If I were an Atheist

[Ravenshire]

Snakeoil

You claim you were making a joke. So, does that mean you finally recognize there is a difference between claiming there is no gawd and claiming not to believe in one? So far, I've seen no evidence that you understand the point.

Still not sure what you mean by gawd...is that just a disparaging way you spell it or do you mean something else.

Whether there is a difference depends on whether the person who states there is no God is making a fact claim or just stating an opinion. If an opinion built into that is the possibility they are wrong and God may in fact exist. If you claim not to believe in the existence of God it would be presumably because you don't believe God exists. I'm pretty confident no one claims to not believe in God yet thinks God does exist.

Ok, then. Let's try this one more time.
I do not believe in any god(s), at all, in any way. Do I know that there are none? No. Therefore I do not claim there is no god.

With me so far?!?

Can someone believe there is no god? Certainly. That person still falls under the umbrella of atheism even. However, that is not the majority belief.

Maybe this will help:


I'm an agnostic atheist because while I do not believe in any gods(s), I do not eliminate the possibility that some type of god or godlike being may exist. All I ask is testable, verifiable evidence of such a god. Something believers can never seem to provide.

As for specific gods? Well, I evaluate them on an individual basis. What evidences there are for and against, how the specific god is described, what powers/weaknesses are ascribed to it, etc... None so far have even passed the smell test.

As far as the gawd of the buy-bull? Oh, hell no. It's one great big logical inconsistency.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

An unembodied mind that poofs universes into existence would be a good example of such an unscientific and supernatural entity.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Cars are not formed naturally any more than pizza is. But everything about pizza and cars can be understood through a natural explanation-no magical minds required. Both the material of which they are comprised and the means by which they are assembled have naturalistic explanations. All things that can be described in this way fall into the category of natural phenomena (people, ice, fire, hats, watches, glaciers, earthquakes, tornados, meteor showers, rain, planets, solar systems, etc.)

Plenty of those things were once attributed to supernatural agents such as the mind you are arguing for here. None of the previously proclaimed gods were supported by evidence, and unless you decide to provide some for your "mind", there's no reason to believe it either.

[abaris]

As for specific gods? Well, I evaluate them on an individual basis. What evidences there are for and against, how the specific god is described, what powers/weaknesses are ascribed to it, etc... None so far have even passed the smell test.

Which isn't surprising since they all are created in our image. The current one in the image of not too educated half nomadic Iron Age desert dwellers with genocidal tendencies.

[Whateverist]

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

What you mistake for a strategy is just me not having a dog in the belief in god fight. Silly stuff doesn't command my attention.

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist)

Because if there is anyone who understands what a real atheist is it has got to be someone who isn't one.

I would clearly state such a belief is an opinion. It’s what I think is true but acknowledge I’m not certain of it. That’s what an opinion is, a statement you have reason to believe is true but can’t be certain is true.

Out in the wider world, everyone has their own reasons for believing as they do and no one is obliged to interpret every word as you do. As you define it, what I would otherwise call my opinion just seems too dignified for the god proposition. At best, on your terms, I have the off-hand opinion that gods taken literally is silly stuff. I lack sufficient shits to give to work up a full fledged, well considered opinion. Based on the initial findings, I've decided not to bring the case to the bench for an official opinion. The matter just doesn't warrant the effort.

That doesn't mean I think you're stupid or crazy. I'm quite sure that it is possible to believe in gods without being either of those things. But a literal god with all the attendant fundamentalist tendencies? No, you're definitely a flawed human being if you want to argue for those things. I won't go out of my way to tell you that. But if you want to come to my club and talk all this shit then fine, you're a moron. Happy?

[Drew_2013]

Salesman,

That's the exact same thing as me saying...
If Sauron didn't exist, I would expect to find nothing. You and I wouldn't be alive. There would be no stars or planets, etc etc etc.
We are alive and things exist, therefore Sauron must exist.

Except I didn't make the 'therefore Sauron (or God) must exist' . I didn't attempt to make a proof kind of statement out of it. I just offered an opinion.

You're taking something that we already know exists and backtracking it as evidence for the existence of something else that, apparently, can't be shown to exist on its own.
If that's the case, anyone can shoehorn anything into the existence of the universe as of evidence for the existence of anything else.

