The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[mikkel_the_dane]

If only theists dedicated some time and thought to explaining their beliefs and why they are real. Oh, wait a minute? I have no bias against theism, I treat their claims exactly as I treat all other claims, why would I not.

The word real has no objective refenent.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that you really want to debate the religious depictions because those you can defeat (in your own mind) using material facts. But when the discussion sticks to the actual question of God's possible nature and existence, you have no "ammo" because materialism doesn't function in that arena of debate. Too bad for you. All ready to fight the evil theists, and no bullets. So you have to go fight with the mythical religious imagery, instead.

Yeah, are you sure you want to accuse atheists of bias? The irony is getting too much to ignore. Anyway I'll play along, atheists are wrong about your beliefs because they won't share your views on why they are valid, it seems a little....what's the word I'm looking for, biased, yes that's the word.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, are you sure you want to accuse atheists of bias? The irony is getting too much to ignore. Anyway I'll play along, atheists are wrong about your beliefs because they won't share your views on why they are valid, it seems a little....what's the word I'm looking for, biased, yes that's the word.

Well, we are all biased. You are biased in that you believe you have objective evidence that science is the best method we have. I am biased because I believe in humans as such and I have no evidence for that.

 

[Sheldon]

So now you are saying they can be seen, your head must be spinning, you change your mind so much.

Cognitive dissonance.

Just a thought of course. The there is this:

The law of non contradiction.

So that would seem to imply that it's irrational to hold ideas at the same time that contradict one another. For example a deity that has limitless knowledge and power and mercy, that created a world and allows ubiquitous suffering in it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cognitive dissonance.

Just a thought of course. The there is this:

The law of non contradiction.

So that would seem to imply that it's irrational to hold ideas at the same time that contradict one another. For example a deity that has limitless knowledge and power and mercy, that created a world and allows ubiquitous suffering in it.

Or that world is physical. when we can't observe that for all of the world.

 

[Sheldon]

And any debate that follows will have to be based on something other than knowledge (desire, subjective function, etc.). Or left to stand as it is (agnostic).

As many atheists do of course. Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims? You never have addressed that one.

 

[Sheldon]

This is false. Religions are not a geographical phenomenon.

Great go to Afghanistan, and then tell the Taliban your beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

You aren't doing atheism any favors, here. First, your argument is entirely semantic. And second, ignoring the question is not a logical response to a question. It's just willful ignorance. And finally, if ignoring the question really is the atheist's response, why don't they ever shut up about it?

I'm glad to hear you feel this way, now one more time. Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great go to Afghanistan, and then tell the Taliban your beliefs.

But they are not all Afghans. So your example doesn't work.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem is that you really want to debate the religious depictions because those you can defeat (in your own mind) using material facts. But when the discussion sticks to the actual question of God's possible nature and existence, you have no "ammo" because materialism doesn't function in that arena of debate. Too bad for you. All ready to fight the evil theists, and no bullets. So you have to go fight with the mythical religious imagery, instead.

Nor do you have ammo. You, too, can say nothing, nada, about God's possible nature and existence -- yet for reasons you cannot explain, you do accept his existence. For reasons you also cannot explain, you do not accept the existence of Thor. Equally arbitrary.

 

[Sheldon]

What you think constitutes "existence" is very narrow compared to most humans. So I'm not surprised by this comment.

I'm not sure a bare appeal to numbers, a known fallacy in informal logic, called argumentum ad populum, is the way to go after asserting there are many logical arguments for your belief. Though I am also unsurprised by this irrational claim, coming hot on the heels of your claim your beliefs have some logical basis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nor do you have ammo.

Such is such debate. No one wins, if we can believe differently. That is this one, Thomas Theorem:
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure a bare appeal to numbers, a known fallacy in informal logic, called argumentum ad populum, is the way to go after asserting there are many logical arguments for your belief. Though I am also unsurprised by this irrational claim, coming hot on the heels of your claim your beliefs have some logical basis.

Well, existence also has its logic problems.

 

[Sheldon]

Nor do you have ammo. You, too, can say nothing, nada, about God's possible nature and existence -- yet for reasons you cannot explain, you do accept his existence. For reasons you also cannot explain, you do not accept the existence of Thor. Equally arbitrary.

He also insists atheists should not disbelieve in any deity as the claim is unfalsifiable, and there is no contrary evidence, which he thinks is needed to justify disbelief. Now leaving aside for the minute that is irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. He won't tell us if he applies the same rationale to all unfalsifiable claims, you have to wonder why.

Since I treat all unfalsifiable claims the same, and disbelieve them for the same reason, and he endlessly accuses me of bias in my atheism. One assumes he also treats all unfalsifiable claims the same, and believes them all, even contradictory ones. Bias like gravity, can be very unforgiving, especially when you ignore it in yourself, and only see it affecting others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He also insists atheists should not disbelieve in any deity as the claim is unfalsifiable, and there is no contrary evidence, which he thinks is needed to justify disbelief. Now leaving aside for the minute that is irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. He won't tell us if he applies the same rationale to all unfalsifiable claims, you have to wonder why.

Are we perhaps back to cognitive dissonance again?

And that science is the best method we have. Still waiting for the actual science to back that up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How can an atheist conclude that there is no god without there being any true premise? And yet they do.

Okay, let's "believe" that God exists. Fine, now let's see what effect God has on the world -- and sure enough, what do we find? Nothing.

Okay, so God exists, but to no purpose whatsoever. Whoopee!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, let's "believe" that God exists. Fine, now let's see what effect God has on the world -- and sure enough, what do we find? Nothing. \

Okay, so God exists, but to no purpose whatsoever. Whoopee!

Well, the beliefs in Him/Her/it are real and the effects are real. so that can't be wrong or false for how the everyday world works. That you don't like it, is only real, because you don't like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" is not a natural concept.

It's perfectly natural.
I was born not believing in sky fairies.
And I remained in that state.

People aren't born knowing the number of gods,
their names, how they created the world, which
days are sacred, & the rules of sacred headgear.
Those things are indoctrinated....very un-natural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's perfectly natural.
I was born not believing in sky fairies.
And I remained in that state.

People aren't born knowing the number of gods,
their names, how they created the world, which
days are sacred, & the rules of sporting headgear.

No, it is in part cultural and not like gravity.
You were not born not believing in sky faires, because you didn't have the cognition to form the thought - I don't believe in sky faires. And you can't choose not to believe in sky faires, unless you are a member of a culture with the idea of sky faires.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it is in part cultural and not like gravity.
You were not born not believing in sky faires, because you didn't have the cognition to form the thought - I don't believe in sky faires. And you can't choose not to believe in sky faires, unless you are a member of a culture with the idea of sky faires.

To "form cognition" simply reinforced non-belief.
There was no "choice" involved. Believing in a
religion was no more a choice than believing in
Easter Bunnies, Santa Claus, & fiscally responsible
politicians.
BTW, I grew up around Christians. Back in my
day, we still had teacher led prayer in public school.