Do Atheists claiming truthiness on predetermined view?

[Indagator]

Atheism is not monolithic. You need to define which atheists you are talking about for a meaningful discussion.

Some advocate for free will, some do not. Why would their view be less valid if it was predetermined than if it was not predetermined?

I'm advocating for neither view.....I just want to understand your logic.

I am talking about atheists that are more on the logical side of things that are materialistic reductionists and are using (well trying to use) science to debunk theism. Not that "oh i dont believe in God but i believe in supernatural" kind of atheists.

As for: "Why would their view be less valid if it was predetermined than if it was not predetermined?"

Think of this this way, if a Robot is programmed to be (or eventually become) Christian for example how can he claim that Christianity is the right way? I mean he got no choice... If humans got no free will then nothing is true, nothing is wrong and nothing is right, nothing got any real meaning and truth becomes unattainable.

Matter being self-aware is entirely supernatural, in a philosophical sense, and there's no reason in the world that an atheist should reject that. Atheism is the rejection of god, not self. In many ways, atheism is the acceptance that things can be explained by self, rather than by godliness (i.e. humanism).

You dont think Atheists should reject supernatural?

Ok. Not sinking in.

Got it.

I think we are at the point where i tell you to off.

 

[Willamena]

You dont think Atheists should reject supernatural?

Only if they want to.

 

[Indagator]

Only if they want to.

Well... i mean, fair enough... sure they can think whatever they want. lol

But wouldn't atheist believe in supernatural make his atheistic position more "shaky"?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well... i mean, fair enough... sure they can think whatever they want. lol

But wouldn't atheist believe in supernatural make his atheistic position more "shaky"?

No.

It seems a weird 'you' problem that superstition should either be rejected wholesale or accepted in entirety.

By the same logic, any and all believers should adopt every single superstition they come across into their beliefs.

Just as a given theist might not believe in say, bad luck from breaking a mirror, any given atheist might believe that is true.

Superstitions share an epistmological value of 0, but there is no rule stating all beliefs need to be grounded in epistemology.

 

[Indagator]

No.

It seems a weird 'you' problem that superstition should either be rejected wholesale or accepted in entirety.

By the same logic, any and all believers should adopt every single superstition they come across into their beliefs.

Just as a given theist might not believe in say, bad luck from breaking a mirror, any given atheist might believe that is true.

Superstitions share an epistmological value of 0, but there is no rule stating all beliefs need to be grounded in epistemology.

umm i did not say anything of this sort, you are the one with black and white view not me

Every living person is one or the other. You either believe deities exist, or you do not.

^^what he said

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

umm i did not say anything of this sort, you are the one with black and white view not me



^^what he said

Yes you did, that's been your entire incoherent case.
You - "But wouldn't atheist believe in supernatural make his atheistic position more "shaky"?"

^^ your most recent entry.

As for black and white, yes. When you are dealing with a binary concept it is just that.

Have you been to Cuba? Yes/no. There is no "I've sort of maybe been to Cuba"

This is basic language and even more basic logic.

 

[Indagator]

Yes you did, that's been your entire incoherent case.
You - "But wouldn't atheist believe in supernatural make his atheistic position more "shaky"?"

^^ your most recent entry.

As for black and white, yes. When you are dealing with a binary concept it is just that.

Have you been to Cuba? Yes/no. There is no "I've sort of maybe been to Cuba"

This is basic language and even more basic logic.

Your attempt at sophistry failed. My question is not relevant at all to what you are trying spin here.

So 2/10 i guess. lol

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Your attempt at sophistry failed. My question is not relevant at all to what you are trying spin here.

So 2/10 i guess. lol

Hello, wall.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby

Theism isn't a faith.

You are certainly having a hard time explaining your views in a convincing manner.

Likewise

There are many definitions of materialism, and I know of few people who hold the strictest view. For example, everyone I know of agrees that skills are a real thing. Yet a skill is not physical.

It'a matter of not holding a vague title when using "atheist". If it is vague, it isn't atheism.

No, all it covers is the disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more. How is that a lot of ground?

That is a lot of deities, unless you are using some specific definition of theism, in which case, you then can't generalize theism to mean just any god idea that you don't like.

So yes, if you want to actually make sense, it covers a lot of ground.

 

[Desert Snake]

Only if they want to.

It's a problem. Can't have vague meaning of atheism, and specific meaning of atheism. Then it is meaningless.

 

[LuisDantas]

Theism isn't a faith.

