Trouble at mill

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

I have no problem with empirical evidence. Unfortunately 'ontological claims', by which I assume you mean, claims that a god exists, seem to be lacking any empirical evidence. Hence, such claims which are a result of personal experiences cannot be verified by any objective(intersubjective) method, and are therefore useless as evidence for any but the claimant.

Which (again) is the answer to his repeated earlier question about why such claims should be dismissed when they overreach into claims of objective truths.

[Enki]

enki,

Which (again) is the answer to his repeated earlier question about why such claims should be dismissed when they overreach into claims of objective truths.

Blue,

I completely agree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no problem with empirical evidence. Unfortunately 'ontological claims', by which I assume you mean, claims that a god exists, seem to be lacking any empirical evidence. Hence, such claims which are a result of personal experiences cannot be verified by any objective(intersubjective) method, and are therefore useless as evidence for any but the claimant.

Yes God's leave no empirical evidence but the lack of that does not affect whether you trust a statement or what one believes.
If you are saying you are an atheist because God has no empirical footprint then we are all atheists. However theists don't claim empirical evidence. Although historical reports blur the edges on that.

[Enki]

Yes God's leave no empirical evidence but the lack of that does not affect whether you trust a statement or what one believes.
If you are saying you are an atheist because God has no empirical footprint then we are all atheists. However theists don't claim empirical evidence. Although historical reports blur the edges on that.

Personally I find no need to believe in any god and find no evidence that justifies the existence of any god. Whether others wish to believe in their particular gods is entirely up to them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Yes God's leave no empirical evidence…

So you assert. So what makes you think that there are such gods in the first place then?

…but the lack of that does not affect whether you trust a statement…

Of course it does if that “trust” entails treating the statement as objectively true. If not for empirical evidence, what kind of evidence would you propose instead to distinguish the claim from just guessing?

…or what one believes.

Yet another of your countless straw men. No-one doubts that those who assert “god” (or for that matter any other non-material belief) actually believe what they say to be true.

If you are saying you are an atheist because God has no empirical footprint then we are all atheists. However theists don't claim empirical evidence. Although historical reports blur the edges on that.

Wrong again. Atheists are atheists because – so far at least – they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless. It’s simple enough.

[Nearly Sane]

Atheists are atheists because – so far at least – they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless. It’s simple enough.

Nope, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in god(s). Stating why they are an atheist is not something you can make a generalisation on, and this one is based on avenging the question by assuming that any arguments are noodles because someone thinks they are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Nope, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in god(s). Stating why they are an atheist is not something you can make a generalisation on, and this one is based on avenging the question by assuming that any arguments are noodles because someone thinks they are.

Even if you found someone in the middle of a jungle to whom the notion "gods" had never occurred he too would fall into the category "haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless". I'm not sure I can think of a type of atheist to whom that rationale wouldn't apply. Can you?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Even if you found someone in the middle of a jungle to whom the notion "gods" had never occurred he too would fall into the category "haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless". I'm not sure I can think of a type of atheist to whom that rationale wouldn't apply. Can you?

I'm not really bothered about 'types' or indeed why you want to use what appears to be an argument from incredulity. From my own viewpoint I realised I was an atheist when I realised I lacked a belief in what other people talked about when they said they believed in god(s). I didn't think to myself ' Oh their arguments are hopeless'.

And I still don't see how you get to the statement that the arguments are hopeless simply because someone finds them to be so.  Some flat earthers find the arguments for a round earth to be 'hopeless', that doesn't mean they are and your post seems to elide between people finding arguments unconvincing, even for those atheists that fit your generalisation, and the arguments actually being hopeless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again. Atheists are atheists because – so far at least – they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless. It’s simple enough.

Ah, the one size inflatable atheist with the realistic Hillside face printed at one end.

I happen to know someone who admitted to experiencing God while being a public atheist so I think we might have to get the basin and puncture repair outfit on your standard atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not really bothered about 'types' or indeed why you want to use what appears to be an argument from incredulity. From my own viewpoint I realised I was an atheist when I realised I lacked a belief in what other people talked about when they said they believed in god(s). I didn't think to myself ' Oh their arguments are hopeless'.

