Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists

[Bishadi]

If you are Atheist, does that not mean that you do not believe in supernatural beings?

Which ones? Never saw any, never experienced any and definitely can only read about any.

And them stories came before the bic lighter or MS windows.

Suppose a Theist approached you, and asked why you decline the belief of the supernatural; would you make it a short-term priority of yours to justify your views? Or ignore the question altogether.

I would ask what is the purpose of believing illogical occurances, while looking to see if both feet are on the ground.

If you answer the question in the slightest way, you are providing what You feel to be adequate evidence to support your claim of Atheism.

Truth is adequate evidence. Even the religions themselves state; thou shalt not lie.

So i ask, does magic exist?

 

[Nasor]

Suppose a Theist approached you, and asked why you decline the belief of the supernatural; would you make it a short-term priority of yours to justify your views? Or ignore the question altogether.

I would simply say "I have never seen any convincing evidence that a god exists." The burden is on the theist to provide evidence.

 

[swivel]

1000 randomly chosen Christians?

You can hand-select them if you want, try your damnedest to get 1,000 who agree. I will find an interpretation of the Bible that not all 1,000 will agree with, or some idea about heaven, or God, or Jesus, or the Devil, that not all 1,000 will find consensus on.

 

[lightgigantic]

Um, that's kind of a big lie. The methodology is simply to ask reality if a theistic claim is true. One that resounding "no" bubbles up, then the next question is why does the claim exist?

once again, just as its tragi-comical to use a thermometer to measure distance, the same so for using empirical means for determining the validity of a non-empirical claim.

Part of "asking reality" is to make sure you have the right tools for the job

Once knowledge about anthropomophism and human psychology bubble up then we can clearly define all claims of God as human psyhchological phenomena.

hehe
good ol flexible soft science to the rescue, eh?

It is what it is and no amount of misinformation is going to change that.

soft science is constantly in a state of addressing its own current misinformation

geez, at least in classical empiricism they have things that everyone can universally agree to (like cm and ml)

 

[lightgigantic]

Believers like LG cannot reconcile the lack of belief by those who happen to be atheist.

its quite simple

if a person doesn't have access to the means to verify a claim, they're in a state of ignorance

doesn't matter whether we are discussing god or the price of eggs in china

Rather than admit that their atheism is a result of rational thought and that belief in theistic claims is the result of human fallibility and a predisposition to superstition, LG and others like him fallaciously assert that those who hold an atheist position somehow have a claim to prove.

If I have no experience of the means of determining the substance behind the claim of the price of eggs in china, it's perfectly rational to disregard it
:shrug:

When you start talking about logic as sufficient for determining truth its clear you are taking a radical departure from philosophy and have no idea what you are talking about

This is a strawman erected by LG et al since an unfalsifiable claim is an easy target and easily criticized.

its also unfalsifiable to talk of distances with the demand that one exclusively use thermometers as a tool ... that's why we have tape measures I guess

LG is probably being dishonest and his fallacy is likely intentional (he's shown such inclinations in the past) since he realizes this invokes a bit of ire among atheists who are atheist because of a lack of a claim, which he well knows.

hehe

you can't even tolerate a scriptural reference to how a claim can be verified much less discuss them ... (and no need to address the hazy past ... just have to look down a few posts)

Along with the strawman, another fallacy of LG's assertion is that it invokes the Tu Quoque, or "you, too" argument. Since the theistic claim is unfalsifiable and, let's face it, ignorant, he wants the convenience of pointing the finger at the rational and lucid in the way it gets pointed at irrational and deluded.

its only unfalsifiable for die hard empiricists, mush like distance is unfalsifiable for die hard thermometerists


Thanks

You illustrate #1 & #2 perfectly

Intellectual dishonesty is not something LG is unfamiliar with in this forum.

and finish off a #4
nice touch!
:bravo:

 

[CranE]

I would simply say "I have never seen any convincing evidence that a god exists." The burden is on the theist to provide evidence.

