Annoying Atheist Arguments

[pocaracas]

Why? Because you'd be a gullible person, if you believe any proposition presented to you, or, if you believe the opposite, you'd be an anti-social.

Then how about you believe it based on how well it fits your worldview.

worldview.... that implies a personal acquisition of some information about the world and reasoning skills to infer future events based on that information.... does it not?

What you seem to fail to notice is that I specify the absence of information regarding the truth value of the proposition.

What you fail to notice is that information is not necessary to form a belief.

Well, if you don't know what spunkGargleWeewee is, how can you believe whether it exists or not?
The word does not exist in a normal dictionary. It exists in this text (and, perhaps, somewhere else). The concept indicated by the word is something only a restricted number of people are aware of.

You have now a very limited information about spunkGargleWeewee.
Do you believe it exists, or do you believe it does not exist? OR do you not believe either way?

We all have acquired some awareness of the world around us in our lifetimes and that has provided us with information on a broad range of themes. The proposition that my mum is blonde would be automatically judged by all the information you have available, at least about the global proportion of blondes vs non-blondes; or the previously established (by you) trustworthiness of your friend that proposes it.
Based on such (sometimes sparse) information, you make a judgement and that is why you state that if you do not believe something, that is because you have some information which hints the opposite of the proposition.

What you are missing is that which information is used to make the judgment and how much weight is attached to it is solely at my discretion.

To you, yes.... to me, it's at my discretion. And my discretion goes like I presented.

Now, let's go to the ultimate example: belief in god's existence.
What sort of information do I have that proposes some god's existence? people's testimony, some of it written.
The trustworthiness of these persons, to me, is sketchy.
What information do I have of the opposite proposition (there is no god)? only the absence of any divine intervention (as testified by the proponents of the "god exists" proposition) within my life's experience.... compounded with other testimonies stating the same absence.

You've more to go on than that. Like how the being proposed is logically incoherent and all the other evidence undermining the arguments for existence.

Ah, I was going for a deistic god thing, immortal, creator of the cosmos and little else.

This absence, to you, may be enough to claim your belief that there is no god.
To me, it just enforces the default position, which arises from the absence of the proposition itself.
If no one in my lifetime had ever mentioned any divine entities, how would I believe them not to exist? How would I believe them to exist?

Then you believe that they don't exist. Its that simple. The default position is not to believe that such a thing exists.

I agree with your second sentence, but not the first.

In the 1700's, people were unaware of the existence of black holes. Did they believe black holes not to exist? Did they believe black holes to exist?
Or they were in the default position: i don't know?
Then someone came up with the idea of a black hole, based on Einstein's space-time curvature due to gravity. To the people that understood Einsteins theory, black holes made sense, so they believed they could exist (even if no one had observed one yet). The common people had no such knowledge of the theory, so they didn't have enough information to form an educated opinion on the subject.... they did form opinions, none the less...
Some didn't believe they could exist (their experience of the world didn't accommodate that notion), some believed based only on the fact that the scientists were trustworthy (appeal to authority), some remained unaware, others unable to form an opinion...
Now that you know that black holes are real, you'd say the ones that believed the scientists were the smart lot.... but imagine no one had yet observed the effects of a black hole.

Which of those groups would have been smart? Is it smart to accept the saying of a group of people, just because you acknowledge them to be some authority? Is it smart to dismiss those people's proposition and promptly accept the opposite? Or is it smart to remain in doubt until some more information comes to light about said proposition?
As it turns out, the predicted signature x-ray radiation has been detected as coming from a few candidate black hole positions, so the notion that black holes exist has gained some evidence in its favor. This makes me believe that black holes exist.

It is only before you are aware of the concept that you can remain at a zero - i.e. hold no belief regarding it. Once you become aware of it, you really do have only two choices - to believe it or not to believe it. In case of absence of definitive evidence or information for either side, you may not know which position is correct and therefore hold a belief and remain in doubt - willing to change that belief if and when information is provided.

The smart thing would be to make the choice in line with your worldview and wait for more information. The smarter choice still is to have a coherent, logical and correct worldview so that the choice you make is likely to be the right one. The smart thing to do is to acknowledge that while you may not know, you can still believe one way or the other.

Ah, worldview... you are again assuming you have some more information about the world. The same information that made you construct that worldview. Each one of us has their own set of information there...
What kind of information each one of us is trusting then defines what we can believe in about the world...
And most information we get from adults, while we're young, tends to be cataloged as trustworthy...

No such information exists about gods, so all I have available is other people's testimony and my lack of experience of whatever they testify.

Like I said, you have more than that.

yes, a bit more, but that's a very good overview of what's available.

[Question Mark]

Well I disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you belittling my argument like that. One can only know through experience, if you've tested it personally. I know gravity works because I've picked something up and dropped it, thus experienced it. I believe that jumping off a building will hurt because in every instance I've ever seen other people do it, it hurt them, and because I have a working understanding of physics and the limitations of the human anatomy.

Then there's faith, of course. Jumping off a building will hurt because someone told me it will.