You’re not getting it. If an atheist had been presented with an argument he didn’t think to be hopeless (ie, it was sound) then presumably he wouldn’t be an atheist. Thus axiomatically all atheists haven’t been presented with such arguments so you specifically wouldn’t have needed to think, “Oh their arguments are hopeless” for that to be the case.
Even if you’d never once heard an argument for theism at all you’d still be in the category, “haven’t heard an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless”. 

And this has nothing to do with the argument from incredulity by the way.   

And I still don't see how you get to the statement that the arguments are hopeless simply because someone finds them to be so.

That’s a misrepresentation of Vladdish proportions. I’ve said no such thing – finding an argument to be hopeless does not necessitate just an arbitrary opinion on the matter. I find such arguments to be hopeless for example because they align with codified and well-understood models of logical fallacies.     

Some flat earthers find the arguments for a round earth to be 'hopeless', that doesn't mean they are and your post seems to elide between people finding arguments unconvincing, even for those atheists that fit your generalisation, and the arguments actually being hopeless.

Nope – see above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Ah, the one size inflatable atheist with the realistic Hillside face printed at one end.

Clumsy ad hom aside, what are your thoughts on the questions you keep running away from in the hope that NS have given you an escape route? You know, these ones:

What are these supposed behaviours that "issue" "from the mention of the word god", and what is it that you think is being "dodged" exactly?

I happen to know someone who admitted to experiencing God…

Again, absent an argument to validate the claim all he could have “admitted to” was a belief that he’d “experienced god”…

…while being a public atheist so I think we might have to get the basin and puncture repair outfit on your standard atheist.

Wrong again. If he genuinely thought he’d “experienced god” then he couldn’t have been an atheist, regardless of his public pronouncements after the episode. He’d have been telling a porkie Vlad.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re not getting it. If an atheist had been presented with an argument he didn’t think to be hopeless (ie, it was sound) then presumably he wouldn’t be an atheist. Thus axiomatically all atheists haven’t been presented with such arguments so you specifically wouldn’t have needed to think, “Oh their arguments are hopeless” for that to be the case.
Even if you’d never once heard an argument for theism at all you’d still be in the category, “haven’t heard an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless”. 

And this has nothing to do with the argument from incredulity by the way.   

That’s a misrepresentation of Vladdish proportions. I’ve said no such thing – finding an argument to be hopeless does not necessitate just an arbitrary opinion on the matter. I find such arguments to be hopeless for example because they align with codified and well-understood models of logical fallacies.     

Nope – see above.

There are plenty of things that I've heard arguments on that I didn't think were hopeless and yet weren't convincing to me. So I don't see why you want to say anything about arguments being hopeless,. Again as I pointed out I'm not an atheist because I find arguments to be hopeless, I just don't believe in what people talk about when they talk about gods. I'm not sure why you think you know more about how I think than I do but it's lead you to fall back on your argument by incredulity again - you just cannot believe there are any atheists who don't fit your description even If an atheists says to you 'I don't fit your description'.

I don't see it as misrepresentation, I may be misreading you but when you wrote  'they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless', then surely that isn't just saying that someone finds an argument unconvincing but that it is actually hopeless and I don't see how you get there. That's the elision that I was referring to so are you saying that isn't what you meant to say?


And I don't suggest that finding an argument to be hopeless did mean it was arbitrary opinion, just that you cannot assume as your post seemed to that it was actually correct that the argument was hopeless. And I'm perfectly happy to think that you weren't misrepresenting me there, just that you fell into the trap of using a false dichotomy

[Rhiannon]

I cling onto my theism by my fingernails anyway, but the reason I don’t believe in God as Vlad does is because I don’t experience that his god is real. Arguments about whether god exists or not are pretty pointless in that regard. Either someone experiences god as real, or they don’t. I wasnt reasoned out of faith, it just stppped existing for me.

[Nearly Sane]

I cling onto my theism by my fingernails anyway, but the reason I don’t believe in God as Vlad does is because I don’t experience that his god is real. Arguments about whether god exists or not are pretty pointless in that regard. Either someone experiences god as real, or they don’t. I wasnt reasoned out of faith, it just stppped existing for me.

Yes, I find the arguments pointless generally as well. Theists rarely seen to be there because of 'arguments'  even in putting them forward. In one sense, I am one of the mythical 'apatheists' talked  of on another thread on that except for an intellectual interest, I don't find the actual idea of whether gods exist important.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There are plenty of things that I've heard arguments on that I didn't think were hopeless and yet weren't convincing to me. So I don't see why you want to say anything about arguments being hopeless,.

