To our lurkers and new arrivals

Debate Room
4

Yes, I meant vacuous as in an empty proposition, not a comment on anyone’s competence or intelligence!

Well contrast “I do not hold a belief that X is true” with “I do not know whether X is true”.

I’d reason that a person stating the former is - epistemologically - no different to the latter, which one could refer to as agnosticism, at least informally.

If I do not know whether God exists then obviously I do not hold a belief, so why not simply say “I don’t know” and avoid all this lofty “atheism” talk?

I don’t agree that there is a default position either, at least not in any absolute, universal sense. One’s default position largely reflects one prior assumptions and there are no absolute, universal assumptions.

An atheist might as well say “Based on the assumptions I have made about the universe, I do not have a belief in God”, that is to say state those assumptions rather than a conclusion drawn from them.

Different assumptions lead to different worldviews.

5

I frankly can’t imagine what better reason one could need to disbelieve any claim, than a dearth of objective evidence even after thousands of years of pontification? Without indulging in semantics I wouldn’t even describe it as a position, but rather the absence of one particular position.

As with all words, it is incumbent on anyone who uses any word to specify accurately if they deviate from the primary dictionary definition, and that is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity.

6

[quote=“Sherlock-Holmes, post:4, topic:3674”]
If I do not know whether God exists then obviously I do not hold a belief, so why not simply say “I don’t know” and avoid all this lofty “atheism” talk? (oops accidentally wrecked the quote box)

When I first stumbled onto this site, about 3 years back (time flys), to join they asked two questions. Are you an atheist or theist. Up until then I thought of myself as agnostic. It made me think for a couple of days before I chose because agnosticism deals with knowledge whereas atheist deals with belief. I reasoned that without knowing sufficiently I couldn’t very well claim belief BUT it wasn’t like I claimed “there was no god”. I thought all atheists felt adamantly that there is NO god (an unfalsifiable position). Once I really examined the meaning I chose “atheist”.

IF by this (and correct me if I’m not interpreting correctly) you mean:

Either a deity exists OR
a deity does not exist

One or the other.

It’s like a gumball machine and asked … IS it an even amount or an odd amount (has to be one or the other).

Someone says I know or believe it to be “even”.

I say I don’t believe you, you don’t know. I’m not necessarily saying it’s “odd” just that until the machine is broken and the balls are counted, I can’t make a hard claim either way.

Note that they both have the “a-” prefix. This “a-” prefix means “not” or “without,” like in the words atypical, amoral, and asymptomatic.

I’m without knowledge and I’m not a believer.

1 Like
7

Well there are numerous definitions around for agnostic and atheist, some atheists object to the definition “the absence of a belief” in fact, spare a thought for them!

Whether one holds a belief or not is a consequence of the assumptions that one chooses to make, at least for the rationalist.

Saying “I’m an atheist” is equivalent to saying “I have made certain assumptions about reality”. But it leads to problems. For example an atheist might say “I’ve never seen evidence for a God” yet how can they know that is true?

How can an atheist distinguish between something that is evidence for God and something that is not? They can’t, I’ve asked plenty of them over the years. If they cannot clearly explain how they would distinguish these two then their position is somewhat vacuous.

8

Good point. I would expect that an omniscient god would know what would constitute valid evidence, even to an atheist.

4 Likes
9

No there aren’t. the dictionary gives a primary definition, and it is based on common usage, it is nonsensical to assume anyone is using the word differently from that unless they specifically say so.

I’ve never met one, which is odd to say the least, not that I’d care, as how an atheist defines their own position beyond the absence of belief in a deity is irrelevant to the definition of atheism. In fact it is mainly theists I have met who want to indulge in such semantics.

Not really, all humans are born atheists, as they know nothing, and cannot therefore hold theistic belief, anymore than any other belief.

No it isn’t, it is solely saying I lack theistic belief, the assumptions are your here, unless an atheist tells you more.

I don’t understand the question?

As objectively as possible, and without obviously violating any principles of logic or accepting anything that contradicts known scientific fact. Since you asked…A more pertinent question is why theists believe in any deity without being able to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence, and I think we both know what objective evidence looks like, and the idea a theist might better recognise something as evidence for a deity, when an atheist not might as easily be explained by theistic bias, or religious faith of course, as they’re the same thing.

Well now your search is over…luckily, as it appears you have been asking that category of atheists that have I inexplicably never meet, and only ever seem to hear from second hand through theists.

