RE: What is Atheism?
March 10, 2017 at 1:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 1:29 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(March 10, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It must be really convenient for you to claim that you know what people's motivations are better than they do themselves.
Incredulity is about not finding the belief in God credible. That can be as simple as raising an objection. Once an objection has been raised then the person making that objection has expressed a belief as to why he or she will not accept the proposition that God exists.
Otherwise I am no different from anyone else. I make inferences about people motivations from their behaviors. If someone expressly ridicules Christians (irrational, delusional, etc.) and mocks their beliefs (sky daddy, zombie Jew, etc.) then it is reasonable to infer he or she doesn't simply 'lack belief.' Likewise, if someone openly objects to biblical prohibitions of certain sexual activities, then it is reasonable to infer that he or she is inclined to reject the Christian faith because he or she tacitly approves of them, if not for themselves, then for everyone else. Not all atheists are like that, obviously, but you cannot deny that there are more than a few who are like that. Those are the people I'm talking about. If the shoe fits wear it.
Of course you are free to speculate about my motives. I doubt I have ever given any indication that I use faith as a psychological crutch; although, that is clearly the case for some believers. As for me, I was once a perfectly content atheist.
(March 10, 2017 at 12:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Not exactly. We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation...
Parsimony is not adding entities to an explanation that aren't required. Your burden is to show that reality with 'God exists' is more parsimonious than reality without 'God exists'. Just saying that it's more parsimonious doesn't make it so.
To dismiss all the things for which God would be responsible, atheists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives:delusions, coincidence, confirmation bias, emergent properties, niche fitness, multiverses, brute facts,...the list is endless. I have one - a necessary being that is fully in act and whose existence is identical to its essence.