The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Retro Rob]

And I asked several more. The correct answers to my questions reveal the fact that your question was disingenuous.

Fair enough.

Did I say that?

I didn't say you did say that. I wanted you to be explicity clear on what you were saying.

Can you not read what I have written, or are you simply too eager to fill my mouth with your inserted words that you didn't take the time to comprehend the statements in front of you?

Again, I asked for clarity.

 

[JD50]

I explained why they are similar, because they're both based on an opinion. Of course, I know its offensive to compare your sincerely-held conclusions to something as trival as rejecting a video game.

That's what I think this is all about.

No, not at all, it's just a terrible analogy. SlowSpyder already explained why.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Isn't that more like agnostism? I thought athiesm claims there are no gods.

No. Atheism is not-theism.

Theism is defined by the inclusion in an individual's belief-set the belief that at least one god exists. Its negation is therefore the exclusion of the belief in a god or gods from an individual's belief-set.

Your suggestion would define atheism as the inclusion of the belief that precisely zero gods exist, which indeed is a belief held by a subset of atheists, but it is not the literal negation of theism.

Agnosticism is the negation of Gnosticism, similarly. The two dichotomies are related, but orthogonal.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I didn't say you did say that. I wanted you to by clear on what you were saying.

I was perfectly clear. Anyone who can read at a third grade level could realize that your question was meaningless at best and disingenuous at worst.

Again, I asked for clarity.

No, you didn't.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Isn't that more like agnostism? I thought athiesm claims there are no gods.

As a matter of definition, no. Theism is defined as the belief in a god, the greek prefix a means without. Atheism in particular refers to there simply being no belief in god. That's not the same as a belief in no god.

Agnosticism isn't exactly the same thing. It's "without knowledge", typically of mystical sources, basically a claim that the truth or falsehood of claims of god is unknowable.




It's odd how often the two are reversed, with Atheism being seen as making a strong claim while Agnostics merely claim ignorance, while the reality is Agnosticism is making a positive claim and Atheism none.

 

[Retro Rob]

I was perfectly clear. Anyone who can read at a third grade level could realize that your question was meaningless at best and disingenuous at worst.

Let me explain the basis of my question:

The rules of evidence and reliable inference are not a matter of opinion nor are they decided by popular vote. It isn't "sheer chance" that atheists agree upon them and agree that they do not support the existence of a god or gods.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying (without directly saying) that the "rules of evidence" make the the non-existence of God a fact by your statement that those rules of evidence are not a "matter of opinion".

What isn't a "matter of opinion"? That's really what I want to know.

Just answer the question, please, and correct me because I am unclear about exactly isn't a "matter of opinion".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying (without directly saying) that the "rules of evidence" make the the non-existence of God a fact by your statement that those rules of evidence are not a "matter of opinion".

You are wrong. I said nothing of the sort.

What isn't a "matter of opinion"? That's really what I want to know.

As a single example, it isn't a matter of opinion that the connection of our physical senses to external reality depend upon a chain of naturalistic interactions that can only be relied upon if we can trust that they are not magically altered by a being of untold power and inscrutable motives.

It also isn't a matter if opinion that it is fallacious to conclude, for example, that a god created the universe because we don't know if or how the universe came to be.

It is not a matter of opinion that we cannot determine whether or not natural phenomena were designed.

I could go on all flipping day.

More generally, the lists of formal and informal fallacies and the scientific method are neither matters of opinion. If you think you know and argument or evidence for the existence of a god which does not perpetrate a logical fallacy or violate a principle of scientific investigation, then submit it.

Just answer the question, please, and correct me because I am unclear about exactly isn't a "matter of opinion".

Your question is answered. It was answered before you asked it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The evidence leads them to the same conclusion, apart from reading different manuals.

This kind of begs the question, though...on what basis can the atheist position be anymore true than that of a theist?

If there isn't evidence either way, then it simply becomes an opinion -- the same type of opinion that says Mortal Kombat is a great fighting game, based on what one personally perfers to accept, or reject.

I see atheism the exact same way, making an abritrary decision.

As an atheist, I don't know if there is a higher power that is responsible for having created this giant (to us) universe we live in, or not. I don't deny that possibility though.