[genkaus]

worldview.... that implies a personal acquisition of some information about the world and reasoning skills to infer future events based on that information.... does it not?

It'd be impossible to live without having one.

Well, if you don't know what spunkGargleWeewee is, how can you believe whether it exists or not?
The word does not exist in a normal dictionary. It exists in this text (and, perhaps, somewhere else). The concept indicated by the word is something only a restricted number of people are aware of.

You have now a very limited information about spunkGargleWeewee.
Do you believe it exists, or do you believe it does not exist? OR do you not believe either way?

Prima facie, it seems like something you made up for the sake of argument - so, I don't believe that it exists. IOW, it doesn't exist. My belief is open to alteration upon further information.

To you, yes.... to me, it's at my discretion. And my discretion goes like I presented.

However it may go, it has to go somewhere. It cannot remain at a zero.

Ah, I was going for a deistic god thing, immortal, creator of the cosmos and little else.

Still not logical.

I agree with your second sentence, but not the first.

And that is your problem. Both of them mean the same thing.

Ah, worldview... you are again assuming you have some more information about the world. The same information that made you construct that worldview. Each one of us has their own set of information there...
What kind of information each one of us is trusting then defines what we can believe in about the world...
And most information we get from adults, while we're young, tends to be cataloged as trustworthy...

And that can be changed and altered as you grow up.

---

Well I disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you belittling my argument like that.

What argument?

One can only know through experience, if you've tested it personally. I know gravity works because I've picked something up and dropped it, thus experienced it. I believe that jumping off a building will hurt because in every instance I've ever seen other people do it, it hurt them, and because I have a working understanding of physics and the limitations of the human anatomy.

Then there's faith, of course. Jumping off a building will hurt because someone told me it will.

Have you personally counted the ballot boxes or do you not know who won the election in your country? Have you personally compared the gravitational acceleration at the equator and the poles or do you not know that it is higher at the poles? Have you personally been to the middle-east or do you not know that Islam is the major religion there?

Personal experience is a very limited and often unreliable way of gaining knowledge. After all, there is only so much you can experience in your limited time with your limited resources. The bulk of knowledge that you have does come from logic and rationality. Your understanding of physics and human anatomy are not things you have "personally experienced" but things you have learned about - and that is knowledge. If personal experience was all that counted as knowledge, then the collective knowledge of humanity would not have made it past the hunter-gatherer stage.

[pocaracas]

Well, if you don't know what spunkGargleWeewee is, how can you believe whether it exists or not?
The word does not exist in a normal dictionary. It exists in this text (and, perhaps, somewhere else). The concept indicated by the word is something only a restricted number of people are aware of.

You have now a very limited information about spunkGargleWeewee.
Do you believe it exists, or do you believe it does not exist? OR do you not believe either way?

Prima facie, it seems like something you made up for the sake of argument - so, I don't believe that it exists. IOW, it doesn't exist. My belief is open to alteration upon further information.

So you believe that SpunkGargleWeewee does not exist.
While I guarantee that it does exist.... you are just not aware of what it is.
I'll tell you it's a kind of game, but it's difficult to define exactly. (just to keep in touch with the dodgy talk of theists who try to provide with some definition of their god)
Now, you should be in doubt... "maybe it does exist.... then again, maybe this guy is just pulling my leg" ?
Can't decide?... default to I don't even know what that is, so I can't say if it does exist or not...

Ah, I was going for a deistic god thing, immortal, creator of the cosmos and little else.

Still not logical.

I'm sure you can find someone in this forum who would say it's logical...
With an argument along the lines of "everything requires a creator, even the Universe, hence there must be one. What is it and how, I don't know, but I am convinced that there must be one".

I agree with your second sentence, but not the first.

And that is your problem. Both of them mean the same thing.

I disagree. Middle ground is possible as a belief.
Not as a rule to direct your life.... If I do not believe in the existence of a god, then I live my life as if that god does not exist.... However I will not claim that it does not exist... you see, I have no wish to prove that claim.... specially since I know it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

Ah, worldview... you are again assuming you have some more information about the world. The same information that made you construct that worldview. Each one of us has their own set of information there...
What kind of information each one of us is trusting then defines what we can believe in about the world...
And most information we get from adults, while we're young, tends to be cataloged as trustworthy...

And that can be changed and altered as you grow up.

Not everyone finds it that easy... or are willing to change that.

[genkaus]

So you believe that SpunkGargleWeewee does not exist.
While I guarantee that it does exist.... you are just not aware of what it is.
I'll tell you it's a kind of game, but it's difficult to define exactly. (just to keep in touch with the dodgy talk of theists who try to provide with some definition of their god)
Now, you should be in doubt... "maybe it does exist.... then again, maybe this guy is just pulling my leg" ?
Can't decide?... default to I don't even know what that is, so I can't say if it does exist or not...

Or maybe I just googled it and found out that it does exist. Presence of doubt does not negate belief.

I'm sure you can find someone in this forum who would say it's logical...
With an argument along the lines of "everything requires a creator, even the Universe, hence there must be one. What is it and how, I don't know, but I am convinced that there must be one".

