What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[fr0d0]

There is 'lack' as in ignorant - but I wouldn't call Atheism 'ignorance' (wait.... ).

Atheism is a considered position of rejection. It is not the default position. The default position on God is ignorance, which is Arcanus's point here.

Ignorance is not actively believing no, but neither is it actively not believing.

Unless you are saying that Atheism = ignorance?

[Tiberius]

No, I'm saying that any position where one does not have belief in God is defined as atheism. My point was that atheism does not have to be thought of as a position of rejection (indeed, that would be considered "strong" atheism). My weak atheism is not a rejection of theism, but a disbelief of theism. I am not saying theism is wrong; I'm saying I don't believe there is evidence to suggest it is right. That doesn't mean evidence won't be presented to me one day which will convince me otherwise.

There is an active atheism, and there is a passive atheism. Active atheism is where you have actively made a decision to belief (based on whatever means you used). Passive atheism is a default position, as in "this baby has just been born and thus does not have any beliefs concerning the existence of gods, therefore by definition is a passive atheist".

You can call passive atheism equivalent to ignorance if you want; I wouldn't argue with you, but what I'm would argue is that atheism covers people who believe there is no god as much as people who have no belief in god.

[fr0d0]

Right I went and read it up and can see that ignorance can indeed equal atheism!

Personally I think that ignorance is the more honest/ accurate description. Because again, a person ignorant of theism will have no preponderance to believe or not, when given information. The atheism of ignorance is brought into an argument like some mighty force when it's really an undecided.

Interesting. Thanks

[tackattack]

---

Awesome convo guys - very much enjoying it

A lack of belief would be the default position.

I see now how that is incorrect. How can the default position be to have a position on a belief in God? To be truly unbiased you would consider belief and no belief equally... that would be the default position. You could inform a child of the reasoning for or against belief in God... the child could choose to agree or disagree. Before you told him he would have no reasoning either way. Atheism isn't the default position.

Yes, but before you told the child, did they have a belief? No. That was the purpose of the word "lack".

You either believe or you don't. I think that's what Arcanus and I came to agreement on when we came up with our scale of belief in God. If someone doesn't have belief in God, whether they have reached that position themselves or whether it is simple definition (i.e. a person who doesn't even have an idea of what "God" is by definition doesn't have a belief in "God"), they are still atheists.

Methinks you are confusing the word atheist with something else. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God (from the Greek "without God"), not someone who believes there is no God. There are different types of atheist, sure, but the most general form of the word "atheist" must apply to all of them, and in all cases, that means the person has no belief in God.

---

And how often is the most general form of the word Christian applied to all Christians in a conversation on this forum's discussion? You can't discount connotation from a self-imposed label. You can try and point out generalizations and fallacies. You might end up geting as frustrated as I do though.

[Tiberius]

And how often is the most general form of the word Christian applied to all Christians in a conversation on this forum's discussion?

Not by me I hope...

[Violet]

Thank you SAE,

That was kind of you. I know I appear nutty. If it's any consolation, some of you'se look crazy to me... I am not here like Dave Mabus. I don't know if I am sexually repressed. I have never been tender with a woman, but I am OK with that. Surely my dislike of adult entertainment doesn't count as repression?

It should be noted that the below are only possibilities I see some reason to believe.

Dislike of porn could perhaps very loosely count as repression... but by sexually repressed I meant dually that you "have never been tender with a woman" (And are 'subdued' in your desire to be so, assuming of course you have said desire.)... and also that it may be that your hormones have been repressed by means unknown to me.

"I have never been tender with a woman" Interestingly... neither have I. But I would like to. I am prevented from doing so by both my current body and other circumstances <-- This would be a mild example of what I mean by repression. To repress is simply to 'subdue' by 'force'. Reality represses a blind man's efforts to see (in the first sense I intended). In this sense too... I am rather sexually repressed by the state of my body. It would be a repression if indeed you want to "be tender" with a woman as you would like (say a girlfriend or wife as apposed to a whore, not to suggest said girlfriend or wife is not a whore ) but circumstances are set in a way that this is impossible (as of yet).