But that doesn't mean I cannot look at current religions, like christianity, and scrutinize them. I cannot prove the christian god does not exist any better than you can prove zeus doesn't exist, but all signs certainly seem to point to that direction.

So it would be my opinion that christianity is bullshit (or the christian god is a hell of a troll), but as far as the possibility of some kind of higher power? I don't know if that is the case or not and I don't deny that possibility.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are wrong. I said nothing of the sort.



As a single example, it isn't a matter of opinion that the connection of our physical senses to external reality depend upon a chain of naturalistic interactions that can only be relied upon if we can trust that they are not magically altered by a being of untold power and inscrutable motives.

It also isn't a matter if opinion that it is fallacious to conclude, for example, that a god created the universe because we don't know if or how the universe came to be.

It is not a matter of opinion that we cannot determine whether or not natural phenomena were designed.

I could go on all flipping day.

More generally, the lists of formal and informal fallacies and the scientific method are neither matters of opinion. If you think you know and argument or evidence for the existence of a god which does not perpetrate a logical fallacy or violate a principle of scientific investigation, then submit it.


Your question is answered. It was answered before you asked it.

You gave me examples of what are NOT matters of opinon...I simply asked you what isn't a "matter of opinion" as it pertains to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Why are you avoiding this question?

 

[alzan]

As a matter of definition, no. Theism is defined as the belief in a god, the greek prefix a means without. Atheism in particular refers to there simply being no belief in god. That's not the same as a belief in no god.

Agnosticism isn't exactly the same thing. It's "without knowledge", typically of mystical sources, basically a claim that the truth or falsehood of claims of god is unknowable.




It's odd how often the two are reversed, with Atheism being seen as making a strong claim while Agnostics merely claim ignorance, while the reality is Agnosticism is making a positive claim and Atheism none.

An agnostic is someone who holds the position that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

How is that a "positive" claim?

 

[alzan]

You gave me examples of what are NOT matters of opinon...I simply asked you what isn't a "matter of opinion" as it pertains to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Why are you avoiding this question?

I don't think CT is avoiding your question. If I may:

From what you've stated about yourself, your faith tells you that G-d exists. That also makes G-d's existence a "truth" or true for you, not other people.

That's great. Unfortunately, faith from a scientific or logical standpoint isn't observable, testable, etc. Looking at it that way can you see that it's a matter of opinion and completely different from the natural makeup and properties of all matter contained within the universe?

You didn't blindly arrive at your faith which makes it an informed opinion but still an opinion. The evidence that you consider valid is not evidence in the traditional sense of the word.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You gave me examples of what are NOT matters of opinon...I simply asked you what isn't a "matter of opinion" as it pertains to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Why are you avoiding this question?

Holy crap, you can't be serious. I've answered all your questions directly and concisely. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[jackstar7]

You gave me examples of what are NOT matters of opinon...I simply asked you what isn't a "matter of opinion" as it pertains to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Why are you avoiding this question?

I hope this helps...

You're asking him to prove a negative. That's what is tripping you up. You're asking directly for evidence which is not a matter of opinion that relates to a non-existent entity.

As always, ALWAYS, the onus is on the one positing the affirmative to provide evidence. As you are positing that there IS a deity, that onus is on you to provide evidence and accept that if it cannot be tested or otherwise fails under examination, that it does not meet the threshold of evidence required by people who have nothing to gain or lose with regards to deities.

Because when it comes down to it, regardless of any gods existing, they simply do not matter at the scale of scope of our experience.

 

[Retro Rob]

I hope this helps...

You're asking him to prove a negative. That's what is tripping you up. You're asking directly for evidence which is not a matter of opinion that relates to a non-existent entity.

As always, ALWAYS, the onus is on the one positing the affirmative to provide evidence. As you are positing that there IS a deity, that onus is on you to provide evidence and accept that if it cannot be tested or otherwise fails under examination, that it does not meet the threshold of evidence required by people who have nothing to gain or lose with regards to deities.

Because when it comes down to it, regardless of any gods existing, they simply do not matter at the scale of scope of our experience.

I'm not asking Cerpin Taxt to prove a negative -- I'm asking him to explain himself.

