Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Which illustrates why I haven't enough faith to be an atheist.

Just to add to torri's post, you no more need "faith" to be an atheist than you need faith to find that 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments available for god(s) are flawed.

[Maeght]

Sword,

Just to add to torri's post, you no more need "faith" to be an atheist than you need faith to find that 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments available for god(s) are flawed.

I would say that an atheist would find the arguments for god(s) personally unconvincing and that many are flawed but I wouldn't say that that is what atheism 'is'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I would say that an atheist would find the arguments for god(s) personally unconvincing...

I'd question the "personally" here. The point of logic is that it's impersonal: 2 + 2 ≠ 5 regardless of who your are, your personal opinions, your "faith" etc. That's the difference from religious faith in particular, which gives you a "true for me only" god but that's all it gives you.

...and that many are flawed...

I think the point is that all of them are flawed. It would take only one argument for god(s) to be cogent for theism to be unavoidable. 

...but I wouldn't say that that is what atheism 'is'.

Well, depends what you mean I guess. "Atheism" is the non-belief in god(s); the method that gets you to atheism is the falsification of the arguments attempted for god(s).

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

I'd question the "personally" here. The point of logic is that it's impersonal: 2 + 2 ≠ 5 regardless of who your are, your personal opinions, your "faith" etc. That's the difference from religious faith in particular, which gives you a "true for me only" god but that's all it gives you.

I think the point is that all of them are flawed. It would only take one argument for god(s) to be cogent for theism to be unavoidable. 

Well, depends what you mean I guess. "Atheism" is the non-belief in god(s); the method that gets you to atheism is the falsification of the arguments attempted for god(s).

I can make cogent arguments for different political points, that are in opposition to each other. Are they then both unavoidable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I can make cogent arguments for different political points, that are in opposition to each other. Are they then both unavoidable?

That's a category error. Political arguments differ from theistic ones in that they don't argue for objectively "there" phenomena (like gods), and nor in general are they absolutist in character (though sometimes they can be).

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That's a category error. Political arguments differ from theistic ones in that they don't argue for objectively "there" phenomena (like gods), and nor in general are they absolutist in character (though sometimes they can be).

that's simply assertion. And since we only have inter subjectivity a category error of its own.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

that's simply assertion. And since we only have inter subjectivity a category error of its own.

No it isn't. The theist says "god is"; the politico says "here's the best way to go about achieving the end I think to be most desirable". One describes a phenomenon that exists while the other describes a process, so conflating them is a category error.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn't. The theist says "god is"; the politico says "here's the best way to go about achieving the end I think to be most desirable". One describes a phenomenon that exists while the other describes a process, so conflating them is a category error.

that the theists making the arguments make category errors about objectivity does not mean you can use this to say the arguments are evaluated objectively.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

that the theists making the arguments make category errors about objectivity does not mean you can use this to say the arguments are evaluated objectively

I don't. What I say is that cogent arguments about political positions concern desired ends and the optimum means to achieve them. There's no reason necessarily to agree with the former in particular, and often not with the latter either. Cogent arguments about "God" on the other hand concern a (supposed) fact about the world, and if one such was ever formulated there'd be no way to avoid the conclusion "God".

The category error here is in conflating the two types - non-fact vs fact.   

[Maeght]

I'd question the "personally" here. The point of logic is that it's impersonal: 2 + 2 ≠ 5 regardless of who your are, your personal opinions, your "faith" etc. That's the difference from religious faith in particular, which gives you a "true for me only" god but that's all it gives you.

I don't think religious belief is a question of logic.

I think the point is that all of them are flawed. It would take only one argument for god(s) to be cogent for theism to be unavoidable.

How can we show that all the arguments are flawed though?

Well, depends what you mean I guess. "Atheism" is the non-belief in god(s); the method that gets you to atheism is the falsification of the arguments attempted for god(s).

Don't agree. I have never had a faith in God so when did I go through that process? I think the 'logical' process occurs after you have no belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I don't think religious belief is a question of logic.

Well, there are plenty of theists who attempt arguments they think to be logically sound for their religious beliefs. If logic isn't relevant though that leaves "faith", which presents them with the insurmountable problem of explaining why anyone's personal faith in anything should be taken seriously by anyone else. 

How can we show that all the arguments are flawed though?

By falsifying them. That's not to say that someone somewhere doesn't have an argument for "God" that isn't falsifiable only he's keeping it to himself, but it is to say that the arguments attempted in the public square so far have been falsified.   
 

Don't agree. I have never had a faith in God so when did I go through that process? I think the 'logical' process occurs after you have no belief.

Your "never having a faith in God" is atheism. The finding that the arguments some attempt for "God" are broken is a process or method that supports it. 