Regarding the second possible form of your apparent sexual repression... it may be possible that as you developed into the person you are today, you had intense negative experiences regarding sex... which eventually (a la shock therapy or Pavlov's dog) made you associate sex with said negative experiences... perhaps even suppressing your sexual desires.

I though bisexuality meant you absolutely had to have sex with men. It doesn't even matter what gender you are, the 'bi' part of it would have to include males. I thought about being gay for a while, but decided god just might smite me for it... Pascals gay wager? Now that's funny

All bisexuality means is that one is both androphiliac and gynophiliac. I can be an androphiliac man and still have sex with women... just as I can be a gynophiliac woman and have sex with men.

[Ryft]

[To my knowledge], objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up a God claim has not been put forth by anyone ... Is the claim true? In my experience, yes.

I see, so given everything you've said up to this point, you're telling us, "If I'm not aware of objective evidence, then objective evidence doesn't exist."

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH: On the basis that I'm not aware of any such evidence.

I'm trying to illustrate that God, as an objective claim, has no accompanying objectively verifiable evidence supporting him.

Right. If you're not aware of such evidence, then such evidence doesn't exist. Very solipsist of you.

The problem, Tavarish, is with your truth claim; i.e., it doesn't represent what you actually mean. Instead of asserting the truth claim that there is no such evidence, you should be asserting the truth claim that you're not aware of any such evidence. The former shoulders a burden of proof different from, and quite heavier than, the latter.

TAVARISH: I'm not aware of any objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Alrighty then.

If you have some evidence conforming to that criteria, please present it.

To be as precise as I can, "Why?" Why do I need to present evidence, and why does that evidence have to meet your criteria?

I'm not here to convince you to believe this or that, I'm not here to convert people to accept the ideas and convictions I have. I'm not here to tell people what to think, Tavarish, but rather how to think, to shake people out of cognitive autopilot by presenting challenges that force them to self-evaluate their beliefs and reasonings.

So you can't accept my belief that God exists. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "So what?"

As I had written in an article last month, one thing that irritates me about the atheist's demand for evidence "is the audacious conceit of their demand, as if somehow their own intellectual sanction is a necessary instrument of validation for whatever claim was aired in their presence. 'Without sufficient evidence to support your claim,' they usually say, 'I am not able to believe it.' That may well be the case but, not to put too fine a point on it, what makes you think your belief is relevant or even required? ... If I tell a friend about an encounter with a ghost, exactly what relevance does their personal belief have to the facts of my experience? Precisely none, so far as I can tell. Surely they are not so presumptuous as to think that nothing can be deemed a fact until it has received their personal approbation. The problems with such a stance are legion and obvious. If I share with them the facts of my experience and they are unable to believe it themselves, what relevance does that have to the event in question? None, quite frankly. Neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with their ability to believe it."

I'm not asking for objective evidence for a subjective claim here.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you actually did. You had been talking about the "belief" that God exists and how the "concept's" existence can only be verified subjectively, which frustrated you because it is objective evidence you ask people for (Msg. 76). But like I said, that's a mistake. Beliefs and concepts are mental furniture belonging to the thinking person, which is subjective by nature. It's like this, Tavarish: people can have beliefs and concepts about me, but I am neither a belief nor a concept. The former exists subjectively, the latter exists objectively.

Personally, the biggest issue I have is that people lack the honesty to say "Yes, it may only be a figment of my imagination." Thankfully, most of the theists here are intellectually honest with themselves and peers.

Okay, I'll bite. Why should I say such a thing? And would my refusal constitute intellectual dishonesty? According to whose criteria might it be an imaginary thing, and by whose criteria is intellectual honesty determined? If not mine, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his views down my throat?

Would you contend that newborns have a inclination toward godless beliefs and values?

No. Would you?

What about those who have no knowledge of a God concept?

And who would that be?

Your assessment works on the presupposition that the atheist would already have a working knowledge of the concept of God, and reject it.

Well yes, "biased" does presuppose functioning cognitive faculties. Is there someone here without such? However, for atheists to be biased they do not necessarily have to reject God claims. Most do (unless your definition of 'atheist' includes Coke bottles and cat turds), but you are ignoring the principle definition, which is that an atheist is biased insofar as he is "far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God" (e.g., humanism, naturalism, et cetera). You can point to examples of people with impaired or non-existent cognitive faculties and say, "Look, they're not biased!" but I would simply turn your head back to the dictionary and carefully explain that biases, tendencies, and inclinations presuppose thinking persons.

