(March 18, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 6:18 am)Catharsis Wrote: Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

To be fair, there are some people here who claim their lack of belief is not a reasoned result at all. It results from no reasons and is based on no knowledge or claims.

True.

Knights without a horse nor sword.

(March 18, 2019 at 10:09 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 8:40 pm)possibletarian Wrote: To simply declare that there is no reason to disbelieve is just that, a declaration.

Simply to make a declaration is not to make an argument. 

Some people feel there are reasons to believe. You say there aren't.

Do you have any reasons for your assertion, or is it made for no reason? You have heard the reasons given by religious people, and you have declared that they are not in fact reasons. Did you make this declaration according to some reasonable standard, or according to nothing?

I didn't say there are no reasons to believe, after all simply saying 'that you want to believe' is a reason. In the same way saying 'I don't want to believe' is also a reason, but both are simply declarations of what you believe to be true.

What I actually asked for is proof, not reasons, perhaps try reading what people actually post may help with your replies.

Here's what i actually said..

Quote:To simply declare that there is no reason to disbelieve is just that, a declaration. First show me something that could only happen with a god, then show me proof that is the only way it could happen, then i would believe.

(March 19, 2019 at 4:39 am)possibletarian Wrote: I didn't say there are no reasons to believe, after all simply saying 'that you want to believe' is a reason. In the same way saying 'I don't want to believe' is also a reason, but both are simply declarations of what you believe to be true.

What I actually asked for is proof, not reasons

Thank you, I am interested in people's reasons. 

I'm sure you know the drill about the word "proof." It's only for math, pure logic, etc. Though I'm perfectly happy to use the word in reference to other areas if we use it to mean something like "evidence which I hold to be overwhelmingly persuasive." 

This, again, means that we have commitments or judgments about what constitutes good evidence, what constitutes proof, etc. These are the underlying reasons people reach the conclusion that there is no reason--and no proof--to believe. Sometimes people take the standards of judgment to be self-evident and conclusive, but they are still concepts which we use to arrive at a considered atheism.

(March 18, 2019 at 4:10 pm)Nomad Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 6:54 am)tackattack Wrote: that's a new one. Please define reasoned disbelief @BrianSoddingBoru4

Disbelief where the known facts are consistent with with disbelief.  For example, what we know about the universe is very strongly suggestive that the existence of a deity type being is both unnecessary and not factually correct.  Therefore disbelief in that deity is reasoned.

And not one thing I said above is inconsistent with the known facts.

I still don't see how you can have facts about something that you believe doesn't exist. I'm not saying that it's reasoned or unreasonable, just that you're claiming there are facts that are consistent with nothing. Gae had a very humorous and accurate example, neither the shit or the sun rising (colloquially not meteorologic-ally) are facts that support disbelief. They are simply things that are, and without a causal relationship, are indicative only that Gae takes a big deuce and that the sun rises.

(March 18, 2019 at 4:10 pm)Nomad Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 9:44 am)tackattack Wrote: Yes that helps. I always saw it as belief is a threshold thing. You either had justification or it didn't meet a level of criteria. If it surpassed your threshold you believed, if you didn't your disbelieved. You make it sound here as if you're positively positing arguments against nothing.

You've it the wrong way round.  You believe when you want proposition X to be true, but you have insufficient evidence to back it up, or evidence shows that it is false.  When you have sufficient evidence you don't believe, you accept.

acceptance was my main point here, sorry if I didn't explain that clearly. I don't think you can actually choose to believe in something without shitty evidence (either against opposing evidence or without). For instance, Brian believes people are innately good. I want to believe that, but evidence just doesn't support that. I could claim that I hope people are good, but then it runs contrary to my evidence. I intellectually can't support the proposition that people tend towards good as a species the majority of the time. I see times when a human's propensity for good far outweighs their bad, but it is an underwhelming minority. Thus, while I want to believe people are innately good; I can't accept the position as true because the evidence doesn't support it. I don't say "I have sufficient evidence to believe people are bad" (even though that is a true statement and the opposite of the assertion), I say "I don't have reason to believe that people are innately good" (also a true statement).

So what is the evidence that God doesn't exist? Or is it simply that the evidence that God exists doesn't meet your standards? I believe is what Belaqua was pointing out.

@fredd bear - thanks I've read them both and am familiar with the fundamentals of reason.

(March 19, 2019 at 4:59 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 19, 2019 at 4:39 am)possibletarian Wrote: I didn't say there are no reasons to believe, after all simply saying 'that you want to believe' is a reason. In the same way saying 'I don't want to believe' is also a reason, but both are simply declarations of what you believe to be true.

What I actually asked for is proof, not reasons

Thank you, I am interested in people's reasons. 

I'm sure you know the drill about the word "proof." It's only for math, pure logic, etc. Though I'm perfectly happy to use the word in reference to other areas if we use it to mean something like "evidence which I hold to be overwhelmingly persuasive." 

This, again, means that we have commitments or judgments about what constitutes good evidence, what constitutes proof, etc. These are the underlying reasons people reach the conclusion that there is no reason--and no proof--to believe. Sometimes people take the standards of judgment to be self-evident and conclusive, but they are still concepts which we use to arrive at a considered atheism.

Interesting, what do you mean by 'considered' absence of belief in a god ?
And if you are a believer yourself, what standards of evidence and proof did you find convincing and why ?

(March 19, 2019 at 6:26 am)possibletarian Wrote: Interesting, what do you mean by 'considered' absence of belief in a god ?