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Well, there are plenty of theists who attempt arguments they think to be logically sound for their religious beliefs. If logic isn't relevant though that leaves "faith", which presents them with the insurmountable problem of explaining why anyone's personal faith in anything should be taken seriously by anyone else.

Yes, people of faith do attempt to make logical arguments in support of that faith, but that doesn't mean the origin of the faith is logic.

By falsifying them. That's not to say that someone somewhere doesn't have an argument for "God" that isn't falsifiable only he's keeping it to himself, but it is to say that the arguments attempted in the public square so far have been falsified.

Many have from a scientific point of view but not all surely.
 

Your "never having a faith in God" is atheism. The finding that the arguments some attempt for "God" are broken is a process or method that supports it.

Which was my point - the logical arguments came after having no faith but weren't the cause of a lack of faith.

[Alan Burns]

Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments available for god(s) are flawed.

Is it not the case that atheists seek to find alternative explanations to counter the evidence for God's existence - then claim that the evidence for God is flawed despite acknowledging that their explanations do not fully explain reality?

[Nearly Sane]

And Alan  Burns straight in with a shifting the burden of proof, begging the question and accusing all atheists of lying, one of the best crafted fallacy routines via long tine

[Alan Burns]

And Alan  Burns straight in with a shifting the burden of proof, begging the question and accusing all atheists of lying, one of the best crafted fallacy routines via long tine

Not lying, but deluded.

[Nearly Sane]

Not lying, but deluded.

So if people were deluded, and you regard hell as a form of punishment, your God would punish people for being deluded. Your god is a cunt.

[floo]

One definitely has to suspend logic when contemplating the god of the Bible!

[Gordon]

Is it not the case that atheists seek to find alternative explanations to counter the evidence for God's existence

Not really - fallacious claims do not constitute evidence.

- then claim that the evidence for God is flawed despite acknowledging that their explanations do not fully explain reality?

Dismissing fallacious arguments is just that - and no more.

[torridon]

Is it not the case that atheists seek to find alternative explanations to counter the evidence for God's existence - then claim that the evidence for God is flawed despite acknowledging that their explanations do not fully explain reality?

How can anyone 'counter' something that isn't there ?  If there were any evidence for a deity then that would form the basis of a theory in cosmology already; although it is moot whether a supernatural being could leave evidence as that would define it as natural not supernatural.  But there isn't any evidence to base a theory on; which is why it is called a faith.  The fact that we do not fully understand reality does not mean - 'therefore God', that would be a non-sequitur. We will always have to live with partial knowledge.

[Enki]

Is it not the case that atheists seek to find alternative explanations to counter the evidence for God's existence - then claim that the evidence for God is flawed despite acknowledging that their explanations do not fully explain reality?

Not for me it isn't.  I don't see any evidence for the existence of any god, so I can't see that I've any evidence at all to counter. I am well aware that there are certain things about reality which I can't 'fully explain', but this doesn't warrant me to simply use the idea of a 'god' in place of an unknown explanation. That, for me, would be entirely unsatisfactory, as simply superimposing a god on things that are not known would not, of itself, have any useful explanatory value at all.

[wigginhall]

AB: 'I don't understand how stuff works, therefore God'. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Something that isn't there, we have an animal who dreamed we would walk on the moon and we did, we have an animal that dreamed it could fly and we did, we have an animal that dreams that one day it will walk on Mars and we will, we have an animal ( bollocks, three minutes from full time ) who discovered a new way to harness energy but found a way to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction, we are the something that is there, we are the evidence, what ever we imagine, humans trying to play at gods and failing miserably.

Ah well! one nil is better than five one

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

So if people were deluded, and you regard hell as a form of punishment, your God would punish people for being deluded. Your god is a cunt.

Charming.  Who says God is going to punish people who are deluded?  If that's the case, he'll (or 'It'll' for floo), have to punish a 'helluva' lot of well meaning people, including many of faith who argue amongst themselves about who is deluded.  I don't think so.

[Nearly Sane]

Charming.  Who says God is going to punish people who are deluded?  If that's the case, he'll (or 'It'll' for floo), have to punish a 'helluva' lot of well meaning people, including many of faith who argue amongst themselves about who is deluded.  I don't think so.

Alan thinks atheists will be sent to Hell and thinks it is a punishment and that atheists are deluded. So take it up with him.

[wigginhall]

I wonder how many Christians think atheists go to hell?   I suppose a century ago, probably many did.   But today, it probably seems a bit weird to consign non-Christians to hell, when there are so many.

On the other hand, if non-Christians don't go to hell, then what is the point of Christianity?   What does it mean to be saved, if the unsaved get a slapped wrist? 

You get the sense of a dilution going on, since full-strength Christianity seems rather toxic or bonkers.