Every thinking person has biases, Tavarish, a particular tendency or inclination toward a perspective, certain values, etc. To not recognize one's biases is to be a slave to them. I'm suspicious of anyone who pretends to not have any.

Also note that I'm talking about atheism being the disbelief in the claim that a God exists, not a claim that no God exists.

Also note that so am I. (However, my view of atheism presupposes functioning cognitive faculties; i.e., a hemorrhoid lacks belief in God but is not an atheist).

We are not born with inherent knowledge of God.

And the "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" this claim is... ?

Whoa there. It was a general statement, not directed at you personally, not to mention that it's a statement that you agree with.

First, it was indeed directed at me personally: "The fact that you fail to defend your claim ..." (Msg. 76). Second, I agree that if I fail to defend my claim you're afforded no reason to accept it—but I disagree, strongly, that there's any claim I've made and failed to defend (i.e., the "fact" is non-existent). But maybe you were making a different point and worded it clumsily, such as, "If you fail to defend your claim, I'll have no reason to believe it." That would be odd, though, since I had already made that point myself.

For something to be independently and accurately verified, it has to comport with logic and be free of bias.

That didn't answer my question. I'll try again: "What is your standard of evidence for evaluating truth claims?"

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.

Yes, you did...

Right, like the elaborating conversation which followed that doesn't exist—well, except for the fact that it does:

TAVARISH (Msg. 74): "Why would you use a book that is self-validating as a standard of evidence?"

ARCANUS (Msg. 75): "It's not my standard of evidence. My standards of evidence are broad and varied, as there are many different types of claims that can be subject to evaluation. However, at bottom of my entire world view lies the fundamental presupposition that the Bible is the divinely revealed Word of God. It is the basic axiom upon which everything else is built."

TAVARISH (Msg. 76): "As the foundation of your worldview (the Bible), how would you verify its validity independently?"

ARCANUS (Msg. 87): "It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed."

[Violet]

People can have beliefs and concepts about me, but I am neither a belief nor a concept. The former exists subjectively, the latter exists objectively.

Hmmm... are you illustrating the difference between a 'collective mass' and what a person believes that 'collective mass' to be with the above quote? Wouldn't "I" then be a concept of a collective mass of itself?

@ http://aristophrenium.com/ryft/extraordi...-evidence/ : Interesting article... would you say most of your other articles are as good?

[tackattack]

@Adrian- no not you specifically to my observation but I still contend a most do perspective

[tavarish]

I see, so given everything you've said up to this point, you're telling us, "If I'm not aware of objective evidence, then objective evidence doesn't exist."

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH: Yes.
ARCANUS: On what basis is that claim true?
TAVARISH: On the basis that I'm not aware of any such evidence.

I don't make the claim that I've explored every possible venue, nor do I know what can come about in the future. This is a rather ingenious way of shifting the burden of proof, and I completely understand why it was needed.

Right. If you're not aware of such evidence, then such evidence doesn't exist. Very solipsist of you.

The problem, Tavarish, is with your truth claim; i.e., it doesn't represent what you actually mean. Instead of asserting the truth claim that there is no such evidence, you should be asserting the truth claim that you're not aware of any such evidence. The former shoulders a burden of proof different from, and quite heavier than, the latter.

I don't think you completely understood what I wrote then. Here it is:

Is the claim true? In my experience, yes. I can come to a conclusion based on the consensus of various scientific fields of study in the world.

Absolutely and unequivocally? I don't know.

I can be proven wrong, however.

I never make the claim that there is absolutely no evidence, just a lack of evidence in my findings.

To be as precise as I can, "Why?" Why do I need to present evidence, and why does that evidence have to meet your criteria?

I'm not here to convince you to believe this or that, I'm not here to convert people to accept the ideas and convictions I have. I'm not here to tell people what to think, Tavarish, but rather how to think, to shake people out of cognitive autopilot by presenting challenges that force them to self-evaluate their beliefs and reasonings.