2 Likes
10

I enjoy speculation and imagination. It is a quality of humankind that has moved us forward in our understanding WHEN paired with the scientific method for observation or in maths (think Einstein before his hypothesis could be positively completed and repeated).
Other parts of the imagination provide great entertainment in storytelling.

So when I’m told “something” (or read, whatever) I do pay attention to what’s the context. A movie “based on a true story” usually has disclaimers and I know much of it has been fabricated. I can still enjoy it.
IF it’s a scientific claim, again it needs to “measure up” … are we talking a hypothesis, a “peer review” (who reviewed), a study (how was it conducted), a Theory evidenced, etc.

In short, I have found very little in life to be “true” - BUT I can get “as close to what is true as humanly possible” by just ensuring the amount of evidence supports the claim and the impact it would have on me otherwise (risk/reward).

Thoroughly agree. To assume or pre-suppose I have found lead to making an ASS out U and ME - I do my best do remove both and ask what is specifically or “most likely” meant. Jumping to conclusions :grimacing: causes a lot of miscommunications.

2 Likes
11

Howdy, Sherlock. Welcome, and thank you for stopping by to participate. Glad you could join us.

As for atheism being a “non-position”, I suppose I can sorta-kinda see what you mean and why you might think that. However, it really isn’t entirely accurate. Personally, it simply means I do not believe in any god(s). No different than my not believing in Zeus, Thor, Athena, Santa, the Easter Bunny, or Harry Potter flying on a broom. Would you consider your non-belief in those figures as a “non-position”?

Well, the primary and most commonly used definition (around here, at least) is simply a lack of belief in any god/gods. Nothing too complicated about that. Although, I do agree that a person should specify/clarify if he/she is using the term in a different manner.

Looks to me like you are trying to lump knowledge and belief together as being one in the same. However, whether some folks want to hear it or not, in the realm of god(s) and knowledge nobody KNOWS for certain whether or not god(s) exist. Therefore, agnostic (no knowledge). Regardless of that, though, many (MANY) people BELIEVE god(s) exist. (Hence, theist) Therefore, for a person to identify himself/herself simply as “agnostic” basically says nothing at all about what he/she BELIEVES. (Rather pointless, in other words.)

As atheists (no BELIEF in gods), most all of us (with the usual exceptions) will freely admit we don’t actually KNOW whether or not some type of god(s) exist. That is why it is very important for a person to specify the god in question and describe the defining attributes that make it a god. At which time we will evaluate the provided info and determine the plausibility/possibility of the described god. Of course, that individual would still have to provide convincing evidence to make us BELIEVE that particular god exists.

Gotta go for now. Been a long day. Again, welcome aboard. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

2 Likes
12

How can a Christian distinguish between something that is evidence for a deity and something that is not? What about Muslims? What about Hindus? How do you all know you found the right religion? You all claim the same thing. That your gods inspired men to write a holy book. Same song, different religion.

2 Likes
13

I’m with Sherlock … as long as Sherlock is okay with God being an industrial strength toilet with infinite power.

14

How can a Christian distinguish between something that is evidence for a deity and something that is not? What about Muslims? What about Hindus? How do you all know you found the right religion? You all claim the same thing. That your gods inspired men to write a holy book. Same song, different religion.

I’ve not made any mention of religion, nor am I concerned with that. I have no idea what your asking me.

15

I enjoy speculation and imagination. It is a quality of humankind that has moved us forward in our understanding WHEN paired with the scientific method for observation or in maths (think Einstein before his hypothesis could be positively completed and repeated).

Yes human imagination and ingenuity are remarkable traits.

IF it’s a scientific claim, again it needs to “measure up” … are we talking a hypothesis, a “peer review” (who reviewed), a study (how was it conducted), a Theory evidenced, etc.

Well science is best performed with clarity and precision, processes described as “must measure up” are rather vague to the point of uselessness.

The atheist (implicitly) states “I have never seen evidence for God” that is a definite statement. I’m asking what criteria is used exactly to determine that some thing is not evidence for God, I assume there is some process, that it’s not just a decision made on the basis of beleifs?

16

That’s a lie. I’d appreciate it if we didn’t play games. When ever you make mention of any deity from any religion, you’re mentioning religion. So yes, you do know. Please answer the question.

I will repeat my questions:

How can a Christian distinguish between something that is evidence for a deity and something that is not? What about Muslims? What about Hindus? How do you all know you found the right religion?