Read the post I am referencing; he said (and I am paraphrasing) that atheistic views on the existence of God are not "matters of opinion", and I simply asked in what way are they not.

 

[Retro Rob]

From what you've stated about yourself, your faith tells you that G-d exists. That also makes G-d's existence a "truth" or true for you, not other people.

If you mean by "faith" my religious beliefs, yes.

That's great. Unfortunately, faith from a scientific or logical standpoint isn't observable, testable, etc.Looking at it that way can you see that it's a matter of opinion and completely different from the natural makeup and properties of all matter contained within the universe?

I think its a forgone conclusion that God/gods don't meet the standards for him to be called "scientific" -- this I have never disagreed with.

But if an atheist, per Taxt's definition, is a person simply "unconvinced", then that's a totally subjective POV and is even more of an opinion-like stance.

What is unconvincing to one person could be convincing to another.

You didn't blindly arrive at your faith which makes it an informed opinion but still an opinion. The evidence that you consider valid is not evidence in the traditional sense of the word.

I can agree, but I think we need to clear on how we use terms, here. As a theist, when I say I see evidence of God, I don't mean direct evidence of course, as I believe God is invisible like the wind...but I'm speaking of more indirect evidence that could lead to a conclusion.

I believe that when someone says "I see not one shred of evidence of a God", I think they mean that when they point their telescopes toward the heavens, they don't physically see him.

 

[Retro Rob]

An agnostic is someone who holds the position that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

How is that a "positive" claim?

Why not just kill the "positive claim/negative claim" stuff and just simply demand that evidence be required by anyone making a statement of truth or fact?

That would be more palatable, in my opinion.

 

[MongGrel]

Popped in, saw the chart.

Decided not to bother typing an opinion.

That in itself could say a bit right there I guess.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You gave me examples of what are NOT matters of opinon...I simply asked you what isn't a "matter of opinion" as it pertains to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Why are you avoiding this question?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't think anyone can provide something that proves god(s) to not exist as a conclusive fact. But I think that hurts a christian trying to argue his or her god as the one real god much more so than it puts a dent in the atheist position.

There are thousands of religions. We know we can't prove that any of them worship a god(s) that doesn't exist, so in this way they all have to be treated as equally plausible as we can't prove any of them are not real. So that would mean that christianity has worse than a 1 : 4200 chance of being correct and the christian god to be the one and only 'real' god.

*edit -

And regarding the earlier conversation, do you agree that what I wrote above puts the odds against any one religion being right is logical? How about if another non-believer thought through it and came to a similar conclusion, that any one of the thousands of religions could be correct, the rest not. Do we both see it that way because intuition and logical thought, or is it just some random chance occurrence?

I'd say that you are a christian by chance as you have no control over where you are born or who your parents are. And we all know that where you are born and your upbringing has a strong influence on religious beliefs. But I am an atheist by logic. Hope that clears up the earlier convo.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not asking Cerpin Taxt to prove a negative -- I'm asking him to explain himself.

Read the post I am referencing; he said (and I am paraphrasing) that atheistic views on the existence of God are not "matters of opinion", and I simply asked in what way are they not.

It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that I don't believe in a god. It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that all the of the arguments and evidence for the existence of god are fallacious and/or invalid. The rules of logic and science which determine that the arguments and evidence for the existence of god are fallacious and/or invalid are not matters of opinion, either.

The point is that your attempt to parody the position of an atheist by likening it to having a favorite video game is absolutely ridiculous, puerile, and embarrassing, except that you aren't keen enough to understand your own embarrassment. Becoming an atheist simply the inevitable consequence of examining the evidence and arguments with a rational mind and applying those rules or logic and evidence to them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why not just kill the "positive claim/negative claim" stuff and just simply demand that evidence be required by anyone making a statement of truth or fact?

Would you stand behind and be willing to defend the claim that all of the other alleged gods that are not Jesus Christ the God of the Bible do not exist?

 

[Retro Rob]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't think anyone can provide something that proves god(s) to not exist as a conclusive fact. But I think that hurts a christian trying to argue his or her god as the one real god much more so than it puts a dent in the atheist position.

This I am well aware of, and also what I wasn't asking, though.

