Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

How do you verify that someone actually lacks belief in God. With stones and Atoms it's probably more certain.

It doesn’t matter. It’s a position we have taken up for the purpose of this debate. You are supposed to be arguing the idea, not the people. I say the evidence is not enough to conclude there is a god. Your job is to show that it is enough. It doesn’t matter if I am not sincere (I am, but you can’t know that for certain).

[Outrider]

How do you verify that someone actually lacks belief in God. With stones and Atoms it's probably more certain.

I'd think, world-wide, there was more of an issue verifying if someone actually believes in a god, or if they're just going through the motions because where they live they're likely to be ostracised, assaulted or killed if they don't...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn’t matter. It’s a position we have taken up for the purpose of this debate. You are supposed to be arguing the idea, not the people. I say the evidence is not enough to conclude there is a god. Your job is to show that it is enough. It doesn’t matter if I am not sincere (I am, but you can’t know that for certain).

The entire article on Atheism in the IEP runs to several pages meaning that Atheism is more than merely the lack of belief in God's.
What grates with me is the collective rejection of scholarship  around here in order for atheists to act as judge, jury and executioner without comeback or debate.
I consider that a character flaw.
How is your lack of belief different from that of a stone?
It seems to me that debating the existence of God supporting the probability of non existence is different from the mere lack of belief in God....for starters

[Outrider]

The entire article on Atheism in the IEP runs to several pages meaning that Atheism is more than merely the lack of belief in God's.

No, it means that there are nuances within that position, some of which the author has seen fit to expand upon, but that umbrella definition fits them all.

What grates with me is the collective rejection of scholarship  around here in order for atheists to act as judge, jury and executioner without comeback or debate.

If you don't like the burden of proof, don't make claims that you can't substantiate, it's as easy as that.

I consider that a character flaw.

That it grates with you, or that you don't like the burden of proof? I mean, I agree, but I'd like it to be clear which one I'm agreeing with specifically.

How is your lack of belief different from that of a stone?

You can't fly, therefore you're a fish...

It seems to me that debating the existence of God supporting the probability of non existence is different from the mere lack of belief in God....for starters

Is there a version of that you post that's in English?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The entire article on Atheism in the IEP runs to several pages meaning that Atheism is more than merely the lack of belief in God's.
What grates with me is the collective rejection of scholarship  around here in order for atheists to act as judge, jury and executioner without comeback or debate.
I consider that a character flaw.
How is your lack of belief different from that of a stone?
It seems to me that debating the existence of God supporting the probability of non existence is different from the mere lack of belief in God....for starters

Vlad - any chance you could answer my question please.

Which post of mine were you referring to in reply49009?

[Gordon]

Vlad

How 'it seems to you' isn't the issue here - it is how seems to the atheists that you are talking to that is surely the issue.

It seems to me that there are no good reasons to take the notions of 'Gods' seriously since the justifications offered by theists in support of their theistic beliefs are either fallacious or incoherent (and frequently both), and the burden of proof is their problem, and not mine: therefore, I currently hold no beliefs regarding any claimed 'Gods'.

I'd like to think that the above statement is clear enough for you to understand without you getting yourself confused.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it means that there are nuances within that position, some of which the author has seen fit to expand upon, but that umbrella definition fits them all.

If you don't like the burden of proof, don't make claims that you can't substantiate, it's as easy as that.

That it grates with you, or that you don't like the burden of proof? I mean, I agree, but I'd like it to be clear which one I'm agreeing with specifically.

You can't fly, therefore you're a fish...

Is there a version of that you post that's in English?

O.

Anyone who makes a positive assertion and it can be kmplicit has a burden of proof including the assertion that God probably doesn't exist.

[Outrider]

Anyone who makes a positive assertion and it can be kmplicit has a burden of proof including the assertion that God probably doesn't exist.

But you can be an atheist without making that claim, just as you can still be an atheist without making that claim. You could even, theoretically, make that claim and be a theist, you could believe despite the fact that you think it logically unlikely.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

How 'it seems to you' isn't the issue here - it is how seems to the atheists that you are talking to that is surely the issue.

It seems to me that there are no good reasons to take the notions of 'Gods' seriously since the justifications offered by theists in support of their theistic beliefs are either fallacious or incoherent (and frequently both), and the burden of proof is their problem, and not mine: therefore, I currently hold no beliefs regarding any claimed 'Gods'.

I'd like to think that the above statement is clear enough for you to understand without you getting yourself confused.

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof. It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed. Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

[Gordon]

Anyone who makes a positive assertion and it can be kmplicit has a burden of proof including the assertion that God probably doesn't exist.

The dismissal of a specific claim, on the basis that it lacks justification and/or is fallacious, is simply a critique of that claim, as that claim stands. The burden of proof remains with the claimant who can, if they wish, address the critique by clarifying or amending their justification, where any changes can then be critiqued.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you can be an atheist without making that claim, just as you can still be an atheist without making that claim. You could even, theoretically, make that claim and be a theist, you could believe despite the fact that you think it logically unlikely.

O.

I'm sure your right.

[ProfessorDavey]

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof. It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed. Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

Vlad - you seem to be ignoring my very reasonable request for you to indicate which post of mine you were referring to in reply 49009.

[Gordon]

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof. It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed. Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

Don't be so defensively dense, Vlad: it's not a good look.

If someone makes a fallacious and/or incoherent claim they are, in effect, saying nothing meaningful, and it is easy peasy to reject a meaningless claim.

I should have known that a simple explanation would be more than you could cope with.

[Outrider]

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof.