I don't think there is a 'burden' at all. I think both viewpoints have beliefs based off something, whether its religion, logic, etc. And should be able to explain their views if questioned.

 

[lightgigantic]

I would simply say "I have never seen any convincing evidence that a god exists." The burden is on the theist to provide evidence.

given that verifying any claim of knowledge also requires an element of burdening oneself (namely with qualification) it appears you are over-simplifying it ... at the very least, rocking up to a top grade university with the demand that they relieve themselves of their "burden" upon you probably won't see you take a vocation in the field .....

 

[SkinWalker]

If you are Atheist, does that not mean that you do not believe in supernatural beings?

It means I have no good reason to believe in supernatural beings. It means that, while you assert the existence of a being, I do not.

Suppose a Theist approached you, and asked why you decline the belief of the supernatural; would you make it a short-term priority of yours to justify your views? Or ignore the question altogether.

I would (and do) ask the theist what good reason is there for me to believe. What evidence is asserted that is valid and empirical which gives me good reason to accept his claim. This, by the way, is the very same attitude I would take to the person in the tinfoil hat who claims to be receiving alien transmissions or the neighbor who claims to have a purple but invisible dragon in his garage.

If you answer the question in the slightest way, you are providing what You feel to be adequate evidence to support your claim of Atheism.

Atheism is simply without-gods. If you have another definition, then it isn't the one I use to self-identify. I am godless. I am not afflicted with the superstitions and delusions of those who assert without evidence that one or more gods exist.

There are, however, those who hold theistic beliefs who cannot come to terms with atheism of any sort and resort to the childish "you too" argument, pointing their fingers at the big, bad atheists accusing them of making a positive claim.

Theists have the claim. Without evidence to support it, they have all the appearance of delusion and superstition.

 

[CranE]

I believe Atheism to be without-supernatural.

Atheist's also have a claim, the claim of being without-gods like you said.

Noone will ever br able to prove a god's existence, noone will ever be able to prove a god does not exist.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

once again, just as its tragi-comical to use a thermometer to measure distance, the same so for using empirical means for determining the validity of a non-empirical claim.

That analogy is horrid, but aside from that saying that something exists is an empirical claim. Like anything, a claim of existence can be validated by demonstrating an instance of it or demonstrating its unique effects. There is NOTHING that doesn't follow this pattern and inventing the notion of a "non-empirical claim" is nothing short of an attempt to place something out of bounds. Truth is when reality agrees with some concpt / notion. By placing something out of bounds, truth is automatically invalidated; hence, it's a dead give away that the *something* is not true.

Part of "asking reality" is to make sure you have the right tools for the job

I agree.

hehe
good ol flexible soft science to the rescue, eh?

soft science is constantly in a state of addressing its own current misinformation

geez, at least in classical empiricism they have things that everyone can universally agree to (like cm and ml)

It's universally agreed (because it's universally observable) that anthropomorphism and human emotional needs exist. You are free to ignore that knowledge, but it won't change reality for ya'.

 

[SkinWalker]

given that verifying any claim of knowledge also requires an element of burdening oneself (namely with qualification) it appears you are over-simplifying it ... at the very least, rocking up to a top grade university with the demand that they relieve themselves of their "burden" upon you probably won't see you take a vocation in the field .....

"Oversimplifying?"

This is more pseudo-intellectual bs from the bs-artist himself.

It really is as simple as this: you have a claim; therefore, you have the burden to demonstrate your claim. If you cannot, it is in your mind -a.k.a. a delusion.

Pseudo-intellectuals like LG, however, will resort to post-modernist mumbo-jumbo about "qualifications" etc. -all very much the coward's argument since it asserts that if you do not believe in a way he deems acceptable it means you aren't capable of "knowing" the way he is. Therefore you aren't "qualified" to know and, consequently, don't believe.

If it all seems circular and bullshit-like, its because it is circular bullshit.

Congratulations LG. You're still full of it.

