(February 26, 2019 at 7:06 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I believe in no gods because there is no evidence for any gods.

This statement shows that we are actually in agreement.

My claim all along has been that adult atheists who live in a society have all

1) heard the claims of religious people,
2) evaluated those claims based on certain criteria, and 
3) rejected those claims. 

The failure of the claim to meet the criteria is the reason that atheists reject the claim.

So I think it's certain that you have 

1) heard the claims of religious people (e.g. "There is a god.") 
2) evaluated that claim based on a particular criterion (in your case, "is there evidence for this claim?")
3) rejected the claim based on the fact that there is not good evidence.

The fact that there is no evidence is the reason you are an atheist today. 

That is what I have been claiming.

It's a claim that's only accurate with respect to some atheists being insisted as true for all atheists despite direct contradiction.

(February 27, 2019 at 3:07 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(February 26, 2019 at 7:06 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I believe in no gods because there is no evidence for any gods.

This statement shows that we are actually in agreement.

My claim all along has been that adult atheists who live in a society have all

1) heard the claims of religious people,
2) evaluated those claims based on certain criteria, and 
3) rejected those claims. 

The failure of the claim to meet the criteria is the reason that atheists reject the claim.

So I think it's certain that you have 

1) heard the claims of religious people (e.g. "There is a god.") 
2) evaluated that claim based on a particular criterion (in your case, "is there evidence for this claim?")
3) rejected the claim based on the fact that there is not good evidence.

The fact that there is no evidence is the reason you are an atheist today. 

That is what I have been claiming.

I would be open to reevaluate my position if (new) criteria could be demonstrated as valid.

(February 27, 2019 at 11:32 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It's a claim that's only accurate with respect to some atheists being insisted as true for all atheists despite direct contradiction.

No doubt there are also atheists who hear and reject the claims of religious people for bad reasons. Maybe force of habit, or a prejudgment that any religious claim must be silly. Or there could be personal psychological reasons, like unhappy childhood memories of church. 

These would be reasons to reject religious claims, though not good reasons.

I was grateful that a little earlier you demonstrated your own case of the pattern I'm talking about. When I typed out the sound-bite version of claims by Cusanus and Boehme, you read these, considered them briefly, rejected them, and kindly told us the reasons for which you rejected them. So at least in your case what I say is true.

---

(February 27, 2019 at 1:49 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: I would be open to reevaluate my position if (new) criteria could be demonstrated as valid.

That's fair. Thank you. 

I have never said that the criteria you are currently using are bad. Only that you are, in fact, using criteria.

Quote:

Quote:I would be open to reevaluate my position if (new) criteria could be demonstrated as valid.

That's fair. Thank you. 

I have never said that the criteria you are currently using are bad. Only that you are, in fact, using criteria.

If I have criteria for what I want in purchasing a home as a first-time home buyer, I in fact, now have no house. 
The criteria are not the house. 

You do see where this is going, I hope.

(February 27, 2019 at 7:57 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: You do see where this is going, I hope.

Here's where I think this is going. 

Criteria for judgment are something, not nothing. They may lead to a lack of belief in god, but they are themselves beliefs (in the sense of something you hold to be true). 

A simple example:

Suppose someone, let's call him Mr. A, asserts the following: "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore I reject the claims of religious people that there is a god." 

While the result is a lack of belief, the assertion in fact involves several truth claims. 

First, the claim that there is in fact no evidence. Personally, I think this claim is true, but the point I'm making is that it is a truth-claim, and as such may be challenged or defended.

Then there is the meaning of the term "evidence" which is implied in the claim. Let's say that for Mr. A, the only type of input that he is willing to call "evidence" is empirical observation that is intersubjectively repeatable -- that is, science-type evidence. Mr. A is here making a truth-claim, that only such input is worth considering. Christians, of course, also consider revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of "natural theology," and the logic of metaphysics also to be evidence. They may be silly for doing so, but to debate them Mr. A would have to make certain claims considering the value of evidence. Thus his position depends not merely on a lack but on positive beliefs (things he holds to be true) concerning evidence. 

He is also arguing from the position that god is something that science-type evidence could possibly detect. While this is probably a reasonable position to hold, it is in fact a truth-claim, and may be challenged or defended. Since early on (Plato, Aristotle, the Cappadocians, etc.) some people have argued that god is a metaphysical "ground of being" or something like that, which by definition is not a sense-detectable object. Their claims may be rubbish, but Mr. A's claim that they are wrong, and that only science-detectable things are real, is a truth-claim, and may be challenged or defended. 

In other words, what seems like merely a lack to Mr. A in fact involves a number of beliefs (things he holds to be true) concerning the issues involved. He has reached his conclusion -- that the claims of believers may be rejected -- based on these things he holds to be true. 

He has a position, which is not the only possible position, which has led him to his atheism in its current state. 

Please note, once again, that I am making no statements concerning the quality of anybody's arguments. Only that people reach their conclusions based on intellectual commitments that they hold. And this includes atheists.

Belaqua, there's a problem that is even more essential than argument-- the reason FOR argument. If you have an interest in people understanding and accepting your view of an existent God, then it's not really up to you what kind of evidence they will / won't accept: you'll have either to persuade them, or to have them continue to disregard your view. That's because in order to be convinced by your evidence, someone will have to come into your world and try prayer, ascetic discipline, and so on-- but if someone doesn't believe, they are unlikely to spend hundreds of hours trying to immerse themselves in the world which will provide your type of evidence.

And that's why the objective evidence required for good science is so valuable-- it doesn't have to meet you in the way. Computers will get made and run whether you believe in electrochemistry or not. Planes will fly whether you accept the evidence for things like air pressure and gravity or not.

(February 28, 2019 at 1:12 am)bennyboy Wrote: Belaqua, there's a problem that is even more essential than argument-- the reason FOR argument.  If you have an interest in people understanding and accepting your view of an existent God, then it's not really up to you what kind of evidence they will / won't accept: you'll have either to persuade them, or to have them continue to disregard your view.  That's because in order to be convinced by your evidence, someone will have to come into your world and try prayer, ascetic discipline, and so on-- but if someone doesn't believe, they are unlikely to spend hundreds of hours trying to immerse themselves in the world which will provide your type of evidence.

And that's why the objective evidence required for good science is so valuable-- it doesn't have to meet you in the way.  Computers will get made and run whether you believe in electrochemistry or not.  Planes will fly whether you accept the evidence for things like air pressure and gravity or not.

What you say here is true. It also is tangential to what I'm talking about.

An atheist accepts or rejects claims based on reasons, which may be good or bad, but which should be examined.

------------

added:

I'm sorry if I seem single-minded here, but it's been surprisingly difficult for me to get my point across.

(February 28, 2019 at 1:18 am)Belaqua Wrote: What you say here is true. It also is tangential to what I'm talking about.

An atheist accepts or rejects claims based on reasons, which may be good or bad, but which should be examined.

------------

added:

I'm sorry if I seem single-minded here, but it's been surprisingly difficult for me to get my point across.

 Welll.. personally (As I've exlained) the reasons I don't accept any of the diety propositions is that... They simply don't match with the reality I see/understand around me.

The reasons given for dietys are incoherant to me.

Not at work.

(February 28, 2019 at 1:41 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  Welll.. personally (As I've exlained) the reasons I don't accept any of the diety propositions is that... They simply don't match with the reality I see/understand around me.

To reach this conclusion, you have to have 

1) an idea of what a deity would be like, 
2) an idea of what reality is like, and
3) an idea of what it would be like for those things to "match."