It's clear you're not here to do that, I got that from reading up on your debate, your convictions are yours alone. However, good debates are so few and far between that arguments become a sort of defense mechanism. We've had a few discussions so far, and I've learned something in all of them. I sincerely don't mean to be pushy or overbearing, I'm just trying to get myself out of the stupor that is achieved when arguing with fundamentalists and people who only speak in logical fallacy.

Call it an ego boost for you. I don't agree with your beliefs, but you sure can form an argument.

So you can't accept my belief that God exists. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "So what?"

As I had written in an article last month, one thing that irritates me about the atheist's demand for evidence "is the audacious conceit of their demand, as if somehow their own intellectual sanction is a necessary instrument of validation for whatever claim was aired in their presence. 'Without sufficient evidence to support your claim,' they usually say, 'I am not able to believe it.' That may well be the case but, not to put too fine a point on it, what makes you think your belief is relevant or even required? ... If I tell a friend about an encounter with a ghost, exactly what relevance does their personal belief have to the facts of my experience? Precisely none, so far as I can tell. Surely they are not so presumptuous as to think that nothing can be deemed a fact until it has received their personal approbation. The problems with such a stance are legion and obvious. If I share with them the facts of my experience and they are unable to believe it themselves, what relevance does that have to the event in question? None, quite frankly. Neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with their ability to believe it."

Although this is well written, it leaves out one or two aspects of why atheists, particularly the ones who are involved in fields of scientific study, demand evidence. You miss the point that:

Having God as a claim within the realm of science (especially in the Carl Sagan example) is a scientific question. Why would he NOT approach it with the usual scrutiny that he does with every other claim? You're also confusing facts for personal belief. The scientific community wishes to establish facts. Personal beliefs are secondary and should not interfere with what is actually being discussed. The scientific method is a very good way of deducting if a claim is fact of fantasy by eliminating as much bias as possible, and giving the tester a better understanding of the subject material through experiments and results.

The article looks to have been written out of a response to atheists you've talked to that don't have answers for their standard of evidence.

Your argument works in a live-and-let-live environment, where belief would not impact others a great deal. In such an environment, I'd agree with you. However, you're leaving out the elephant in the room that is the overwhelming social and political control that religious groups have, especially in the U.S.

If you tell your friend that you saw a ghost, and he says he doesn't believe you, it's not a big deal for either party. Sure, it could be nice to have secondary confirmation, but your beliefs stay your beliefs. Now, if you change the situation a bit, and the majority of the country believes in ghosts, proselytize to non-believers of ghosts on a daily basis, make ghost-based legislation that imposes on civil rights, hinder scientific advancement with ghost-based claims and write "In ghosts we trust" on the national currency, it is of some great importance to shed light on this ghost phenomenon, especially as scientists who operate under a standard of evidence whose sole purpose is to describe things occurring in reality.

It may be frustrating that most atheists will fall back to a "show me evidence" tactic, especially when you don't care either way what they believe or don't.

In all my conversations, I can say this is the only one I've found intellectually engaging and not overly filled with fallacious and deluded arguments. Shit, you've exposed some of my own without me knowing it. Good shit, sir.

Please note people with your attitude are few and far between, in my experience. The world could definitely benefit if Christianity as a whole was as tolerant as you portray yourself to be.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you actually did. You had been talking about the "belief" that God exists and how the "concept's" existence can only be verified subjectively, which frustrated you because it is objective evidence you ask people for (Msg. 76). But like I said, that's a mistake. Beliefs and concepts are mental furniture belonging to the thinking person, which is subjective by nature. It's like this, Tavarish: people can have beliefs and concepts about me, but I am neither a belief nor a concept. The former exists subjectively, the latter exists objectively.

Perhaps I needed to elaborate:

I referred to God as conceptual fallaciously. What I should've said is God's objective existence. I understand what a concept is, and how it relates to subjectivity.

Okay, I'll bite. Why should I say such a thing? And would my refusal constitute intellectual dishonesty? According to whose criteria might it be an imaginary thing, and by whose criteria is intellectual honesty determined? If not mine, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his views down my throat?

It was a general statement made for those who contend that God exists in reality objectively.

