In regards to atheism.

[Dywyddyr]

So no matter to what degree removed, the arguments of atheism are grounded in denial...of the thing's nature, if not the thing itself.

Rather hard to believe.
Until (unless) that thing is shown to actually exist then any and all claims of its "nature" are speculation.
Which would mean that the "denial" is, as commonly stated, a denial of the claims of theists.
"It's metaphysical" isn't an argument. Especially when followed by "You should behave in certain ways because ...".

 

[Syne]

Rather hard to believe.
Until (unless) that thing is shown to actually exist then any and all claims of its "nature" are speculation.
Which would mean that the "denial" is, as commonly stated, a denial of the claims of theists.
"It's metaphysical" isn't an argument. Especially when followed by "You should behave in certain ways because ...".

Aside from that being an argument from incredulity, who said metaphysical arguments should be easy to believe?
"Shown to actually exist" seems to be the exact same presumption of physically evident existence I was talking about. The only claim that can avail itself of evidence...though none is ever given.
Are being and identity equally speculative? Both are metaphysical abstractions. Are you claiming these are solely physical? You do know that is equally speculative while making evidentiary claims, right?
If you want to call the denial that of a whole branch of philosophy, so be it. That is still some "degree removed" and a denial of its nature, just going further by denying all things metaphysical.
"You should behave a certain way" is a non sequitur, and only seems to illustrate the motive behind the denial.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Aside from that being an argument from incredulity, who said metaphysical arguments should be easy to believe?

Nope.
The question is "WHY should we believe?"

"Shown to actually exist" seems to be the exact same presumption of physically evident existence I was talking about.

And again - what evidence is there that this metaphysical thing is actual?

Are being and identity equally speculative? Both are metaphysical abstractions. Are you claiming these are solely physical?

It doesn't particularly matter, since - these can be agreed upon by just about everyone.
"God", however...

If you want to call the denial that of a whole branch of philosophy, so be it.

Have you missed the point?

"You should behave a certain way" is a non sequitur, and only seems to illustrate the motive behind the denial.

And wrong again.
The whole "behave in a certain way" is justified by the "existence" of this "metaphysical thing". If it were left merely as "I believe, now I'll shut up about it" there wouldn't be half the problems with the claims that there are.
As for "motive behind the denial": again, No.

 

[Syne]

Nope.
The question is "WHY should we believe?"


And again - what evidence is there that this metaphysical thing is actual?


It doesn't particularly matter, since - these can be agreed upon by just about everyone.
"God", however...


Have you missed the point?


And wrong again.
The whole "behave in a certain way" is justified by the "existence" of this "metaphysical thing". If it were left merely as "I believe, now I'll shut up about it" there wouldn't be half the problems with the claims that there are.
As for "motive behind the denial": again, No.

"Rather hard to believe" is literally an argument from incredulity. I'm not selling theism, so I really don't care what you believe. If and why are your own personal decisions to made.
So being and identity are okay...by what seems an argument ad populum, but god isn't, even though ~80% of the world believes in one. That's a contradictory and fallacious argument.
Wait, isn't it atheists who are always telling us that you don't need god to be moral? You seem to be saying the two are inextricably linked. Get back to me after you've made up your mind.

 

[Dywyddyr]

"Rather hard to believe" is literally an argument from incredulity.

Oh, you keep missing the point. Is that deliberate?

So being and identity are okay...by what seems an argument ad populum

Not really.
YOU are the one that claimed they're "metaphysical". The rest of world seems to think that identity [1] has sufficient verifiable (non-metaphysical) characteristics to accept it.

Wait, isn't it atheists who are always telling us that you don't need god to be moral? You seem to be saying the two are inextricably linked.

Not only did I not say that I didn't even hit at it.

1 I have no idea what you mean by "being" in this context.

 

[Yazata]

I agree with Yaz.

Maybe not. I'm an atheist regarding the more traditional versions of 'God' such as the Christian, Islamic and theistic Hindu. I don't believe that those mythical figures correspond to anything in objective reality. (In other words, I believe that they don't exist.) And I'm an agnostic regarding the more philosophical functions addressed by natural theology. I don't have a clue why reality exists, what (if anything) sustains it, or whether there was a first-cause. I don't know why reality shows the order it shows or where the 'laws of physics' came from. Nor do I know what logic and mathematics are and why reality seems to conform to them.