I guess I want to make a distinction between, on the one hand, rocks, lizards, people raised by wolves, and people incapable of language, and on the other hand thinking people who live in a society that has religion in it. I contend that anyone raised in society will have heard the claims of religious people, and an atheist is a person who has found these claims to be unpersuasive. 

But to decide that such claims are unpersuasive means evaluating them according to some standards. 

So let's say, obviously enough, that there is no known empirical evidence for a god-like thing. For some people, this will constitute a sufficient reason -- proof, even -- that the claims of religious people are not to be accepted. That means, to me, that this results in a considered atheism: claims are heard, evaluated, and rejected for reasons. 

Now the reasons may be better or worse. A bad reason: the nuns were mean to me. A better reason: science is our most effective way to understand the world, and science seems to operate just fine without a God involved.

But to me, this means that thinking people's atheism involves these evaluative standards. The atheism of a thinking adult is not the same as the atheism of a newborn baby. And, most importantly for the point I'm making, these standards are things that can be discussed, questioned, and defended. That means the atheism may be defined as a lack, but the standards by which we evaluate claims are not lacks; they are commitments, beliefs (in the sense simply of "we hold them to be true"), etc. 

So suppose someone said he was an atheist because there is no empirical evidence. A believer might well concede there is no such evidence, but offer instead logical arguments for the existence of a God. (This is in fact how all serious theologians operate. No one after Plato has said that a God is an object known to the senses.) So, if the atheist's argument is limited to the lack of empirical evidence, he would have something to defend to his believing interlocutor. He would have to either 1) show that only empirical evidence is relevant, or 2) show that the logical arguments are false. 

My point isn't to argue the content of any of these things. Only to say that adult non-vegetable atheists can't claim that their atheism is just a nothing that has nothing to defend about it. 

Quote:And if you are a believer yourself, what standards of evidence and proof did you find convincing and why ?

In the olden days I would have said I'm an agnostic, in that I don't really know. But since sites like this are strict about saying anyone who lacks belief is an atheist, then I'm an atheist. 

But I've worked hard on the arguments of the intelligent religious thinkers, and I have not been persuaded that they have been proved wrong.

(March 19, 2019 at 6:07 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't think you can actually choose to believe in something without shitty evidence (either against opposing evidence or without).

Did you get that right ?

---

(March 19, 2019 at 7:04 am)Belaqua Wrote: In the olden days I would have said I'm an agnostic, in that I don't really know. But since sites like this are strict about saying anyone who lacks belief is an atheist, then I'm an atheist. 

But I've worked hard on the arguments of the intelligent religious thinkers, and I have not been persuaded that they have been proved wrong.

It's fine to say you are agnostic here by the way and i understand what you are trying to convey, it's your last sentence that confuses me a little, firstly why do you think logical arguments are a way to know if there is a god for whom there is little if any empirical evidence, especially if the god is created mid argument.

Can you give some examples of arguments you have difficulty with, maybe I'm simplistic but I've never thought a logical argument good to prove (or show likely) the existence of anything that there is not already other types of evidence for.

(March 18, 2019 at 6:18 am)Catharsis Wrote: Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

What's the alternative to non-belief?  Which of the infinitude of god/gods do I believe in?

(March 18, 2019 at 7:20 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 7:15 pm)fredd bear Wrote: Every argument for the existence of god(s) has been demolished ,using---reason.

I know you won't support your assertions, because it's not "fun," but this sentence isn't true.

Then demonstrate an argument for any deity which cannot be and has not been logically demolished.

You seem to think that there exist arguments for god that are bullet proof or at least have not been comprehensively demolished. I am unaware of any such. Do you have one? Then present it.

You wont. Because you don't have any such thing.

Maybe you will claim that it is possible that such a killer argument exists somewhere in the universe. That would be another faith claim no different from your god claim.

(March 19, 2019 at 7:05 am)possibletarian Wrote: why do you think logical arguments are a way to know if there is a god for whom there is little if any empirical evidence

Reasonable question! 

It's just the difference between a scientific demonstration and a metaphysical one. 

Science, as you know, very wisely limits itself to certain kinds of knowledge. Empirical, intersubjectively repeatable, quantifiable, etc. That's why it works so well. 

But that leaves a number of big questions. For example, the assertion that empirical evidence is the best or only way to know things is not itself demonstrable through empirical evidence. What experiment could be devised, using empirical evidence, that there is no other kind of evidence? 

Since Plato, serious arguments for God do not consider God to be a sensible object, knowable in the way that other sensible objects are. Sometimes people mistakenly treat God as if it were Bigfoot -- we'd get proof if we knew where to look. But God has always been considered as a non-material or even noetic thing. Actually, non-thing. Some theologians even happily agree that God doesn't exist, because God is itself existence. 

A standard although very limited analogy is to numbers. We say that the number 5 exists, though we've never seen it. Only examples of fiveness or symbols. 

I guess I should make clear that no theologian reads the Bible the way most atheists do -- literalist sola scriptura. 

A long and involved metaphysical logical argument has to do with the fact that things existing are held in existence by things that are essentially (not temporally) prior, and it appears that the chain has to go back to one non-contingent thing that holds everything else in existence. I know I'm going to get into trouble for citing this one -- people really get worked up by Aristotle. But it's just an example of what I mean by a non-empirical demonstration.

---

(March 19, 2019 at 7:46 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Then demonstrate an argument for any deity which cannot be and has not been logically demolished.

I'm not going to demonstrate them, as they tend to require more than a few sentences. 

Offhand it's easy to name two: the Thomist argument for actus purus, and Spinoza's argument. 

If these have been logically "demolished" I hope you'll point me to the relevant books. I would like to know more about them, and the only people I've found who can explain them properly feel they've lasted pretty well.