You’re struggling now. We can discuss the difference between “hopeless” and “not persuasive” if you like, but the principle is the same: if you haven’t found an argument for “god” to be correct then you’re an atheist. That’s true whether you’ve seen lots of arguments for theism or none – you’re still in that category.

Again as I pointed out I'm not an atheist because I find arguments to be hopeless, I just don't believe in what people talk about when they talk about gods. I'm not sure why you think you know more about how I think than I do but it's lead you to fall back on your argument by incredulity again - you just cannot believe there are any atheists who don't fit your description even If an atheists says to you 'I don't fit your description'.

No doubt you are, but it’s irrelevant for the reason I explained. You’re still an atheist because you haven’t been persuaded by an argument for theism. If you had been persuaded by an argument for theism then you wouldn’t be an atheist. QED

I don't see it as misrepresentation, I may be misreading you but when you wrote  'they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless', then surely that isn't just saying that someone finds an argument unconvincing but that it is actually hopeless and I don't see how you get there. That's the elision that I was referring to so are you saying that isn't what you meant to say?

I meant to say what I said. Either someone finds an argument for god(s) to be correct or to be incorrect – there aren’t gradations of correctness that would lead him to think there are gods but only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, or that there is a god but only from the waist down or some such. You can quibble about the use of “hopeless” rather than “incorrect” or “wrong” if you like, but it’s a secondary matter at best.

And I don't suggest that finding an argument to be hopeless did mean it was arbitrary opinion, just that you cannot assume as your post seemed to that it was actually correct that the argument was hopeless. And I'm perfectly happy to think that you weren't misrepresenting me there, just that you fell into the trap of using a false dichotomy

Then why did you use the phrase “And I still don't see how you get to the statement that the arguments are hopeless simply because someone finds them to be so”? (emphasis added). I didn’t misrepresent you and there was no false dichotomy – you just assumed that I’d said or implied the “simply because someone finds them to be so” bit when I did no such thing.

There are good reasons for finding an argument to be hopeless/incorrect/wrong/whatever and there bad reasons for reaching the same conclusion (see Vlad’s confusion about the fallacious and non-fallacious use of the argument from authority a while back for example). There may also be no arguments for theism available at all. In all three cases though the atheist still hasn’t been presented with an argument for theism that’s persuaded him – which is all I was saying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

I cling onto my theism by my fingernails anyway, but the reason I don’t believe in God as Vlad does is because I don’t experience that his god is real. Arguments about whether god exists or not are pretty pointless in that regard. Either someone experiences god as real, or they don’t. I wasnt reasoned out of faith, it just stppped existing for me.

Yes, but there’s a difference between personal, subjective beliefs and general, objective ones. The person who thinks she’s “encountered god” may not care much whether she can muster a validating argument for god actually being the causal explanation. When she wants the belief to be taken seriously by others though, then arguments are the only tools available for the job.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re struggling now. We can discuss the difference between “hopeless” and “not persuasive” if you like, but the principle is the same: if you haven’t found an argument for “god” to be correct then you’re an atheist. That’s true whether you’ve seen lots of arguments for theism or none – you’re still in that category.

No doubt you are, but it’s irrelevant for the reason I explained. You’re still an atheist because you haven’t been persuaded by an argument for theism. If you had been persuaded by an argument for theism then you wouldn’t be an atheist. QED

I meant to say what I said. Either someone finds an argument for god(s) to be correct or to be incorrect – there aren’t gradations of correctness that would lead him to think there are gods but only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, or that there is a god but only from the waist down or some such. You can quibble about the use of “hopeless” rather than “incorrect” or “wrong” if you like, but it’s a secondary matter at best.

Then why did you use the phrase “And I still don't see how you get to the statement that the arguments are hopeless simply because someone finds them to be so”? (emphasis added). I didn’t misrepresent you and there was no false dichotomy – you just assumed that I’d said or implied the “simply because someone finds them to be so” bit when I did no such thing.

There are good reasons for finding an argument to be hopeless/incorrect/wrong/whatever and there bad reasons for reaching the same conclusion (see Vlad’s confusion about the fallacious and non-fallacious use of the argument from authority a while back for example). There may also be no arguments for theism available at all. In all three cases though the atheist still hasn’t been presented with an argument for theism that’s persuaded him – which is all I was saying.

