Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

[F1fan]

I mean equitable debate in the sense that there is something to learn from both sides. And that it wouldn't be the same standoff, go nowhere debate.

I suggest there is often things to learn on both sides of these debates. Atheists learns what theists believe and how they think, and theists have the opportunity to learn many things from atheists, typically forms of knowledge and reasoning.

Why not put all claims on the table?

What claims aren't on the table?

There is no third person evidence of consciousness. It's always first person.
I can't dig into someone else's brain and find consciousness. The way I know consciousness is different.

Consciousness is a range of states of awareness of functioning brains. We humans both experience consciousness and observe it in other creatures. Consciousness isn't an object to find. When people sleep or are knocked out they lose consciousness. This means their brain is not in a state of using the senses to be aware of the environment.

Isn't an atheist claiming there is no God?

That's rare, it's what is called a strong atheist. Most atheists are what are called weak atheists, and this is just acknowledging that none of the thousands of god concepts in human history have any factual basis, so are not convinced the claims are true.

Now someone can say that Thor doesn't exist as a god, and in that sense most all people, including theists, can assert this description of a god isn't true. The more well defined a god concept is the better an objective mind can access whether it can be deemed non-existent.

And what about logical proofs inferred from evidence?

What about them?

So every claim has a counter claim, and all arguments go beyond evidence into inferences to the best explanation.

Some claims are so absurd that the counter claim is likely a fact.

 

[Heyo]

1) No need to capitalise 'atheist', short of normal grammatical rules

I capitalise "Agnostic" when talking about the philosophical position to differentiate from the colloquial meaning. I'd do the same for Atheists/atheists when the need arises. (But Atheists seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I capitalise "Agnostic" when talking about the philosophical position to differentiate from the colloquial meaning. I'd do the same for Atheists/atheists when the need arises. (But Atheists seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.)

Hmm...
No dramas, but I still wouldn't capitalise it. Just the old teacher in me coming out, perhaps.
Doing a quick hunt around for other philosophical terms (eg. methodoligical naturalism) and there is a bit of a split between people capitalising it, and people not capitalising it.

Perhaps it's more me being gun shy (as 'Atheism' is too often treated like a religion, or a coherent ideology/world view when it's nothing of the sort).

 

[PureX]

Are you saying that to be wise & logical, we must pick
some unevidenced beliefs, & have total faith in them?

What I'm saying is that when we do not have sufficient information to determine the truth of reality, we have the option (and often the necessity) to choose from among the possibilities, and to act accordingly, to see what results. To ignore this option based on a lack of information is illogical and foolish.

 

[PureX]

There is a good reason for not believing: parsimony. Why should I clutter my brain with beliefs that have no evidence?

Why should you "clutter your brain" with beliefs at all? Why not try acting on faith and see what results?

 

[PureX]

And what pressures is a person feeling that they will decide that a God exists?

There are a great many reasons one might choose to trust in the idea of God, and live accordingly. And then gain positive results form doing so. I'm sure that if you suspend your bias, and apply a little imagination, you can think of some, yourself.

 

[PureX]

What is the "stupid pit"?

Usually it's presuming mythical religious stories to be historical fact. And conflating belief in these false presumptions, with faith in God.

And it is exceptionally logical because we cannot assume all claims are true because many are going to conflict. Do you accept all Hindu gods as existing when a Hindu claims it? Probably not, and you probably now use how useful it is to treat claims as untrue.

Religious depictions of God are not God. When you argue with religious depictions of God you are not debating theism. You are debating religious artifice. Like proclaiming that Jesus was not a golden-haired white man as depicted in some paintings means that Jesus didn't exist. It's nonsensical. It's nonsensical for one to claim the painting is Jesus, and just as nonsensical to claim that Jesus didn't exist because the painting isn't "historically accurate". And yet this is the substance of nearly every debate I see between religionists and atheists.

It's just a bottomless pit of stupidity that results on further entrenchment on both sides.

 

[stvdv]

I would doubt her claim that she can provide me "the best experience ever"; but the best way to test that out is not through peer reviewed scientific research, but by .... shall we say .... experimentation?