While most intellectual theists have the good sense to know that metaphysical claims cannot be supported with physical evidence, atheists are the only ones making evidentiary claims.

Christians have a long history of arguing for the historicity of Christ, for the reality of miracles, and for a whole assortment of arguments in natural theology. For as long as there have been Christians they have treated those things as evidences supporting their beliefs. I think that it's wrong to suggest that only atheists stoop to looking to evidence in religious matters. Judaism has always set itself apart from other ancient Middle Eastern religions in that it's an historical religion. Even today, Biblical archaeologists seem to think that finding evidence of places or events mentioned in the Bible constitutes evidence for their faith.

I think that theists do need to have some kind of persuasive argument, if they hope to convince people like me to embrace their various versions of theism. What's more, I think that they need some plausible justification for their own beliefs even if they don't hope to convince anyone. Having good reasons for one's beliefs would seem to be a basic intellectual virtue. It's arguably much better to hold well-founded beliefs than to hold beliefs for no reason at all.

Of course, atheists just announcing that they aren't aware of any good justification for being a theist isn't going to persuade the theist to abandon theism either. Atheists need to think through their atheism and try to justify it as soundly as they can. They can't just play the game Jan is throwing back at them, claiming that atheism (or in Jan's case theism) is a default position that needs no justification. Theists aren't going to buy that, nor should they.

And as such, the latter's claim that there is no good evidence of a god seems to infer some degree of exhaustion of possibilities

Not in my case. I just say that I don't know of any evidence of the truth of any of the theistic religions that convinces me. I can't say that no such evidence exists, only that I've never encountered it.

Actually I take a slightly stronger position and question what kind of evidence would justify the belief that one had encountered a god, a suitable object of religious worship. What kind of evidence would be evidence of holiness? I don't know.

 

[Syne]

Christians have a long history of arguing for the historicity of Christ, for the reality of miracles, and for a whole assortment of arguments in natural theology. For as long as there have been Christians they have treated those things as evidences supporting their beliefs. I think that it's wrong to suggest that only atheists stoop to looking to evidence in religious matters. Judaism has always set itself apart from other ancient Middle Eastern religions in that it's an historical religion. Even today, Biblical archaeologists seem to think that finding evidence of places or events mentioned in the Bible constitutes evidence for their faith.

I think that theists do need to have some kind of persuasive argument, if they hope to convince people like me to embrace their various versions of theism. What's more, I think that they need some plausible justification for their own beliefs even if they don't hope to convince anyone. Having good reasons for one's beliefs would seem to be a basic intellectual virtue. It's arguably much better to hold well-founded beliefs than to hold beliefs for no reason at all.

Of course, atheists just announcing that they aren't aware of any good justification for being a theist isn't going to persuade the theist to abandon theism either. Atheists need to think through their atheism and try to justify it as soundly as they can. They can't just play the game Jan is throwing back at them, claiming that atheism (or in Jan's case theism) is a default position that needs no justification. Theists aren't going to buy that, nor should they.

Hence why I said "most intellectual theists".

I don't think anything external can really convince anyone to be a theist. The seeking for such externalities probably hinders any such finding.

But we do agree. Neither theist nor atheist should claim their position justified by evidence, nor expect the lack thereof to be compelling. Good reasons and plausible justification are highly subjective. While ~80% of the world is theist and agree that they have good reason to believe so (no matter the variety of those reasons), those same reasons are not good enough to be compelling to the other ~20%. I have good reasons to be a theist, but most atheists would discount my reasons with paltry excuses like "that's not the god most believe in" or "that hardly counts as a god at all"...as if they are somehow sudden authorities on the subject.

 

[karenmansker]

Hence why I said "most intellectual theists".

I don't think anything external can really convince anyone to be a theist. The seeking for such externalities probably hinders any such finding.

But we do agree. Neither theist nor atheist should claim their position justified by evidence, nor expect the lack thereof to be compelling. Good reasons and plausible justification are highly subjective. While ~80% of the world is theist and agree that they have good reason to believe so (no matter the variety of those reasons), those same reasons are not good enough to be compelling to the other ~20%. I have good reasons to be a theist, but most atheists would discount my reasons with paltry excuses like "that's not the god most believe in" or "that hardly counts as a god at all"...as if they are somehow sudden authorities on the subject.

