Trouble at mill

[Enki]

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.

Yes,  I think people that become atheists do so in a myriad of different ways. How and why they do so is entirely up to them. I can only speak about the reasons why I am an atheist, which I have done.  I think that is one reason why atheists are a very varied  community, simply held together by the lack of belief in god(s).

[Maeght]

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

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What?

All I am saying is that some things occur or are arrived at without the type of argument you are Referring to, the intellectual argument. Although I think there is ample evidence abroad of atheistic bias in that respect.

[Aruntraveller]

All I am saying is that some things occur or are arrived at without the type of argument you are Referring to, the intellectual argument. Although I think there is ample evidence abroad of atheistic bias in that respect.

So are you arguing that god is an emotion now?

[Nearly Sane]

All I am saying is that some things occur or are arrived at without the type of argument you are Referring to, the intellectual argument. Although I think there is ample evidence abroad of atheistic bias in that respect.

You seem not to have read Maeght's post. Since he stated that it wasn't finding the arguments unconvincing that meant he was an atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

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.

I didn't become and remain an atheist because my study of the arguments for theism told me they were hopeless either, but I was able to become and remain an atheist because neither then nor since have I found an argument for theism that's sound. If ever I did I'd be forced to think, "OK, there must be (a) god(s) then" and to abandon my atheism, albeit that I'd have had no experience of god(s) at all. To put it another way, finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you arguing that god is an emotion now?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that argument does not equal ontology.

[Maeght]

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?

I will when I get a momnet (if someone hasn't already). Would be my first time!

[Maeght]

All I am saying is that some things occur or are arrived at without the type of argument you are Referring to, the intellectual argument. Although I think there is ample evidence abroad of atheistic bias in that respect.

I wasn't refering to the intellectual argument in regard to being an atheist - quite the opposite.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

I didn't become and remain an atheist because my study of the arguments for theism told me they were hopeless either, but I was able to become and remain an atheist because neither then nor since have I found an argument for theism that's sound. If ever I did I'd be forced to think, "OK, there must be (a) god(s) then" and to abandon my atheism, albeit that I'd have had no experience of god(s) at all. To put it another way, finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one.

I don't see where the 'able to become' comes into it. Not really sure what you mean by that.

I don't think if there was a sound argument for the existance of God that I would become a theist unless I had some experience of God or sense of a presence.

I don't think 'finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one' is true either. Many atheists have never really considered the arguments for God/theism but just don't have a belief because they have never felt a presence or had an experience to give them a belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I wasn't refering to the intellectual argument in regard to being an atheist - quite the opposite.

But the point was that you cannot be an atheist if you're aware of an argument for theism that's sound. "No sound arguments for theism" is a necessary condition for atheism - or at least it is for honest atheism. Although Vlad's "goddodging" car crash that he just ran away from a while back was hopeless thinking (because it just assumes its premise), ironically someone who found a cast iron argument for theism that he couldn't falsify but who nonetheless insisted he was still an atheist would I suppose be one such.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I don't see where the 'able to become' comes into it. Not really sure what you mean by that.

I mean that atheism is only possible if there’s no insurmountable argument available for theism (or at least honest atheism is).

I don't think if there was a sound argument for the existance of God that I would become a theist unless I had some experience of God or sense of a presence.

Why not? On what basis would you deny an argument you couldn’t falsify?

I don't think 'finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one' is true either. Many atheists have never really considered the arguments for God/theism but just don't have a belief because they have never felt a presence or had an experience to give them a belief.

That’s a non sequitur. Yes many atheists may never have thought they had an experience of ”god” and that’s sufficient for their atheism, but if ever one were found a cogent argument for god would make that position untenable.   

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

But the point was that you cannot be an atheist if you're aware of an argument for theism that's sound. "No sound arguments for theism" is a necessary condition for atheism - or at least it is for honest atheism. Although Vlad's "goddodging" car crash that he just ran away from a while back was hopeless thinking (because it just assumes its premise), ironically someone who found a cast iron argument for theism that he couldn't falsify but who nonetheless insisted he was still an atheist would I suppose be one such.   

I suspect I might be a god dodger in that sense. And in no sense would I be being dishonest.  You're wrong about it being a necessary condition. The only necessary condition is the lack of belief. If I found an argument that seemed to make sense then I suspect that I would wonder if I could be wrong about it, and since that is possible I wouldn't necessarily accept it. There are multiple things in which I see good arguments on both sides but that doesn't make me dishonest.

You seem to think that we choose what to believe and that in no way chimes with my experience.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

But the point was that you cannot be an atheist if you're aware of an argument for theism that's sound. "No sound arguments for theism" is a necessary condition for atheism - or at least it is for honest atheism. Although Vlad's "goddodging" car crash that he just ran away from a while back was hopeless thinking (because it just assumes its premise), ironically someone who found a cast iron argument for theism that he couldn't falsify but who nonetheless insisted he was still an atheist would I suppose be one such.   

Depends on what you mean as a sound argument I guess - something which is different from a cast iron argument though.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

I mean that atheism is only possible if there’s no insurmountable argument available for theism (or at least honest atheism is).

Now you are saying insurmountable argument. Which is is? Sound, Cast Iron, Insurmountable?

Why not? On what basis would you deny an argument you couldn’t falsify?

See above.

That’s a non sequitur. Yes many atheists may never have thought they had an experience of ”god” and that’s sufficient for their atheism, but if ever one were found a cogent argument for god would make that position untenable.