If you were to lead with the idea that there are no good reasons, I'd agree, but it's not usually (in my experience) a claim that exists in a vacuum. It's a response to someone providing what they think are good reasons, and once the perceived flaws in those reasons are highlighted it's a summary of why their position hasn't changed.

It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

It's an explanation for that lack of belief, and absent of you providing good reasons, it stands. So it still puts the burden of proof onto believers to justify their claim.

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed. Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

The problem of evil, the inherently self-contradictory nature of 'The Trinity', the idea of an existence outside of time - these are all ideas which are either flawed or which the human brain has not evolved to deal with - if people feel that these ungraspable claims outweigh other claims in their internal balance, that's not a lack of critical thinking, if anything it's the opposite. If you can overcome the inherent self-contradiction of claims of evidence in support of magic, I'd suggest that's more likely to have emerged from a failure to critically assess the available information.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad - you seem to be ignoring my very reasonable request for you to indicate which post of mine you were referring to in reply 49009.

It would seem likely based on his reply 48998 to me that he's talking about your post 48985.

[Stranger]

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof. It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

Since I'm not omniscient, I can only claim that I have never seen any good reason to take theism seriously. If you think there are good reasons then why are you keeping them secret?

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed.

This is being continually demonstrated to you here, time and time and time again.

Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

It comes from logical thinking, actually.

The fact that you seem intent on avoiding the actual substance of the issue, and would rather quibble about the meaning of the word 'atheist', suggests that you realise you have no arguments for the existence of your God.

[ProfessorDavey]

It would seem likely based on his reply 48998 to me that he's talking about your post 48985.

Perhaps, but would be helpful if he would clarify, rather than leaving others to speculate as to which post he was referring to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since I'm not omniscient, I can only claim that I have never seen any good reason to take theism seriously. If you think there are good reasons then why are you keeping them secret?

This is being continually demonstrated to you here, time and time and time again.

It comes from logical thinking, actually.

The fact that you seem intent on avoiding the actual substance of the issue, and would rather quibble about the meaning of the word 'atheist', suggests that you realise you have no arguments for the existence of your God.

Most atheist objections on this forum have been rebutted. Some atheist objections are straw man arguments.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most atheist objections on this forum have been rebutted.

They may have been rebutted, but rebutted successfully?

I imagine I'm not alone in adopting the following line of through - I do not believe in the existence of god/gods as there is no credible evidence to support their existence.

Go ahead Vlad, you can attempt to rebut this, but the only way you'd be able to do that successfully would be to provide credible evidence for the existence of god/gods. So far I've seen none.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you were to lead with the idea that there are no good reasons, I'd agree, but it's not usually (in my experience) a claim that exists in a vacuum. It's a response to someone providing what they think are good reasons, and once the perceived flaws in those reasons are highlighted it's a summary of why their position hasn't changed.

It's an explanation for that lack of belief, and absent of you providing good reasons, it stands. So it still puts the burden of proof onto believers to justify their claim.

The problem of evil, the inherently self-contradictory nature of 'The Trinity', the idea of an existence outside of time - these are all ideas which are either flawed or which the human brain has not evolved to deal with - if people feel that these ungraspable claims outweigh other claims in their internal balance, that's not a lack of critical thinking, if anything it's the opposite. If you can overcome the inherent self-contradiction of claims of evidence in support of magic, I'd suggest that's more likely to have emerged from a failure to critically assess the available information.

O.

I haven't seen a full argument of the self contradiction of the trinity.
Often atheists argue from misconception or strawman view of the trinity. Ditto the cosmological argument.
What do you understand about the theological and technical difference between ousia and hypostases?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof. It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

And if ever you found someone who asserted definitively that there are no good reasons for believing in god(s) you could take that up with that person. As things stand though, all people here (and all any other atheists I’ve ever discussed this with) actually say is that they know of no good reasons for believing in god(s).

This (presumably) is the same position you take regarding your a-leprechaunism: you know of no good reasons for believing in leprechauns, but you allow for the possibility at least that one such argument could theoretically be made.   

Ditto the fallaciousness and incoherence claimed. Imo this view comes from uncritical osmosis of the ideas of the so called new atheists.

Presumably because you’re never honest enough to try at least to address the logic that undoes your attempts at justifying your belief “god”. Your justifications are fallacious and incoherent because that’s what logical arguments tell us they are, not because of some supposed “osmosis”. 

[Gordon]

Most atheist objections on this forum have been rebutted.

Where, when, by whom?

Some atheist objections are straw man arguments.

On what specific basis does the rejection of a fallacious and/or incoherent claim become a straw man?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Most atheist objections on this forum have been rebutted. Some atheist objections are straw man arguments.

Do you have an example of that ever happening here?

Just one will do.

[Stranger]

Most atheist objections on this forum have been rebutted. Some atheist objections are straw man arguments.

For example......?

[Outrider]

I haven't seen a full argument of the self contradiction of the trinity. Often atheists argue from misconception or strawman view of the trinity.

I haven't seen a coherent depiction of the Trinity that therefore needs an argument; in all the versions that have been presented to me it's inherently self-contradictory, so I don't know that I can help you there.

Ditto the cosmological argument.

We've been over the cosmological argument a number of times, I can go back and pick out the relevant points again if it will help.

What do you understand about the theological and technical difference between ousia and hypostases?

That they are reclaimed Greek philosophical ideas which were intended as early precursors of what we'd now think of as physics - atoms, quarks, the building blocks of the world - that theology has tried to repurpose as part of a dualist idea of reality where 'spiritual' is treated as something meaningful. That might be an oversimplification, it's not an area I've been particularly interested in, given that it's foundations are fundamentally doubtful from where I'm looking.

O.