No, I'm not an atheist because I haven't been convinced by an argument. When you can stop using your incredulity to tell me what I think, we might have a discussion, until then I will leave you to making generalisations which by your incredulity become unfalsifiable even by the people you are making the generalisation about.

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

Yes, but there’s a difference between personal, subjective beliefs and general, objective ones. The person who thinks she’s “encountered god” may not care much whether she can muster a validating argument for god actually being the causal explanation. When she wants the belief to be taken seriously by others though, then arguments are the only tools available for the job.

But plenty of atheists get there because they were theists and god ceased to be real to them. The arguments against faith may then make sense, but they stop believing because god wasn’t there any more. That’s what happened to me. The reasoned arguments against faith are nothing to do with whether I believe or not. There’s no one-size-fits-all reason as to why people are atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I'm not an atheist because I haven't been convinced by an argument. When you can stop using your incredulity to tell me what I think, we might have a discussion, until then I will leave you to making generalisations which by your incredulity become unfalsifiable even by the people you are making the generalisation about.

It’s simple enough I’d have thought: either you’ve encountered an argument for “god” that you’ve been persuaded by (in which case you can’t be an atheist) or you haven’t (in which case you can be an atheist).

Seems to me that the issue here is the word “because” rather than the nature of the arguments themselves. When I said, “Atheists are atheists because – so far at least – they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless. It’s simple enough” that’s still true – if they had been presented with an argument for theism that they found to be not hopeless (ie they were persuaded by it) then they couldn’t be atheists. You seem to have turned this into something like, “only after a review and falsification of the arguments for theism could someone be an atheist” which isn’t what I said or implied at all.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It’s simple enough I’d have thought: either you’ve encountered an argument for “god” that you’ve been persuaded by (in which case you can’t be an atheist) or you haven’t (in which case you can be an atheist).

Seems to me that the issue here is the word “because” rather than the nature of the arguments themselves. When I said, “Atheists are atheists because – so far at least – they/we haven’t been presented with an argument for theism that isn’t hopeless. It’s simple enough” that’s still true – if they had been presented with an argument for theism that they found to be not hopeless (ie they were persuaded by it) then they couldn’t be atheists. You seem to have turned this into something like, “only after a review and falsification of the arguments for theism could someone be an atheist” which isn’t what I said or implied at all.

No, I have simply stated that I didn't become an atheist because of any failings in the arguments made. As Rhiannon has covered she didn't believe because of the arguments, not for she stop believing because of the arguments. Again stop telling me what I think simply because your incredulity won't allow you to listen to what I actually write.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If a new thread is started on this would you answer the question?

Most certainly since we have derailed the original intent of this thread long ago. Let us not trouble ourselves finding a culprit there.
Would you do the honours and start the new thread?

[Maeght]

Nope, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in god(s). Stating why they are an atheist is not something you can make a generalisation on, and this one is based on avenging the question by assuming that any arguments are noodles because someone thinks they are.

Agreed. I tend to think of it as follows.  Theist talk of experiencing God, feeling a presence, knowing God personally or similar. I have never had those experiences or feelings, so have no belief. I do not find the arguments for God convincing but that is not why I am an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agreed. I tend to think of it as follows.  Theist talk of experiencing God, feeling a presence, knowing God personally or similar. I have never had those experiences or feelings, so have no belief. I do not find the arguments for God convincing but that is not why I am an atheist.

What arguments for love convinced people that they should be in that state?

[Rhiannon]

Agreed. I tend to think of it as follows.  Theist talk of experiencing God, feeling a presence, knowing God personally or similar. I have never had those experiences or feelings, so have no belief. I do not find the arguments for God convincing but that is not why I am an atheist.

Absolutely. And people who find god generally do so because the prayer thing has worked for them or they feel a sense of communion in some way.

[Gordon]

Was just thinking, regarding arguments for God that if rejected imply atheism (and I'd say that approach does apply to me) that I've yet to encounter a theist who states that their theism is primarily based on concluding that, say, the ontological argument for God is sound.

Perhaps these arguments for God, whether rejected or accepted, aren't the only reason that people become theist or atheist.