 

[SkinWalker]

I believe Atheism to be without-supernatural.

Atheist's also have a claim, the claim of being without-gods like you said.

Noone will ever br able to prove a god's existence, noone will ever be able to prove a god does not exist.

You're equivocating the concept of claim. The theist has a positive claim. They assert a god. The atheist has a negative claim -they assert no assertion.

Please note that by "positive" and "negative" I'm not referring to the colloquial definitions of these words which is something akin to "good" and "bad."

An atheist asserts only that no good reason has been established to accept the theistic assertion. That is to say, if the there was no theists, all would be atheists. Being without gods or godless is clearly the default position of humanity. No one knows of any of humanities gods until made culturally aware.

 

[SkinWalker]

When you start talking about logic as sufficient for determining truth its clear you are taking a radical departure from philosophy and have no idea what you are talking about

And yet you fail miserably in demonstrating this. Clearly, you have one or two philosophical concepts that you're keen on, but discard all those that subject your preconceived notions, delusions, and superstitious ideas about the universe to any rational light.

In other words, you talk a lot of words, obfuscate many concepts with a pseudo-philosophical air, but fail miserably in demonstrating any of your assertions.

And if you're wondering why I've decided to finally call you on your bullshit after several years of ignoring you its primarily because you chose to quote me. Until that one caught my attention, I've been content to simply ignore your posts for the bullshit they are.

 

[Pete]

Noone will ever br able to prove a god's existence, noone will ever be able to prove a god does not exist.

Hi CranE,
And no one will ever be able to prove that fairies do not exist. But so what?
If you say "I don't believe in fairies", what does that mean?
Does it mean that you're 100% certain that there are no fairies, and that you can prove it if asked?
Or does it simply mean that you currently have no reason to believe in fairies and that the question of fairies doesn't enter into how you live your life?

(Of course, you would probably still be open to belief in fairies in the unlikely event that they happen to be discovered alive and well in Cottingley (complete with reliable media coverage), right?)

 

[lightgigantic]

And yet you fail miserably in demonstrating this.

Here's a rational statement that is not truthful

All pigs can fly, all horses are pigs, therefore all horses can fly

Clearly, you have one or two philosophical concepts that you're keen on, but discard all those that subject your preconceived notions, delusions, and superstitious ideas about the universe to any rational light.

The problem is that you are not capable of discussing philosophy, full stop.

Its not that the only card you can play is the "heavy moderator" because you have nothing else to prop yourself up. Its more like the one you favor when the going gets tough in your discussions, and you simply give in to confidence statements and tentative statements. ("You're deluded" "No, you're deluded" "Listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded" etc etc
:shrug:

In other words, you talk a lot of words, obfuscate many concepts with a pseudo-philosophical air, but fail miserably in demonstrating any of your assertions.

feel free to demonstrate how any assertion can be determined without simultaneously addressing issues of qualification.

I've been waiting several years for this, but all I seem to get from you is inflammatory trolling

And if you're wondering why I've decided to finally call you on your bullshit after several years of ignoring you its primarily because you chose to quote me.

Until that one caught my attention, I've been content to simply ignore your posts for the bullshit they are.

get a grip

you initiated it by talking to me (in third person) in post 18

 

[lightgigantic]

"Oversimplifying?"

This is more pseudo-intellectual bs from the bs-artist himself.

It really is as simple as this: you have a claim; therefore, you have the burden to demonstrate your claim. If you cannot, it is in your mind -a.k.a. a delusion.

Unfortunately, no.

Knowledge rests upon qualification.

Anyone who has called upon the expertise of a doctor, lawyer, or car mechanic can understand this.

Pseudo-intellectuals like LG, however, will resort to post-modernist mumbo-jumbo about "qualifications" etc. -all very much the coward's argument since it asserts that if you do not believe in a way he deems acceptable it means you aren't capable of "knowing" the way he is. Therefore you aren't "qualified" to know and, consequently, don't believe.