Exactly...that was precisely the meaning of the little anecdote, I think you are the first one who mentions it

As far as the rest of your statements, I will counter simply by: I became atheist after years of indoctrination and adherence to dogmatic, fundamentalist Christianity. At the end of my journey, I became convinced that there was nothing there; and there never had been.

The church seems to be good at that. Smart move to get the hell out of such a place IMO. Such a place blocks all our potential.

 

[stvdv]

Instead I'll say that what you seem to be offering is pleasure instead of reason, hedonism instead of truth, and in unbelievers' terms, imaginary pleasure at that.

The point I made with the anecdote, is that life is about experimentation (science too), otherwise you never invent new stuff. Hence "give me proof first" is totally not a scientific minded reply (in the context of the example in the OP). A real scientist (inventor) likes figure stuff out himselves, and don't ask others to do their job. And when unable to find it, they just admit "I have not been able to find it". So, God might or might not exist, I just don't know.

Of course, if a Theist imposes stuff on Atheists, any reply is fine IMO, as it's paramount to protect our borders when others try to invade us. But the OP was not about that.

 

[blü 2]

The point I made with the anecdote, is that life is about experimentation (science too), otherwise you never invent new stuff. Hence "give me proof first" is totally not a scientific minded reply (in the context of the example in the OP). A real scientist (inventor) likes figure stuff out himselves, and don't ask others to do their job. And when unable to find it, they just admit "I have not been able to find it". So, God might or might not exist, I just don't know.

It's not quite that simple. When I looked into the matter with some care I >got a zero result<.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not quite that simple. When I looked into the matter with some care I >got a zero result<.

What matters is that you looked.


Do you still meditate btw? Sorry if I have asked you that before, I forget who I’ve been talking to in real life, never mind online.

If so, does your meditation have a particular purpose or expectation?

 

[blü 2]

The point I made with the anecdote, is that life is about experimentation (science too), otherwise you never invent new stuff. Hence "give me proof first" is totally not a scientific minded reply (in the context of the example in the OP).

You're right, science doesn't start with a proof; but they do start with a demonstration. The demonstration may be the present of an unexpected something (such as the observations of the coherence of spiral galaxies relative to their perceived mass) or the absence of an expected something (such as the failure of Michelson-Morley to find the lumeniferous ether) but either way there's a real state of affair that, relative to our present understanding, needs to be explained.

A real scientist (inventor) likes figure stuff out himselves, and don't ask others to do their job. And when unable to find it, they just admit "I have not been able to find it". So, God might or might not exist, I just don't know.

Two problems with that.

One is that there;s no demonstration of anything that we would need a god to explain. Please feel free to correct me if that's wrong.

The other is that there's no definition of a real "god" ─ one with objective existence, hence found in nature ─ such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God (or a god) or not. That is, there's nothing real that science has been asked to look for.

 

[blü 2]

What matters is that you looked.

The link at the end of my previous post takes you to an account of my looking.

Do you still meditate btw?

Not as such, no. When meditation was purposeful, I found it easy to apply myself to it. Without a purpose, it's not my thing, though one or two friends of mine find it helpful.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I'm saying is that when we do not have sufficient information to determine the truth of reality, we have the option (and often the necessity) to choose from among the possibilities, and to act accordingly, to see what results. To ignore this option based on a lack of information is illogical and foolish.

To choose an option doesn't require believing the option to be True.
Some options aren't chosen.
I disbelieve in gods because they're unevidenced.
I've no choice in this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't like debates, and consider myself atheist about most Gods. Mostly I have seen everything about evidence, and nothing much regarding proof of what the evidence is saying. I definitely wouldn't frustrate myself in explaining the physicalist position if I was frequently engaging in theism debates and have made the point already. There are a lot more educated theists out there like David Bentley Hart, Michael Jones on YouTube, and a few others who would understand the science and philosophy involved. I think the actual arguments go very deep. Probably too deep for an RF format. RF usually cuts things short with the evidence alone argument. Anyone can fill in the gaps in knowledge with either naturalism, or God. I would like to know when something is brute fact, or in need of further explanation. I don't believe that theists are not good with science. I don't think that just because someone is theist means that they are no good at science or philosophy.

This was addressed to me by mistake. Nothing in it is related to the post you replied to.