For instance we could shoehorn the belief that mindless forces always existed or poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing kind of like magic and point to the existence of the universe that is what happened. The reason we could shoehorn these possible explanations is because the existence of the universe does demand some explanation and one of those three explanations is probably right.

1. The universe was intentionally caused and designed by a personal agent or Creator commonly referred to as God.
2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

Someone is probably going to respond it could be some reason we haven't even thought of or could articulate but whose going to argue in favor of a position we can't articulate or fathom?

One of the most common arguments offered by atheists to justify their non-belief is the notion there is no evidence, not a shred, not a smidgen not one iota that a Creator (God) exists. I would say this is a foundational sacrosanct doctrine of atheism. Its also baloney. I went into this in depth in another thread but evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief. Quoting myself from another thread.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

From Wikipedia

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

The existence of the universe alone is evidence that God exists and theism is true.

[thee-iz-uh m]
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Theists attribute to God the existence of the universe and I think all of us would agree the universe exists. However that's just a foundational claim such as if I accused someone of murder, the first thing I would do is produce a body. However that evidence by itself would only prove someone died. I'd have to offer evidence the death was intentionally caused and then offer evidence that ties the accused to the murder. As it stands the existence of the universe (by itself) isn't better evidence then the alternate explanations.

2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

Explanation 2 and 3 are just as viable as the 1st explanation and the existence of the universe is evidence in favor of theism just as it is the other two explanations.

This is why the argument there is no evidence in support of theism isn't just a bad argument...its false.

I know I'm going to get a lot of feedback because the belief there is no evidence (facts) in favor of theism is damn near the first commandment of atheism.

1. There shall be no evidence in favor of theism!

Why is it critical? Because if in fact there is no evidence of theism, theistic belief can be marginalized as nothing more than a faith claim. God forbid if the atheist admits there is evidence in favor theism that would be tantamount to an admission there is an intellectual evidential reason to think theism is true.

Rhythm

Oh....kindly demonstrate that this is true? Do you have some argument as to the non-existence of Santa?

Of course if you define Santa as a mystical personal being that delivers presents world wide on Christmas eve with a flying sleigh lead by reindeer I can beyond a reasonable doubt provide a far superior explanation for the presents...can't you?

[The Reality Salesman01]

You need to fix all that. You addressed me, but quoted other people. I can't tell who's who.

---

When I read your posts, it seems as though your reason for being a theist is because you don't understand why people are Atheists, nor do you recognize the proper definition. Your careless use of epistemological jargon renders your position incoherent of any meaning. There's no way to even put a flag down on anything you've said because you either define the words as you go along, or misuse them. For a philosophical man, I would expect more precision.

[daver49]

[quote='Drew_2013' pid='903939' dateline='1426971728']
Snakeoil



Maybe this will help:

Where is the traffic cop? There's going to be a collision!!

---

If so then supernatural mind is just a red herring.

The red herrings would not be pleased with your representation of them...

[Drew_2013]

Hi Salesman,

Thanks for providing a definition...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true? If so until such time as scientists understand such phenomena they are supernatural correct? If the universe was caused to exist that cause couldn't be the very laws of nature that were caused to exist. If it sprang into existence out of nothing uncaused again that would be out of scope for scientists to explain. Therefore by this definition the existence of the universe is a phenomena beyond scientific explanation and can't be understood by an appeal to the laws of nature.


My personal definition (for what its worth) is the supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it can happen and then it becomes 'natural'. For example two hundred years ago, the idea I could speak to someone in Europe in live time would be a supernatural feat to them. Now since we can do it, its perfectly natural.

An unembodied mind that poofs universes into existence would be a good example of such an unscientific and supernatural entity.

Wouldn't mindless forces that poof a universe into existence be a good example also?

Cars are not formed naturally any more than pizza is. But everything about pizza and cars can be understood through a natural explanation-no magical minds required.

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists? If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature? What law does that follow under?

[daver49]

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists?

It hasn't been proven, but I believe is just exists in your mind. But you have to feed it every day. Many people here believe it thrives on bullshit.
My wife just told me to quit bull-shitting you. She has control over my mind.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I will finish tomorrow...