Trouble at mill

[Nearly Sane]

All fine for someone who talks in terms of logic and the philosophical nature of that. I don't so won't get into debates on terms etc

I don't have a belief in God and so am an atheist. I see no evidence for God. Of course I could be wrong and could accept that I was wrong, or likely to be wrong, if the right evidence was presented. My lack of belief is not a matter of evidence but a state of mind in my view, a lack of a sense of belief, presence of God etc The analysis of evidence is secondary to me and to many atheists. Conclude from that what you wish is terms of your logical analysis and philosophical talk - I'm not really interested in that.

After with much of this, though I would suggest bhs is wrong in philosophical terms as well since if they don't take into account what we as humans are like then the arguments are not sound.

Again this makes me think that in terms of the description on wiki, I might be an apatheist. I can take an intellectual interest in the arguments for gods existing but they seem unimportant to me in real terms. I dislike bad argument or people claiming privileges for belief but gods seem a mere curlicue of that.

[ekim]

I agree so much with this. Somewhere someone asked recently if believers feel that god is an emotion, and actually there is something in that. God can be very much a feeling and faith is about experience, not intellectual exercise. I think that if an atheist were presented with irrefutable proof that God did exist but they they still didn't experience that as real, the best they could hope for would be a kind of abstract understanding existence of God in the same way that I have a vague understanding that somewhere out there black holes exist. Ok, so it's real, but it doesn't have much of an impact on my life.

Faith is about relationship; without that it is meaningless. This is why I don't get it when believers try to make belief into an intellectual exercise. Vlad's best posts on here by streets have been the ones where he stops sneering, stops shoving god in to fill the gaps and just focuses on his experience of coming to faith.

'Intellectual exercise', as regards what lies behind many religions, is likely to be counter productive in experiencing its 'truth' or otherwise.  It doesn't help when the undefined word 'god' is used and provided with human characteristics inflated to super human proportions, it inevitably leads to an attack and defence scenario on discussion sites.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree so much with this. Somewhere someone asked recently if believers feel that god is an emotion, and actually there is something in that. God can be very much a feeling and faith is about experience, not intellectual exercise.

Rhiannon fantastic post although some of your blame here is wrongly apportioned.
I look at intellectual formulations of religion as analysis which in fine Lewisian fashion I regard as secondary to experience but which New and modern atheists regard as paramount vis almost anything by Hillside.
Public intellectual debate on religion by the religious with non religion is imv in the context of God as viewed by argumentum ad ridiculum.....Leprechauns, FSM, Invisible unicorns, sky fairy, etc
That shouldn't stand.
A good world view should involve all aspects of life and so forbidding intellectual exercise as you seem to do is imv the wrong way to go.

That said I do not want to detract from your piece recognising in excellent terms the primacy of experience and was reminded of Aquinus who apparently had a divine relevation which caused him to put down his pen and enjoy , without regret of past intellectual triumphs, his faith.

[Maeght]

Please my post has triggered some more interesting discussion. I would like to clarify that I am talking about belief rather than knowledge. In a situation where there was sound, iron cast, etc evidence, sufficient that the existence of God became a fact, then would become knowledge not belief. I would have knowledge of the existence of God but not belief and doubt I would be religious in tems of worship etc very much as Rhiannon suggested in regard to Black Holes I guess.

I think the use of Leprechauns, Invisible Unicorns etc is relevant when debating specific points of argument but are not, and are not intended to be, exactly analogys of belief in God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please my post has triggered some more interesting discussion. I would like to clarify that I am talking about belief rather than knowledge. In a situation where there was sound, iron cast, etc evidence, sufficient that the existence of God became a fact, then would become knowledge not belief. I would have knowledge of the existence of God but not belief and doubt I would be religious in tems of worship etc very much as Rhiannon suggested in regard to Black Holes I guess.

I think the use of Leprechauns, Invisible Unicorns etc is relevant when debating specific points of argument but are not, and are not intended to be, exactly analogys of belief in God.

Regarding your last statements.
I don't believe you can use these and avoid a charge of argumentum ad ridiculing.

It is in the antitheist mind set that he or she must be seen as cheeky and bright and slipping in an argumentum ad ridiculing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Sorry I ducked out last night – last minute call offering Mrs B and me corporate tickets for the Rolling Stones at the Olympic Park. Bloody magnificent – my god for a bunch of pensioners they can really rip it up still. Anyways…

I know you like to split posts up but it leads to you, as here asking questions that are addressed in the rest of the post. So The reason that I suspect I might be a god dodger in the circumstance is covered in the rest of the post but you ask why because you are treating things out of context. There are tons of arguments that I cannot falsify it doesn't necessarily mean that I can claim that they are insurmountable, or cogent, or cast iron or whatever description you want to use without defining.

You seem to be getting confused with what might in a very narrow circumstance be defined as rationality, and ignoring how I, to me, would seem to come to beliefs. Now since you are the one making the objective claim here, whereas all I am saying is that it doesn't fit with my experience, I will need a bit more than your ongoing argument by incredulity  and simple assertion to see your argument in any way as sound, never mind any other desperately reaching description you might want to apply to it.