1 Like
17

Whoaaa …are you familiar with the Scientific Method? Vague and useless THEY are not. I suggest you explore it from an unbiased pov before making such a reckless conclusion (after all the Scientific community MUST set aside their own personal bias and pre-supposed conclusions and open themselves & their experiments to high criticism- the objective being to falsify - ** Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong )

I’m asking what criteria is used exactly to determine that some thing is not evidence for God…

Good question since there is no falsifiabilty

I assume there is some process, that it’s not just a decision made on the basis of beleifs?

Please share with me YOUR methodology or process of eliminating the many deities presented to you from modern society & historical cultures - including their claims AND I will see if THAT method is absent of a “decision made on the basis of beliefs”.

FOR myself the methology I use for a deity/specific god or gods/holy books/writing/prophecy/conversations with the supernatural etc is the LOWEST (considering the extraordinary claim). I use the low bar of a civil claims court

2 Likes
18

Generalize much? While there are absolutely many atheists out there (and here on this forum) who make that statement and base their atheism on it, that does not mean ALL atheists use the same criteria. For instance, would it surprise you to know that MY primary reason for being an atheist is because the concept of all the various gods as portrayed by their respective religions simply DO NOT MAKE ANY RATIONAL SENSE? Some are even beyond ridiculous. (Christianity and Islam come to mind. :thinking:) Basically, those two mainstream religions in particular are nothing more than brilliantly designed methods of mass population control. And, personally, I refuse to play their stupid “little” game.

As for the “evidence” factor of a deity, I figure that any entity that has the awesome power and knowledge attributed to it by its faithful followers should be more than capable of giving me very clear indications that would convince me it exists. Speaking of which, what exactly do YOU see as evidence of YOUR god?

(Edit for arhythmic stepping.)

19

Grrreeeeaattttt :confounded: ALL we need is a Tin running around with revelation and no evidence, adding his voice to the likes of @rat_spit :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

THIS entity would have to provide evidence for me to share with others (including science) otherwise my mouth is :zipper_mouth_face: AND I’m checking myself in for a 72 hour observation period. Full brain scan for tumours, etc.

21

That’s a lie. I’d appreciate it if we didn’t play games. When ever you make mention of any deity from any religion, you’re mentioning religion. So yes, you do know. Please answer the question.

I will repeat my questions:

How can a Christian distinguish between something that is evidence for a deity and something that is not? What about Muslims? What about Hindus? How do you all know you found the right religion?

With all due respect I must disagree. I did not (go and check) make any mention of “religion”. I’m not discussing religion so don’t know why you want to. I did mention “God” and did so in the context of the creation and presence of the universe.

But more to the point I’ve stated that I regard “atheism” as vacuous, that was the thesis in my initial post.

I asked (before you asked me any question) " How can an atheist distinguish between something that is evidence for God and something that is not?" and I don’t think you have proffered and answer. So lets deal with questions in the order they’re asked and stick to the subject and please, no insults or name calling, there really is no need.

22

@Sherlock-Holmes … we do, at times :grimacing: can get into a side conversation in posts (usually us old timers who have battled each other and have found common ground; and like each other regardless of differences).

No disrespect intended.

And I am interested in your response.

23

Please share with me YOUR methodology or process of eliminating the many deities presented to you from modern society & historical cultures - including their claims AND I will see if THAT method is absent of a “decision made on the basis of beliefs”.

Are you saying you have no criteria? that you can only respond by asking me how I make decisions? If atheism was on a strong footing the question would be answered without any fuss, I rest my case.

FOR myself the methology I use for a deity/specific god or gods/holy books/writing/prophecy/conversations with the supernatural etc is the LOWEST (considering the extraordinary claim). I use the low bar of a civil claims court

That’s not very scientific, it relies on some societal, institutional process, but at least you’ve answered me.

24

My question was a reflection of your own.

So sure, I’ll answer. There is an absence of evidence. All we’ve seen is evidence of a religious movement. Historically the bible was written by a slew of anonymous authors in 325 A.D. There is no evidence for this god thing Christians claim exist. What I have heard from them is wishy washy experiences, ignorant remarks about their bible, and more stories. Not just that, but there are tons of religions out there making the same play. Like the Muslims for example, they have the same debates that Christians make on here about their god. Xtians argue their belief on the subject and say “there’s evidence” or “they have evidence” but never back it with any nor do they perform miracles like their gospel Jesus stated in the bible to prove otherwise.