What the Atheist is telling me, is that he has not been able to figure it out himself

Figure what out? Life? I am very content with my secular humanist worldview. It's rational and ethical. The faithful have no answers and nothing to offer the rational skeptic, just faith-based beliefs.

"unbelief" based on nothing is both illogical, and foolish.

You were doing fine for awhile, but just couldn't help but let your guard down and begin the personal attacks. You don't want to know how I feel about the way you think. You consider not thinking by faith illogical, then call others who have transcended such magical thinking fools.

Why not try acting on faith and see what results?

I wanted to ask the people at Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's Gate, and the Capitol insurrectionists about acting on faith rather than common sense, but they were all dead or in jail. Then I asked the climate deniers and flat earther's for advice, but they seemed rather ignorant. I haven't had much luck with such people, and will likely cease going to them for advice.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The link at the end of my previous post takes you to an account of my looking.
Not as such, no. When meditation was purposeful, I found it easy to apply myself to it. Without a purpose, it's not my thing, though one or two friends of mine find it helpful.

Yeah, I clicked the link and read your account. You didn't find what you were looking for on that occasion.

I still think it's important that you looked. I believe that the answers to our deepest questions do lie within, but that the question is often more important than the answer. This is true in both science and religion

 

[F1fan]

There are a great many reasons one might choose to trust in the idea of God, and live accordingly. And then gain positive results form doing so.

So you're admitting that God isn't an actual being that a believer relates to, but an idea a person "trusts" because they are exposed to it while living is some social experience. This is why kids in the Middle East are more likely to "trust" that the Muslim version of God exists and kids in the USA and more likely to "trust" that a Christian version of God exists.

So can you outline the positives results in this, and how they offset negative results?

I'm sure that if you suspend your bias, and apply a little imagination, you can think of some, yourself.

What is biased in me realizing that ideas of God are a social phenomenon and most people adopt one idea of another subconsciously and don't question whether their belief is true and warranted?

And how will imagination help me be a more objective and rational person if I have to apply imagination in dealing with the ideas of God I'm exposed to in my social experience? It sounds like you're suggesting I suspend judgment and critical thought and just adopt the ideas of those around me, like a robot.

 

[F1fan]

There are a great many reasons one might choose to trust in the idea of God, and live accordingly.

What advantage is there to "trust in the idea of God" and live accordingly? Are you suggesting that a person behaves differently this way that they cannot if they don't adopt religious views?

If so, how do you account for the many religious people who do horrific acts in the name of God?

 

[F1fan]

Usually it's presuming mythical religious stories to be historical fact. And conflating belief in these false presumptions, with faith in God.

You explain what is factual in having faith in God.

And do you think the "faith" religious people have is divorced from the historic myths of those same gods?

Religious depictions of God are not God.

But we can't see that theists are relating to anything but these old ideas when they believe in it, or have faith in it.

When you argue with religious depictions of God you are not debating theism. You are debating religious artifice. Like proclaiming that Jesus was not a golden-haired white man as depicted in some paintings means that Jesus didn't exist. It's nonsensical. It's nonsensical for one to claim the painting is Jesus, and just as nonsensical to claim that Jesus didn't exist because the painting isn't "historically accurate". And yet this is the substance of nearly every debate I see between religionists and atheists.

Why would a person in 2021 assume jesus is any sort of real something that they relate to?

It's just a bottomless pit of stupidity that results on further entrenchment on both sides.

Can you see that your comments feed that "stupidity" since you're not explaining how your beliefs are different than what you are being critical of?

 

[PureX]

To choose an option doesn't require believing the option to be True.

I agree. In fact, I think our "belief in (X)" is mostly just the belief that we're right. But that doesn't make us right, or wrong, about anything. It just makes us biased against the other possibilities.

Some options aren't chosen.

Only the ones that are not possible, and the ones that are possible but that we can't see.

I disbelieve in gods because they're unevidenced.

Well, that's just silly (IMO). It presumes that if God exists, you would have evidence of it. And I don't see how you could possibly defend that presumption, logically.

I've no choice in this.

Of course you do, as there is no evidence either way. But your bias (belief in) your ability to discern the evidence if it existed is so pervasive that you can't see it any other way.