Saying so doesn't make it so. That argument is flawed to begin with.

I disagree. Middle ground is possible as a belief.

There is no middle ground between true and false.

Not as a rule to direct your life.... If I do not believe in the existence of a god, then I live my life as if that god does not exist.... However I will not claim that it does not exist... you see, I have no wish to prove that claim.... specially since I know it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

That's kind of the point I've been making all along. Clearly, you don't believe that god exists. Your beliefs inform your actions, which is why you live your life as if god does not exist. You, however, are afraid of saying it aloud. You are afraid that if you put your belief into words, somehow that will require you to prove it - even though there still won't be any burden of proof on you and, even if there were, you do have some justification regarding it. And not only are you wary of putting your own beliefs into words, you go out of your way to argue at length as to why anyone else who believes the same thing should not do so either.

[Ryantology]

Well I disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you belittling my argument like that. One can only know through experience, if you've tested it personally. I know gravity works because I've picked something up and dropped it, thus experienced it. I believe that jumping off a building will hurt because in every instance I've ever seen other people do it, it hurt them, and because I have a working understanding of physics and the limitations of the human anatomy.

Then there's faith, of course. Jumping off a building will hurt because someone told me it will.

I know falling hurts, because every time I've fallen, it has hurt to some degree. My knowledge of the relationship between falling and feeling pain, which I earned through experience, allows me to know that falling from atop a building will hurt.

[pocaracas]

I disagree. Middle ground is possible as a belief.

There is no middle ground between true and false.

If your proposition under "test" is complex, there are shades of grey.
A simple proposition: 1+1=2, true or false? true.
A complex proposition: My keyboard doesn't work... false, for the most part, but there's a key that is faulty, so the keyboard doesn't work as fully intended.

Not as a rule to direct your life.... If I do not believe in the existence of a god, then I live my life as if that god does not exist.... However I will not claim that it does not exist... you see, I have no wish to prove that claim.... specially since I know it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

That's kind of the point I've been making all along. Clearly, you don't believe that god exists. Your beliefs inform your actions, which is why you live your life as if god does not exist. You, however, are afraid of saying it aloud. You are afraid that if you put your belief into words, somehow that will require you to prove it - even though there still won't be any burden of proof on you and, even if there were, you do have some justification regarding it. And not only are you wary of putting your own beliefs into words, you go out of your way to argue at length as to why anyone else who believes the same thing should not do so either.

Ah, from my POV, you're mixing an assumption with a belief.
I assume there is no god.
I do not believe there is no god.
I do not believe there is a god.
I have no belief either way, but I assume there isn't, for practical purposes.
Belief requires me to assert that proposition as true. I don't.

[genkaus]

If your proposition under "test" is complex, there are shades of grey.
A simple proposition: 1+1=2, true or false? true.
A complex proposition: My keyboard doesn't work... false, for the most part, but there's a key that is faulty, so the keyboard doesn't work as fully intended.

The question of existence vs non-existence is not particularly complex.

Ah, from my POV, you're mixing an assumption with a belief.
I assume there is no god.
I do not believe there is no god.
I do not believe there is a god.
I have no belief either way, but I assume there isn't, for practical purposes.
Belief requires me to assert that proposition as true. I don't.

Do you even bother to learn the meanings of words before you use them?

Assuming there is no god is the same as starting with the belief that there is is no god. Since you are unconvinced otherwise, you still believe that there is no god.

When you assume something, you consider it to be true without proof. When you believe something, you consider it to be true.
Clearly, your assumptions are a part of your beliefs. All you are doing by saying that you assume there is no god, but you don't believe that there is no god while also not believing that there is a god is contradicting yourself over and over again.

---

I know falling hurts, because every time I've fallen, it has hurt to some degree. My knowledge of the relationship between falling and feeling pain, which I earned through experience, allows me to know that falling from atop a building will hurt.

And would you not have similar knowledge had you not experienced the pain of falling personally?

[Question Mark]

Well I disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you belittling my argument like that. One can only know through experience, if you've tested it personally. I know gravity works because I've picked something up and dropped it, thus experienced it. I believe that jumping off a building will hurt because in every instance I've ever seen other people do it, it hurt them, and because I have a working understanding of physics and the limitations of the human anatomy.

Then there's faith, of course. Jumping off a building will hurt because someone told me it will.

I know falling hurts, because every time I've fallen, it has hurt to some degree. My knowledge of the relationship between falling and feeling pain, which I earned through experience, allows me to know that falling from atop a building will hurt.

And that knowledge is founded in experience. You've experienced falling, and it's hurt each time. Falling again, will likely hurt again.
All I'm saying is that if someone hasn't ever fallen, they wouldn't know. They'd only have a belief based on evidence.

[Zone]

The knowledge that that physical impact at high speed with a solid object the ground included is an innate instinct that any animal with sense organs and a brain would know. A fly hasn't experienced a fly swatter hitting them before but they will know its one of those things they ought to avoid, and they avoid that very well.