EXCELLENT, Syne!

 

[Michael 345]

[

I agree with Yaz. While most intellectual theists have the good sense to know that metaphysical claims cannot be supported with physical evidence, atheists are the only ones making evidentiary claims. And as such, the latter's claim that there is no good evidence of a god seems to infer some degree of exhaustion of possibilities...and even some irrational presumption on the nature of metaphysical evidence. Simply assuming there should be physical evidence for a god is a denial of the metaphysical nature of such things.

So no matter to what degree removed, the arguments of atheism are grounded in denial...of the thing's nature, if not the thing itself.

While most intellectual theists have the good sense to know that metaphysical claims cannot be supported with physical evidence, atheists are the only ones making evidentiary claims

Incorrect

Atheists in general only ask for evidence when thesist claim the physical existence of god or physical existence of evidence

Simply assuming there should be physical evidence for a god is a denial of the metaphysical nature of such things.

Again not so. I am sure most atheists are well aware of metaphysical nature of gods etc and treat them as such

ie thought constructs with no physical basis

So no matter to what degree removed, the arguments of atheism are grounded in denial...of the thing's nature, if not the thing itself.

There is no thing itself to deny

Again atheists only ask for physical evidence IF physical evidence has been claimed

Bye the bye (god is) does not count as physical evidence

Neither does looking around at nature count

You CAN put a person in a brain scanner and observe brain activity when they think of god

But you are observing ACTIVITY which while taking place within a physical structure (brain) is a THOUGHT

ie metaphysical

not a physical structure

 

[DaveC426913]

The basis of atheism is the subconscious denial of God.

No, it is the conscious denial of magical, wishful thinking.

Unless you can show some evidence of God outside your own mind, that's the extent of its existence. And not once, in 1500 posts, have you shown such.

God Is, is the default position.

You are demonstrating your irrationality every time you assert something you believe as if it is fact.

Keep it up. You are making my case for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, but I find that little atheist maneuver just as bogus as the games Jan plays.

Atheists don't just lack belief in God.

Which (contra Jan) WOULDN'T be the same thing as lacking God. If God doesn't objectively exist, then everyone lacks God whatever they happen to believe (unless one wants to deny the possibility of false beliefs), since in reality there is no God. And if on the other hand God does exist, then God exists for the unbelievers as well as the believers, even if the atheists fail to acknowledge God's reality. Theological theories of post-mortem judgement depend on that. People can't escape God's judgement simply by becoming atheist. Jan seems to deviate radically from Christian and Islamic tradition at that point

I'm not really sure how that invalidates the initial assertion that there's no position to defend.

Atheists typically go far beyond simply not believing in God. Among other things, they insist that there is no good evidence for the existence of God.

From where I stand, you've got the cart before the horse.

The lack of good evidence is what leads to not believing there's a God.

(Which is a factual claim.) They claim that disbelief in God is the best and most rational position to take. (Which is an epistemological claim.) There's often additional stuff about religion's role in history, the desirability of eliminating religion and atheism's supposed relationship with Science.

Yeah. Once engaged, atheists are happy to expound upon their ideas about lots of things - but they don't need to in a debate about the existence or non-existence of God. All they need to do is leave the burden of proof where it belongs - on the theist making the initial assertion.

 

[Yazata]

I'm not really sure how that invalidates the initial assertion that there's no position to defend.

It doesn't at that point. I was just making sure to explain why lacking belief in God is NOT the same thing as lacking God. I realize that you understand that, but some of the others reading this thread might not. It was intended as kind of a parenthetical remark that wasn't really directed at you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

From where I stand, you've got the cart before the horse.

The lack of good evidence is what leads to not believing there's a God.

Right. My point was that atheists don't typically stop at not believing in God, they usually mix that up with what they believe are good reasons for not believing. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with that. I would agree that when we say things or even privately believe them, it's usually best to have good reasons.

My intention was to argue against any Jan-style assertions from atheists that atheism is a default position that needs no justification. Maybe lacking any views on the existence of God is a default condition for somebody (a newborn baby perhaps) who has never heard of the existence of God issue and has no opinions on it one way or the other. But just about everybody who consciously identifies themselves as an 'atheist' doesn't fit that description. They usually like to think that they are quite up-to-speed on the issues and that the positions that they take on them are sound. Which commits them to propositions that need to be defended.