The criteria is the scientific method, which is based in logic. Its sole purpose is to separate the real from conjured. If a statement has no evidence to support it, a logical conclusion cannot be made. To say you know something to be true, but can't back it up with adequate evidence for the claim, it would be intellectually dishonest to say it is absolutely and necessarily true.

If I say there's a sausage tree in Oklahoma somewhere, i would need evidence to support such a claim. If none is delivered, it would be intellectually honest of me to say "it's possible I could be making it up." That is not to say that there is NO sausage tree in Oklahoma, it just wouldn't be logical for me to say that I know there is.

And who would that be?

Anyone brought up in a secular society without a notion of a divine creator. The Pirahas, for example.

Well yes, "biased" does presuppose functioning cognitive faculties. Is there someone here without such? However, for atheists to be biased they do not necessarily have to reject God claims. Most do (unless your definition of 'atheist' includes Coke bottles and cat turds), but you are ignoring the principle definition, which is that an atheist is biased insofar as he is "far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God" (e.g., humanism, naturalism, et cetera). You can point to examples of people with impaired or non-existent cognitive faculties and say, "Look, they're not biased!" but I would simply turn your head back to the dictionary and carefully explain that biases, tendencies, and inclinations presuppose thinking persons.

Every thinking person has biases, Tavarish, a particular tendency or inclination toward a perspective, certain values, etc. To not recognize one's biases is to be a slave to them. I'm suspicious of anyone who pretends to not have any.

Also note that so am I. (However, my view of atheism presupposes functioning cognitive faculties; i.e., a hemorrhoid lacks belief in God but is not an atheist).

Did I mention anything about inanimate objects being atheists? I'm pretty sure I gave examples of humans in situations where they would be considered completely unbiased. At the very least you have to sever all emotional attachment in either direction. It has nothing to do with cognitive faculties, and to make such an argument is simply a straw man to points that no one made.

Being free of bias - It's not impossible with an atheistic position, but is impossible in a Christian one.

And the "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" this claim is... ?

This is quite an interesting topic, and a well-researched one.

Over the past 200 years, many psychologists, utilizing the scientific method attempted to define and recognize human instinct. This is not necessarily what we would call human nature, as aspects of human nature can be attributed to environmental interactions, and can flourish from then on.

There is a range of views on this topic, and although many researchers and psychoanalysts disagree, none of the well-respected and accepted methods include a God in the infancy, or newborn stage. At that stage, the newborn is establishing its drives and the concept of trust and mistrust. To form such a complex concept at this stage, when the brain itself is developing and practicing motor skills, is simply unrealistic. Based on this, there would be no good reason to believe that the knowledge of God is absolutely inherent in newborns.

While it is true that after about 6 months to 2 years, it is possible to form a concept of "God", it is heavily dependent on outside influence as a direct result of the trust they have in an authority figure. They are highly incorrigible and suggestive. This can also explain why childhood indoctrination works so well.

Here's the Erikson's developmental stages link:

http://www.learningplaceonline.com/stage...rikson.htm

And another with commentary on religious experience:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15487475/Stage...evelopment

First, it was indeed directed at me personally: "The fact that you fail to defend your claim ..." (Msg. 76). Second, I agree that if I fail to defend my claim you're afforded no reason to accept it—but I disagree, strongly, that there's any claim I've made and failed to defend (i.e., the "fact" is non-existent). But maybe you were making a different point and worded it clumsily, such as, "If you fail to defend your claim, I'll have no reason to believe it." That would be odd, though, since I had already made that point myself.

Again, I know what I wrote. It was directed generally, to anyone making a claim and failing to defend it. It was not meant as a personal attack on values. -1 for me for not being able to word it properly.

Woops.

That didn't answer my question. I'll try again: "What is your standard of evidence for evaluating truth claims?"

The scientific method.

Right, like the elaborating conversation which followed that doesn't exist—well, except for the fact that it does:

I asked you what evidence you used to support your position, and you said the Bible. What relevance does the following conversation have to your first answer, if that was the basis of Soyouz' inquiry? It's a presupposition, but it's still used as evidence, by your own account, among other things, to help strengthen your belief system.