Don't see how it is, especially when you go on to agree with my point.

Cogent argument now. That's four different versions.

[Maeght]

I suspect I might be a god dodger in that sense. And in no sense would I be being dishonest.  You're wrong about it being a necessary condition. The only necessary condition is the lack of belief. If I found an argument that seemed to make sense then I suspect that I would wonder if I could be wrong about it, and since that is possible I wouldn't necessarily accept it. There are multiple things in which I see good arguments on both sides but that doesn't make me dishonest.

You seem to think that we choose what to believe and that in no way chimes with my experience.

Totally agree.

[Nearly Sane]

Depends on what you mean as a sound argument I guess - something which is different from a cast iron argument though.

  Is there such a thing as a cast iron argument in this area, or indeed in most areas we deal with in a daily basis? How could I know what a 'cast iron' argument was? It can't simply that I can't see how to refute it, To quote Russell on the ontological argument "it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies". That 'feels' seems much closer to my experience than bhs's view of how we reach belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I suspect I might be a god dodger in that sense.

How so? Have you found an argument for theism that you can’t falsify?

And in no sense would I be being dishonest.

How so? If you can’t falsify an argument for something, on what other basis can you deny it?
 

You're wrong about it being a necessary condition. The only necessary condition is the lack of belief. If I found an argument that seemed to make sense then I suspect that I would wonder if I could be wrong about it, and since that is possible I wouldn't necessarily accept it. There are multiple things in which I see good arguments on both sides but that doesn't make me dishonest.

But the point is that lack of belief becomes untenable if you can’t falsify an argument for belief. You might cling to it it anyway (ie, cognitive dissonance I suppose) but then we’d be back in denial territory. It’s a bit like the JBS Haldane falsification test for the ToE – rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer. If one such was found you might still say "I still think the ToE is right in all its particulars" but your position could easily be undone.       

You seem to think that we choose what to believe and that in no way chimes with my experience.

Not really, but I do think that we have the capacity to know when our beliefs are false even if we ignore the problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Depends on what you mean as a sound argument I guess - something which is different from a cast iron argument though.

See below.

Now you are saying insurmountable argument. Which is is? Sound, Cast Iron, Insurmountable?

Irrelevant. All that’s necessary to make the atheist position untenable is that the atheist finds an argument for theism he cannot falsify. Whether that argument is called “sound”, “cast iron” etc makes no difference to that.   

Don't see how it is, especially when you go on to agree with my point.

A non sequitur? It’s a non sequitur because your conclusion ("Many atheists have never really considered the arguments for God/theism but just don't have a belief because they have never felt a presence or had an experience to give them a belief") doesn’t follow from the premise ("I don't think 'finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one' is true either").

No doubt many atheists have done that, but that doesn’t remove the requirement that logically you cannot be an atheist if at the same time you cannot falsify an argument for theism.   

Cogent argument now. That's four different versions.

No, it’s just four terms for “cannot falsify”. See above.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How so? Have you found an argument for theism that you can’t falsify?

How so? If you can’t falsify an argument for something, on what other basis can you deny it?
 
But the point is that lack of belief becomes untenable if you can’t falsify an argument for belief. You might cling to it it anyway (ie, cognitive dissonance I suppose) but then we’d be back in denial territory. It’s a bit like the JBS Haldane falsification test for the ToE – rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer. If one such was found you might still say "I still think the ToE is right in all its particulars" but your position could easily be undone.       

Not really, but I do think that we have the capacity to know when our beliefs are false even if we ignore the problem.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

See below.

Irrelevant. All that’s necessary to make the atheist position untenable is that the atheist finds an argument for theism he cannot falsify. Whether that argument is called “sound”, “cast iron” etc makes no difference to that.   

A non sequitur? It’s a non sequitur because your conclusion ("Many atheists have never really considered the arguments for God/theism but just don't have a belief because they have never felt a presence or had an experience to give them a belief") doesn’t follow from the premise ("I don't think 'finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one' is true either").

No doubt many atheists have done that, but that doesn’t remove the requirement that logically you cannot be an atheist if at the same time you cannot falsify an argument for theism.   

No, it’s just four terms for “cannot falsify”. See above.

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

[SusanDoris]

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.

The difference is that other arguments and beliefs which cannot be falsified do not have millions of followers - billions when you include all other non-falsifiable god beliefs - and do not, therefore, have a similar world-wide influence.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

See below.

Irrelevant. All that’s necessary to make the atheist position untenable is that the atheist finds an argument for theism he cannot falsify. Whether that argument is called “sound”, “cast iron” etc makes no difference to that.   

A non sequitur? It’s a non sequitur because your conclusion ("Many atheists have never really considered the arguments for God/theism but just don't have a belief because they have never felt a presence or had an experience to give them a belief") doesn’t follow from the premise ("I don't think 'finding the arguments for theism to be bad ones may or may not be a sufficient reason for atheism but it is a necessary one' is true either").

No doubt many atheists have done that, but that doesn’t remove the requirement that logically you cannot be an atheist if at the same time you cannot falsify an argument for theism.   

No, it’s just four terms for “cannot falsify”. See above.

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

The difference is that other arguments and beliefs which cannot be falsified do not have millions of followers - billions when you include all other non-falsifiable god beliefs - and do not, therefore, have a similar world-wide influence.

That's irrelevant to bhs making an objective claim about what I think which doesn't agree with my experience and is simply based on his argument by incredulity.