The next time your car breaks down go to a doctor and see how far you get

If it all seems circular and bullshit-like, its because it is circular bullshit.

Congratulations LG. You're still full of it.

Skinny ol boy, philosophy is simply not your strong suit

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, just as its tragi-comical to use a thermometer to measure distance, the same so for using empirical means for determining the validity of a non-empirical claim.
”
That analogy is horrid, but aside from that saying that something exists is an empirical claim.

incorrect

saying that something exists that is capable of being determined by the blunt senses is an empirical claim.

IOW saying that "it doesn't matter if I am a schmuck or a saint, if I have the right (physical) tools at the right place and use them in the right way, I can see whatever there is to be seen" is an empirical claim.

Like anything, a claim of existence can be validated by demonstrating an instance of it or demonstrating its unique effects.

Demonstrate to who exactly?
Any schmuck?

There is NOTHING that doesn't follow this pattern and inventing the notion of a "non-empirical claim" is nothing short of an attempt to place something out of bounds. Truth is when reality agrees with some concpt / notion. By placing something out of bounds, truth is automatically invalidated; hence, it's a dead give away that the *something* is not true.

On the contrary, placing a transcendental claim within the parameters of empiricism is simply absurd.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Part of "asking reality" is to make sure you have the right tools for the job
”
I agree.

so why do you insist on calling upon empiricism to validate a transcendental claim?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hehe
good ol flexible soft science to the rescue, eh?

soft science is constantly in a state of addressing its own current misinformation

geez, at least in classical empiricism they have things that everyone can universally agree to (like cm and ml)
”
It's universally agreed (because it's universally observable) that anthropomorphism and human emotional needs exist. You are free to ignore that knowledge, but it won't change reality for ya'.

its just when one starts speculating about norms, origins, causes and reactions of human emotional needs that it gets hairy

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bishadi,

Which ones? Never saw any, never experienced any and definitely can only read about any.

A simple "no" should suffice.

And them stories came before the bic lighter or MS windows.

That settles it then.

Suppose a Theist approached you, and asked why you decline the belief of the supernatural; would you make it a short-term priority of yours to justify your views? Or ignore the question altogether.

I would ask what is the purpose of believing illogical occurances, while looking to see if both feet are on the ground.

Seems like you've ignored the question altogether.

Truth is adequate evidence.

This is what we are trying to acertain
Do you regard the concept of "God" as a lie?
If yes, are you prepared to explain why?

So i ask, does magic exist?

Yes.
Haven't you ever watched Darren Brown.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Here's a rational statement that is not truthful

All pigs can fly, all horses are pigs, therefore all horses can fly

No, it's not rational at all.
The conclusion may be rationally based on the propositions (i.e. given X and given Y then conclusion Z), but this does not mean the statement as a whole is rational, especially when your statement asserts its propositions as facts that are demonstrably not truthful.

One can not demonstrate delusion and at the same time claim rationality - that is a paradox.

feel free to demonstrate how any assertion can be determined without simultaneously addressing issues of qualification.

One needs no qualifications to observe something. One merely has to look at it.

If something can not be observed by the senses then, by default, it is akin to non-existence, as its existence can not be proven.

You are making the claim that one must be qualified to observe.
One may need to be qualified to understand what one is observing... but not to make the observation itself.
When man first saw an elephant, did his lack of qualification in elephants invalidate his observation? No. He may not have understood what the elephant was (a giant? a god?) but he still saw it.

Please show us this God of yours, and then we might go and get qualified to see if it really is what you say it is.

A doctor might be able to fix your ailments - but presumably you go to him because you have observed those ailments?

A mechanic might be able to fix your car - but presumably the observation of it not working led you to search for the mechanic?

 

[Sarkus]

Haven't you ever watched Darren Brown.

Derren Brown - genius.
Psychological Illusionist
Jedi-in-waiting
And someone who states up front that he does not believe in any ESP, Magic, Clairvoyance etc.