How so?

 

[Desert Snake]

How so?

Faith has two meanings,
Someones religion,
And trust, in a deity, or religious concept, almost always specific. Theism implies..a subjective manner of god belief...


If theism were specific to a certain god, or set of gods, I would have no problem calling it a religion, personally. However, this lack of specificity just doesn't work for that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Faith has two meanings,
Someones religion,
And trust, in a deity, or religious concept, almost always specific. Theism implies..a subjective manner of god belief...


If theism were specific to a certain god, or set of gods, I would have no problem calling it a religion, personally. However, this lack of specificity just doesn't work for that.

A religion has doctrine. Theism in itself does not.

That does not make theism any less of a faith.

 

[DavidFirth]

I mean there is no free will or consciousness in Atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of supernatural) since according to them everything is material/physical. So how can they claim that their view is true if it was predetermined?

The same way they predicate all of their beliefs. They are based on the fact that they refuse to accept God, i.e., any god.

 

[Desert Snake]

A religion has doctrine. Theism in itself does not.

That does not make theism any less of a faith.

A faith means a religion.

Faith could be involved in theism, that's subjective. Theism is a word that is quasi- meaningful, and contextual. There is no obligation for a person with a god belief to consider themselves, a "theist", or aknowledge the word

 

[LuisDantas]

A faith means a religion.

To you, perhaps. Certainly not to me.

Faith is a much more instinctual thing than a religion.

Faith could be involved in theism, that's subjective.

What would theism be like without faith?

Theism is a word that is quasi- meaningful, and contextual.

"Quasi-meaningful" is a nice way to say that it is meaningless, isn't it?

There is no obligation for a person with a god belief to consider themselves, a "theist", or acknowledge the word

Only because people can't be obligated to be reasonable and coherent.

 

[Nakosis]

Well... i mean, fair enough... sure they can think whatever they want. lol

But wouldn't atheist believe in supernatural make his atheistic position more "shaky"?

The supernatural is ideas/beliefs which are not accountable to science. Like the belief in God.

The truth of God cannot be proven by science for example.

A belief in God has to rely on faith. Faith in something. usually faith in the prophets claiming to speak for God. Personally I don't know these prophets and see no reason to have faith in the fact they were speaking for God.

So I lack faith in religious theology. I lack faith in God.

Whereas I do have faith, though I probably should say trust, in science. Science provides a way to validate claims. If I want to be more certain about something, I'll look in to it's scientific validation. That's not going to guarantee it, but it has been much more reliable than theology.

Free Will really depends on what you mean by free will. Some definitions of free will couldn't possibly exist. Other definitions are self evident.

My being atheist is independent of my trust in science, somewhat. If someone were to scientifically prove God I'd give it more credibility than theology.

My belief in free will is philosophical not scientific. Though I'd rely on science to correct my philosophical ideas.

Science is for validation. I accept that science can't validate there are no Gods. Science can't validate certain concepts of free will.

Whatever evidence exists for God/free will is not validated evidence. I have to rely on my personal experience and ideas which to me seem plausible. Science can come along and has invalidated many of the ideas I've had in the past.

Not all concepts of materialism have been validated by science, however, materialism provides a plausible explanation for reality. Basically there's no need to use supernatural concepts to explain reality.

I trust materialism because many concepts are validated through science. So there's some history of validation that's makes it reliable.

 

[Nakosis]

A faith means a religion.

Faith could be involved in theism, that's subjective. Theism is a word that is quasi- meaningful, and contextual. There is no obligation for a person with a god belief to consider themselves, a "theist", or aknowledge the word

Someone who has faith in the existence of a supernatural god is what a theist is by definition. Certainly they don't have to acknowledge that, but it doesn't stop them from being defined by the word.

An atheist is defined by the lack of such faith. A atheist doesn't have to acknowledge the word nor consider themselves an atheist either.

Someone could consider themselves a Christian, someone else a non-Christian.

A theist would still define the Christian and atheist the non-Christian. Neither have to acknowledge nor consider themselves as either word.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I mean there is no free will or consciousness in Atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of supernatural) since according to them everything is material/physical. So how can they claim that their view is true if it was predetermined?

I think you have it backwards. There is no freewill if the future can be known by a god.

 

[icehorse]

It'a matter of not holding a vague title when using "atheist". If it is vague, it isn't atheism.

@Indagator has said that atheists are materialists. I'm asking for his(?) definition of "materialist".