Yeah. Once engaged, atheists are happy to expound upon their ideas about lots of things - but they don't need to in a debate about the existence or non-existence of God. All they need to do is leave the burden of proof where it belongs - on the theist making the initial assertion.

The burden is with the theist if the theist is trying to convince the atheist. But if the atheist wants to convince the theist that theism should be abandoned or something, then the burden would be on the atheist.

The burden is always going to be on the one who wants to talk somebody else into changing his or her mind.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, it is the conscious denial of magical, wishful thinking.

That's not the same thing.

Unless you can show some evidence of God outside your own mind, that's the extent of its existence. And not once, in 1500 posts, have you shown such.

This statement is evidence that for you God does not exist. Believing that God can be shown, like tables and washing machines, indicates that.

You are demonstrating your irrationality every time you assert something you believe as if it is fact

No, you are, everytime you ask for suitable evidence (by your own personal standard) the existence of God.

If I asked you what evidence would convince you that God Is, or from the atheistic perspective, that God exists, beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence that could suffice would be physical. That means you are bypassing everything that makes God, God.

Keep it up. You are making my case for me

Only if you accept that God does not exist. Otherwise you can try and comprehend God the way other people comprehend God. But you won't. You will doggedly cling to your ignorance, and claim that to be rational.

It is only rational if God is a physical object. But nowhere is mentioned, or believed (by theists) that this is the case.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rather hard to believe.

Impossible to believe, as long as you are atheist.

Until (unless) that thing is shown to actually exist then any and all claims of its "nature" are speculation.
Which would mean that the "denial" is, as commonly stated, a denial of the claims of theists.

Unfortunately (for you), that's not what it means.
For you, claims of God's nature, is speculation. Because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. That's the reason.

"It's metaphysical" isn't an argument. Especially when followed by "You should behave in certain ways because ...".

It doesn't matter what you think is a good argument. The fact is that you currently have no comprehension of God, which is why God does not exist as far as you're aware. That fact is the reason for your current reasoning.

Nope.
The question is "WHY should we believe?"

It's up to you what you believe.
Why would you even ask that?

And again - what evidence is there that this metaphysical thing is actual?

None that would satisfy your personal tastes, bearing in mind you starting position ''God does not exist''.

It doesn't particularly matter, since - these can be agreed upon by just about everyone.

IOW it suits your position to say ''It doesn't particularly matter''.

The whole "behave in a certain way" is justified by the "existence" of this "metaphysical thing".

What do you mean ''behave in a certain way''?

If it were left merely as "I believe, now I'll shut up about it" there wouldn't be half the problems with the claims that there are

Then just live your life and don't let them bother you.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I agree with Yaz. While most intellectual theists have the good sense to know that metaphysical claims cannot be supported with physical evidence, atheists are the only ones making evidentiary claims.

I don't agree that they are.
Not if you actually listen to what they mostly say.
They say that there is no evidence that convinces them, and that what theists might consider to be evidence of God, they (the atheist) do not.
Explanations on either side is a matter of the individual, not the group as a whole.

And as such, the latter's claim that there is no good evidence of a god seems to infer some degree of exhaustion of possibilities...and even some irrational presumption on the nature of metaphysical evidence.

I don't think this is true, either.
Admittedly the wording they use may be poor and not convey their full position, but mostly, from experience of discussions, only the strong atheists would fit your notion.
The weak atheist generally leaves open the possibility of evidence in any form, although most would also not be able to state what that form might be.

Simply assuming there should be physical evidence for a god is a denial of the metaphysical nature of such things.

It is, but I don't know of any atheist who makes such an assumption.
Usually the issue of physical evidence is around the theist claiming there is some, and the atheist putting forth arguments as to why the evidence presented is not, in their eyes, evidence at all.
The argument of indistinguishability, for example.

So no matter to what degree removed, the arguments of atheism are grounded in denial...of the thing's nature, if not the thing itself.

I don't see this as true, either.
The strong atheist, quite possibly.
There aren't actually that many of those with regard all concepts of God, however.
And as I understand the term, to deny something one must either not accept the known truth (aka delusion), or simply say that something (whether true or not) is not true (strong atheism).
The weak atheist merely is not convinced there is even anything to deny, whether they accept the possibility of something with God's nature or not.
No denial.
Just no acceptance that it is true, when they do not know whether it is true or not.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a newbie's argument, dismantled decades ago. I'm surprised at you, you're making this too easy.