And regarding the earlier conversation, do you agree that what I wrote above puts the odds against any one religion being right is logical?

What do you mean, exactly? (I'm posting, right now, from my phone and am unwilling to scroll up and read your comments out of fear of losing my place)

How about if another non-believer thought through it and came to a similar conclusion, that any one of the thousands of religions could be correct, the rest not. Do we both see it that way because intuition and logical thought, or is it just some random chance occurrence?

This requires a more lengthy response and will answer when I get in front of my PC.

I'd say that you are a christian by chance as you have no control over where you are born or who your parents are. And we all know that where you are born and your upbringing has a strong influence on religious beliefs. But I am an atheist by logic. Hope that clears up the earlier convo.

This simply isn't true. I am NOT a Christian by chance -- I chose to be one officially when I was 27. That's a informed decision I made. You can say I was born in a Christian family by chance, sure...but how many people end up leaving their belief system?

Plenty of them do, and I was one of them for 10 years. I abandoned my parents faith as a teenager, came back later on.

 

[alzan]

If you mean by "faith" my religious beliefs, yes.

Agree

I think its a forgone conclusion that God/gods don't meet the standards for him to be called "scientific" -- this I have never disagreed with.

But if an atheist, per Taxt's definition, is a person simply "unconvinced", then that's a totally subjective POV and is even more of an opinion-like stance.

What is unconvincing to one person could be convincing to another.

I'm not sure why you think atheists or agnostics just have an "opinion" on the existence of deity/deities. It sounds a little arrogant. To me, a person "unconvinced" that a deity or deities exist is one kind of atheist. There's also the other type of atheist who simply has no belief in a deity or deities; just like there are theists who believe in multiple deities (think Hindu) vs. theists who believe in one deity (adherents of the Abrahamic religions).

But most (all) of these of atheists have arrived at their conclusion and mindset informed; it's more than a POV or "opinion".

I can agree, but I think we need to clear on how we use terms, here. As a theist, when I say I see evidence of God, I don't mean direct evidence of course, as I believe God is invisible like the wind...but I'm speaking of more indirect evidence that could lead to a conclusion.

The "indirect" evidence that for you proves G-d's existence is not proof for anyone else but yourself.

I believe that when someone says "I see not one shred of evidence of a God", I think they mean that when they point their telescopes toward the heavens, they don't physically see him.

Don't take this the way it sounds but that's more than a little simple-minded. When you see a leaf change color in the fall do you see evidence of G-d's existence or do you see chemical changes that happen in the leaf as the chlorophyll breaks down? When you fall from a tree branch that broke from your weight do you see the force of gravity at work or do you think G-d is pushing you to the ground?

People (even theists) don't expect to see G-d through a telescope. The pictures that the Hubble telescope have taken (especially the Deep Field views) show both incredible beauty and incredible chaos from the time since the Big Bang; but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a theistic cosmologist who saw evidence of G-d in them.

This simply isn't true. I am NOT a Christian by chance -- I chose to be one officially when I was 27. That's a informed decision I made. You can say I was born in a Christian family by chance, sure...but how many people end up leaving their belief system?

Plenty of them do, and I was one of them for 10 years. I abandoned my parents faith as a teenager, came back later on.

Speaking only for myself; 1

That's okay, we'll accept you back when you change your mind.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Retro Rob]

Would you stand behind and be willing to defend the claim that all of the other alleged gods that are not Jesus Christ the God of the Bible do not exist?

What "claims"?

I'm simply indifferent to those other gods. I don't go around telling other religious people their gods don't exists -- I'd rather explain why I believe mines does.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

An agnostic is someone who holds the position that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

How is that a "positive" claim?

It's claiming a particular fact - that the knowledge is unknowable. That's not just "I don't know it", that's "I don't know this, nobody knows this and in fact nobody can know this."

That's a pretty strong claim. We're talking about the difference between someone saying "I don't know the position and velocity of this particle" and "Nobody can know the position and velocity of this particle." The first is a person admitting ignorance, the second is a theorem.

Perhaps more simply: The atheist claims a fact about themselves, while an agnostic claims a fact about everyone.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that I don't believe in a god.