickly win some arguments and perhaps convert some people. Many atheists perhaps, as you point out, are not gentle enough with these people, directing them to FAQs elsewhere top stop repititive argument. Both sides can be accused of insults of course.

So why not get over it and say what you want to say.

Steven Carr

[Yes, I have been there. And...I usally let the atheist have the last word! I think it makes them feel good. Maybe too good however, because I see threads like this with comments like yours. My favorite thing is when these internet atheists disagree with the majority of contemporary atheistic thinkers without knowing it - such an example being the logical problem of evil. You can of course try to point out the errors, but beyond this, it is a matter of persuasion, not rational arguments.
[/QUOTE]

This from a man who declared that 'evil exists' is a 'necessary truth'!

Just after declaring that 'Evil, as Christian theists view it, is the privation of good.',.

How can the existence of a 'privation' of anything be a necessary truth?

No wonder he wanted to give me the last word , as he was running into such problems....

Curiously Ghost failed to name a single atheist philospher who has declared that Plantinga's transworld depravity has knocked the logical problem of evil into a cocked hat.

He did name 'Gale and a few others' as people who do not accept Plantinga's declaration of victory.

Curious that Ghost can only name atheist philosophers who disagree with him, while unable to name any atheist philosophers who agree with him, although Ghost declares these are the great majority.

Does Ghost really think an argument from unnamed authority is a
valid argument?

What did Ghost post that was intended to point out my errors?
'Plantinga argument maintains that in order for there to be a contradiction, more premise are needed that are necessary truths, which the athiest has not offered.'

So in order to show a contradiction between the premises, atheists must show that these are necessary truths..... ?!?!

Perhaps Ghost can tell us how atheists can show that truths (necessary truths or not) can every possibly contradict each other....

Ghost reinforces the original poster's view that theists are not deconverted by showing all the holes and fallacies in their arguments.

Koyaanisqatsi

Normal, are you seriously going to argue that you can see no qualitative difference in saying, "I believe this is true, based on little to no verifiable evidence" and, "I believe this is true, based on considerable and varried verifiable evidence?"

Or are you now going to make the same mistake that theghost made, which I outline below?

Better yet, let's go back to what I was arguing and correctly state that irrational belief is irrational; i.e., belief based upon acceptance of asserted truth soley because the truth was asserted, yes? Theists believe because the bible tells them to believe; a bible that they further accept to be true prior to reading it in order to discover whether or not that which is contained within it could be true or not. It is accepted to be true prior to any examination of whether or not it even could be true. In fact, that's a pre-requisite for being able to read the "truth" allegedly contained in the bible; the acceptance of it being true!

That is the very definition of irrational.



And how would you propose I do such a thing? Atheism is "without the belief in a god or gods." If I hold no beliefs in a god or gods, then my statement, "I hold no beliefs in a god or gods" is prima facie true. There, how's that?

Funny how theists always attempt these existential digressions never reallizing that their very existence proves that no god could exist. The only reason to posit a god concept is to mandate objective existence. If there is no method of measuring objective existence, then there can be no god.

You're only affirming my atheism, while at the same time discounting the objective existence of a god.

Sure. You start.

Was this directed at me? If so, then I don't recall making the statement in quotes you are apparently attributing to me so, other than a lovely little strawman, what has this to do with what I posted regarding the manner in which cognitive dissonance effects theist arguments (IMO)?

Would you care to stop beating your wife?

Yes. I have been board certified to be one hundred percent free of any presuppositions, including the presupposition of presuppositional status.

Now, would you care to address the obviously false notion of accepting the bible to be true, for example, simply because the bible tells you it is true? Or, even worse, accepting the bible to be true simply because your parents or your cult leader tells you it is true? And, further, that you must accept it to be true or you won't be able to determine if it is true?

If I "accept" that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, for example, I have over thirty seven years of direct, personal experience of that physical event as well as over (at least) five thousand years of recorded human history to more than adequately cull from in order to support the acceptance of that "belief" as "true," yes?

If you "accept" that the bible is true, then what are you basing it upon? That others have accepted it to be true? That others have told you to accept it as true? That you have somehow personally experienced that the bible is "true?" That's absurdist nonsense and you know it.

Have you ever seen the dead rise? Or talking snakes, burning bushes or donkeys? Have you ever witnessed someone walking on water or summoning storms or turning water into wine or healing the sick that couldn't be easily explained through non-divine methods?

You have no like corroborative evidence to base your acceptance of the bible as true and that, of course, is the point. Merely stating "I believe this is true," is worthless in a debate, which was, last time I checked, the purpose of this thread's OP.

The difference in presuppositions is clear, obvious and well defined to just about anyone who isn't already mired in the cognitive dissonance I mentioned. You're not only affirming my atheism and disaffirming your theism with this line of argumentation, you're affirming my initial post. Your zeroes and ones have gotten switched and this is the result; you don't even realize that by arguing for subjectivity, you're discounting the objectivity inherent in the presupposition of a god!

I agree that one can never prove to an absolute certainty that we all weren't just created five minutes ago with our memories intact, which means that we can't prove objectivity of existence, which, in turn negates the existence of a god, since its very existence would prove objectivity.

If our existence can not be determined to be objective, then you can safely conclude that there is no god mandating objective existence, so it would be pretty damn irrational of you to assert one exists, yes?


:banghead:

Round and round she goes, where she stops... Well, moot point, really, since "she," apparently, never stops. And yes, I was using the pronoun "she" in a metaphorical sense.

wordsmyth

"People need insults. Most people behave so abominably that they cry out for abuse. Charity moves us to meet this need. Abuse is a form of attention, and a little accommodating attention makes anyone feel human again."

- Shakespeare

theghostinthemachine

Did you read anything I wrote? It should be apparent why I am upset. These atheists are not looking for any type of rational discussion - they are looking to insult theists to make themeselves feel better. "Look at me!" declares the atheist. "I...ughhh...we have long defeated theistic arguments! Now on with the debates, we must have laughter!"