This statement is evidence that for you God does not exist. Believing that God can be shown, like tables and washing machines, indicates that.

Yep. Just like Sagan's dragon.

"... she's an invisible dragon."
... that floats in the air.
... breathing invisible fire.
... that's heatless
... Oh. And she's incorporeal too!"

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. "

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

[Sarkus]

The burden is with the theist if the theist is trying to convince the atheist. But if the atheist wants to convince the theist that theism should be abandoned or something, then the burden would be on the atheist.

The burden is always going to be on the one who wants to talk somebody else into changing his or her mind.

This is what disappoints me about these threads that eventually just get into a slug-fest, and I admit to being as guilty of that at times as anyone (whether through boredom or other reasons). Personally I'm not looking to be convinced, and I have no real intention of convincing others. I would just like to get into the mind of someone who does believe, and preferably someone who can articulate, isn't defensive, isn't aggressive, and is open to exploring both sides of the issue, so that I can understand better the mindset of the religious person, the theist, better understand their motivations, their perspectives. And they can better understand mine, the agnostic atheists'.
This does involve asking question that others might consider personal about their belief. But if one has examined their own belief one should hopefully be confident enough to share ones thoughts. Alas it too often breaks down because one side or the other has an agenda that is incompatible with such an examination. Or one comes into it with a preconceived notion of the other side and just can't let go of it, or sees attacks when none are intended that they get defensive and clam up, or reciprocate, thus escalating.
It happens on both sides.

And when someone has the temerity to say "but beliefs are personal, we shouldn't question them, people can believe what they like so stop asking questions" then I wonder why there is even a forum such as this, if not to help us understand each side of the debate. If people want to do that from the tops of trees flinging mud (or something less appetising) like monkeys then fine, just get me an umbrella as I walk below.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

This isn't even an analogy. This is the perspective of someone who does NOT comprehend God.

If it is a dragon,...

1. a mythical monster like a giant reptile. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens.
2. 2.
   another term for flying lizard.

... it will be what it is. If you add the quality of invisibility to it, and no feel of heat when it breathes fire, then you have to explain how something that is perceived as visible, can become invisible, even breathing heatless fire.

How do you relate this to God?

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

"... she's an invisible dragon."
... that floats in the air.
... breathing invisible fire.
... that's heatless
... Oh. And she's incorporeal too!"

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

Sagan seems to be arguing that in order to exist, something has to interact with our senses. I don't think that's very plausible, since I can imagine that a tremendous variety of unknown things might fail to interact with our senses yet nevertheless exist. (Unrealized possibilities, absences and mathematical structures like algebra's rings and fields are examples often encountered in philosophical metaphysics texts.)

If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

It means that the phrase "my dragon" has an existing referrant. That's the idea that if we had an exhaustive inventory of everything that exists (the 'universe of discourse' in logical semantics) there would be an element in that set corresponding to 'my dragon'.

Sagan might arguably be on stronger ground if he argued that absent some connection between us and the invisible dragon, we would have no way of fixing its reference to a particular element of the reality set. But since the reality set (everything that is) almost certainly contains an undetermined number of elements currently unknown to us, the dragon could still correspond to one of those.

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.

Nor does its failure to interact with our senses "prove" that it doesn't exist.

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. "

Right. I think that's true, but it's a rather different proposition. Now the topic isn't what does and doesn't exist, but rather what we can and can't know. The issue has swerved from ontology to epistemology. If "my dragon" fails to interact with our senses, and if our senses are the only source of information that we have about what does and doesn't exist (a questionable proposition), then we would have no way of knowing whether "my dragon" exists or not.

What Sagan seems to be arguing for (perhaps without realizing it) is agnosticism rather than atheism.

 

[Michael 345]

Sagan seems to be arguing that in order to exist, something has to interact with our senses

Not necessarily our senses but interact with senses or some sensing device we have built to detect something we suspect exist but our senses by themselves are incapable of detecting

ex·ist
\ig-ˈzist\

• : to have actual being : to be real
• : to continue to be or to live

Mirriam-Webster

nevertheless exist. (Unrealized possibilities, absences and mathematical structures like algebra's rings and fields are examples often encountered in philosophical metaphysics texts.)

None of the examples given meet the standard of having a existence