I make no comment at all on how you came to your (non-)beliefs. I merely say that, if you found an argument for “god” that you couldn’t unravel then logically at least you’d have no choice but to abandon your atheism. 

So all non falsifiable arguments are sound, cogent, cast iron and insurmountable? I  thinkyou didn't really mean to suggest that.

Because I suggested no such thing. You’ve fallen into a pit of Vladian absolutism there, and here’s why: Consider Fred. Fred is an atheist. Maybe he’s an atheist because he’s never felt he experienced a god, maybe he read up on theism and found the arguments for it unpersuasive. Whatever.

Then one day Fred comes across an argument for theism that he can’t unravel. Try as he might, he can see no way to falsify it. Now you might find a way to falsify it. I might find a way to falsify it. It might be an utterly shit argument in fact. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that Fred can’t unpick it so from his perspective he has a problem – should he retain his atheism and try to forget the argument he’s found to detonate it, or should he abandon his atheism in light of the argument he’s found undoes him?

Do you see it now? It’s a reference point issue – no-one (least of all me) suggests an argument that’s cast iron etc in some sort of absolute way (surely you know me well enough by now to know that I see no way to be certain about anything – unknown unknowns and all that). All I need for the point to stand is an argument that just seems certain enough to Fred. 

That was the "because" I referred to earlier: logically at least you can be an atheist by any means you like; find an argument for theism you can't undo though and retaining the atheism is akin to a professor of geology holding on to the notion that the earth is made of cream cheese. 

[Maeght]

Regarding your last statements.
I don't believe you can use these and avoid a charge of argumentum ad ridiculing.

It is in the antitheist mind set that he or she must be seen as cheeky and bright and slipping in an argumentum ad ridiculing.

It is possible if put in the correct way and their purpose is explained. If their use is not clear people do interpret them as being a way of ridiculing beliefs, I agree.

[Rhiannon]

It is possible if put in the correct way and their purpose is explained. If their use is not clear people do interpret them as being a way of ridiculing beliefs, I agree.

The really annoying thing about that is that belief in ‘the little people’ existed for centuries - belief in local spirits and animism is more ancient still - and in some places and for some people these beliefs and experiences continue to be real. A theist shouldn’t see comparison to the very real beliefs of others as ‘ridiculing’ their own. I don’t get it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The really annoying thing about that is that belief in ‘the little people’ existed for centuries - belief in local spirits and animism is more ancient still - and in some places and for some people these beliefs and experiences continue to be real. A theist shouldn’t see comparison to the very real beliefs of others as ‘ridiculing’ their own. I don’t get it.

That though cannot apply to the atheists who patently do not respect any of what you have said.

Any apparent respect is merely suspended contempt in some war on theism imo.

[Rhiannon]

That though cannot apply to the atheists who patently do not respect any of what you have said.

Any apparent respect is merely suspended contempt in some war on theism imo.

Well to be fair the majority of atheists think any set of beliefs in the supernatural to be a load of old pony. I don’t get why a theist such as yourself should think that a comparison between, say, the practice of prayer and the practice of magic to be ridiculous.

[Maeght]

The really annoying thing about that is that belief in ‘the little people’ existed for centuries - belief in local spirits and animism is more ancient still - and in some places and for some people these beliefs and experiences continue to be real. A theist shouldn’t see comparison to the very real beliefs of others as ‘ridiculing’ their own. I don’t get it.

I can see how that would be annoying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well to be fair the majority of atheists think any set of beliefs in the supernatural to be a load of old pony. I don’t get why a theist such as yourself should think that a comparison between, say, the practice of prayer and the practice of magic to be ridiculous.

Certainly many theists of the type who come in for your attacks do not see magic as ridiculous but as a serious involvement of spiritual forces which is detrimental to the participant.

As far as I am aware FSM, sky fairy, Invisible Pink Unicorn have no such traditional following and yet atheists include Leprechauns and the fey folk in that armoury.

A promising line of discussion turned by yourself into another bashing of the monotheists.

[Rhiannon]

Certainly many theists of the type who come in for your attacks do not see magic as ridiculous but as a serious involvement of spiritual forces which is detrimental to the participant.

As far as I am aware FSM, sky fairy, Invisible Pink Unicorn have no such traditional following and yet atheists include Leprechauns and the fey folk in that armoury.

A promising line of discussion turned by yourself into another bashing of the monotheists.

You know that there are pagan monotheists, right? And my mother and my best friend are both monotheists and I haven't bashed them noticeably of late.

So, you are frightened of magic. Fair enough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You know that there are pagan monotheists, right? And my mother and my best friend are both monotheists and I haven't bashed them noticeably of late.

So, you are frightened of magic. Fair enough.

Your rush to a conclusion just shuts down conversation.

At the moment you have me treating magic with ridicule and simultaneously fearing its reality.

Careful now since if you say I hold both positions then you can no longer say an atheist can't both ridicule and fear God.

[Rhiannon]

Your rush to a conclusion just shuts down conversation.

At the moment you have me treating magic with ridicule and simultaneously fearing its reality.

Careful now since if you say I hold both positions then you can no longer say an atheist can't both ridicule and fear God.

I didn’t know which position you held. Now I do.

It’s been so long since I had a conversation with Christians about witchcraft that I’d forgotten the ludicrous indoctrination of fear of it within the church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn’t know which position you held. Now I do.

It’s been so long since I had a conversation with Christians about witchcraft that I’d forgotten the ludicrous indoctrination of fear of it within the church.

Again the same rush to a conclusion which leaves you looking hopefully superior.
Let's not forget your thesis that theists hold magic in the same way atheists hold prayer and magic has been shown as not being a dogmatic absolute.
The rush to conclusion shuts down a promising line of conversation.

I'll see your project fear against magic in the church with pagan arrogance that they can possibly hope to control these forces.

[SusanDoris]

All fine for someone who talks in terms of logic and the philosophical nature of that. I don't so won't get into debates on terms etc

I don't have a belief in God and so am an atheist. I see no evidence for God. Of course I could be wrong and could accept that I was wrong, or likely to be wrong, if the right evidence was presented. My lack of belief is not a matter of evidence but a state of mind in my view, a lack of a sense of belief, presence of God etc The analysis of evidence is secondary to me and to many atheists. Conclude from that what you wish is terms of your logical analysis and philosophical talk - I'm not really interested in that.

Are you interested - and if so, can you say how much - in the continuing push for things taught as facts to children to be backed up by objective evidence or classified as unknowns for the present time?
How much of a stand should be made against the teaching by faith religions of their beliefs as truths?

[SusanDoris]

That said I do not want to detract from your piece recognising in excellent terms the primacy of experience and was reminded of Aquinus who apparently had a divine relevation which caused him to put down his pen and enjoy , without regret of past intellectual triumphs, his faith.

I get a bit fed up with that Aquinas being quoted right, left and centre as if his was the final word on things religious. It is all very well, but he was talking at a time when a vast amount of the factual knowledge we have now was completely unknown.  If he was alive today and saying the same things, he would be justifiably challenged at every turn.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you interested - and if so, can you say how much - in the continuing push for things taught as facts to children to be backed up by objective evidence or classified as unknowns for the present time?
How much of a stand should be made against the teaching by faith religions of their beliefs as truths?

This reads as a non sequitur to Maeght's post

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I get a bit fed up with that Aquinas being quoted right, left and centre as if his was the final word on things religious. It is all very well, but he was talking at a time when a vast amount of the factual knowledge we have now was completely unknown.  If he was alive today and saying the same things, he would be justifiably challenged at every turn.

He isn't challenged today, rather a Dawkinsian caricature of his work is challenged.
Knowledge of the facts you are eluding to is inconsequential to his metaphysics. Indeed such is the misunderstanding of his work is the uneducated are convinced that his work depends on the universe having a beginning.

[SusanDoris]

This reads as a non sequitur to Maeght's post

I didn't write it as a sequitur!! I wrote it as a part of the general discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

I get a bit fed up with that Aquinas being quoted right, left and centre as if his was the final word on things religious. It is all very well, but he was talking at a time when a vast amount of the factual knowledge we have now was completely unknown.  If he was alive today and saying the same things, he would be justifiably challenged at every turn.

Can you give an example of something factual that would be used to challenge something from Aquinas

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't write it as a sequitur!! I wrote it as a part of the general discussion.

So why quote a post and then write something irrelevant to it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

All fine for someone who talks in terms of logic and the philosophical nature of that. I don't so won't get into debates on terms etc

That’s up to you, but it doesn’t change the facts that the atheism of an atheist who finds he can’t falsify an argument for theism is untenable. He might somehow cling to it nonetheless (cognitive dissonance) but he’d thereby put himself in the same position as an astronaut who says he thinks the moon is made of mozzarella. 

I don't have a belief in God and so am an atheist. I see no evidence for God. Of course I could be wrong and could accept that I was wrong, or likely to be wrong, if the right evidence was presented. My lack of belief is not a matter of evidence but a state of mind in my view, a lack of a sense of belief, presence of God etc The analysis of evidence is secondary to me and to many atheists. Conclude from that what you wish is terms of your logical analysis and philosophical talk - I'm not really interested in that.

Yes I know, but an argument for theism you couldn’t unpick would be a type of evidence – at least for you. Then what?

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

That’s up to you, but it doesn’t change the facts that the atheism of an atheist who finds he can’t falsify an argument for theism is untenable. He might somehow cling to it nonetheless (cognitive dissonance) but he’d thereby put himself in the same position as an astronaut who says he thinks the moon is made of mozzarella. 

Yes I know, but an argument for theism you couldn’t unpick would be a type of evidence – at least for you. Then what?

Arguments are not evidence.