Delicate Offers a Truce

[Joods]

Well damn.

[Delicate]

Well you claim you have valid objections to theistic arguments. I want to see your objections. Any objection to any argument.

Then I can either admit it's successful, or refute it.

Without you being able to provide an objection, we can't have a conversation.

1. What theistic arguments are you referring to

2. How can I object to theistic arguments that don't exist

3. A confident person does not require someone else to make arguments for them, in order to reply to objections.

1. Assuming you claim to have valid objections to theistic arguments, I'm referring to whatever those arguments are. I don't know what arguments you have come across. Only you know that.

So tell me which argument, and tell me what the rebuttal is.

If there are multiple such arguments, pick any you like.

2. I never claimed you have objections to theistic arguments that don't exist.

3. Or maybe I just don't know what theistic arguments people have run by you.

I'm sensing you're reluctant to come up with an argument. Why the reluctance? Are you not confident of your objections? Are you afraid I'll make an example out of you and embarrass you? Have you genuinely not seen anybody make a single argument for God before? Or perhaps you've forgotten?

Can you point to where, specifically I'm wrong and why?

Everywhere, duh.

LOL 

As solid as an air guitar.

I think 1 and 2 are false. I've explained why elsewhere.

You are sincerely wrong then, and I would like a reference to your explanation so I can correct you.

I don't feel like hunting for the links either, so I'll just lay the most salient considerations out here based on how you've laid your position out.

1. I don't believe atheism is the default position, while theism needs to be proved because I take atheism and theism to be epistemically on par. One makes a claim, another makes a contradicting claim. If one doesn't make either claim (that God exists, or that God doesn't exist) they can rightly be thought of as agnostic. This triad is a perfectly adequate, well-established, and widely-accepted survey of the various positions and I haven't seen enough reason to change it.

2. Like I pointed out in (1), I think atheism makes a claim because atheism and theism are on par with each other epistemically. The only way you could say atheism makes no claims is if atheism were in fact a default position. 

But why think so? In fact, if not believing in x is a default position, then isn't "not believing that atheism is the default position" itself a default position? I think more work needs to be done here to explain why you believe in this kind of default position and why it's needed. 

There's more to say on this, of course, but I want to keep the post concise and focused.

I disagree and I've laid out why elsewhere.

Very well... Mind giving me a link to that place?
I'm on my phone and searching with little more than your username is a pain.

See my above response. Hope it helps.

Well you claim you have valid objections to theistic arguments. I want to see your objections. Any objection to any argument.

Then I can either admit it's successful, or refute it.

Without you being able to provide an objection, we can't have a conversation.

It's not up to us to bring up a particular argument then refute it.

It is up to you to defend your claims with evidence and reason, then it is up to us refute them, or concede.

Every time, and I do mean every time, I ever attempt to define the god a theist believes in, then refute the arguments for that god, the theist will claim that is not the god they believe exists.

You do know there are 33,000 Christian sects, right? How are we able to guess which flavor you follow and how you define your god?

Well, you are making the claim that you have valid objections to theistic arguments, aren't you? 

Or is your position something like "I have no refutation of a single theistic argument."? In this case, you're obviously not making a claim to possess any objections.

[Excited Penguin]

Everywhere, duh.

LOL 

As solid as an air guitar.

Kind of like your arguments.

[pocaracas]

Very well... Mind giving me a link to that place?
I'm on my phone and searching with little more than your username is a pain.

See my above response. Hope it helps.

Indeed it helps, thank you.

It seems you are operating under the impression that atheism is the position or claim that gods do not exist.
However, the more general case of atheism is the not acceptance of the claim that any particular god exists... especially, applied to all gods ever claimed to exist by any man.
In simpler terms, atheism is "not believing in the existence of gods", as opposed to your definition of "believing in the non-existence of gods". The difference can be subtle, but it paves the road for what comes next.

You are sincerely wrong then, and I would like a reference to your explanation so I can correct you.

I don't feel like hunting for the links either, so I'll just lay the most salient considerations out here based on how you've laid your position out.

1. I don't believe atheism is the default position, while theism needs to be proved because I take atheism and theism to be epistemically on par. One makes a claim, another makes a contradicting claim. If one doesn't make either claim (that God exists, or that God doesn't exist) they can rightly be thought of as agnostic. This triad is a perfectly adequate, well-established, and widely-accepted survey of the various positions and I haven't seen enough reason to change it.

Atheism as the claim that gods do not exist is indeed not the default position.
But atheism as the non-claim of existence of any god would be an adequate default position.

(A)gnosticism is applied as a concept of knowledge over the particular subject of the divine. A sort of measure of how sure people are about the existence or non-existence of gods. It complements the (a)theist view as this one relates to belief. People will often bring forth a 2D chart to illustrate this, but, essentially, you can have 4 quadrants: atheist agnostic, atheist gnostic, theist gnostic and theist agnostic.
The most common are "atheist agnostic" and "theist gnostic". The theist gnostic who thinks that the atheist is also gnostic will tend to, like yourself, think that agnostic is an independent category... alas, humans are not that easy to catalog.... on both these axis (knowledge vs belief) there is a continuum of positions.

Like I said, the norm among atheists is the "agnostic atheist", which possibly coincides with what you describe as simply "agnostic". No claim of knowledge is made concerning the actual non-existence of any god (for it is the intellectually honest position), but, for all intents and purposes, life is carried out as if no god exists (for there is no hint that any god has any influence over life - or anything).

2. Like I pointed out in (1), I think atheism makes a claim because atheism and theism are on par with each other epistemically. The only way you could say atheism makes no claims is if atheism were in fact a default position. 

But why think so? In fact, if not believing in x is a default position, then isn't "not believing that atheism is the default position" itself a default position? I think more work needs to be done here to explain why you believe in this kind of default position and why it's needed. 

There's more to say on this, of course, but I want to keep the post concise and focused.

Allow me to unravel that "not believing that atheism is the default position" to "not believing that 'not believing in the existence of gods' is the default position".
Now that's it's properly explicit, using the correct definition of atheism, perhaps you can agree this sentence makes no sense?

The default position is that which makes no claims, except those that are borne of immediate experience... like gravity - things fall.
Hence, the lack of claim for any god would be the default position. Such lack can be defined as atheism, but, under a hypothetical society that has never known of such a claim, the concept of atheism would be as foreign as the concept of "afaerism" or "aunicornism" are to us.

[robvalue]

I made up words for this:

Default atheism: Not believing in "gods" due to not being aware the concept exists, or perhaps not understanding the concept once presented.

Cognitive atheism: Not believing in "gods" after having heard about them and understanding the claim.

But Jesus shit man, lacking belief and belief to the contrary are two different things. I am gobsmacked some people still can't make this distinction. It's subtle at first, I admit. But this is like the lions' den of anal logic. If anyone here hasn't been anally violated by a logical lion by now, they must have no bum hole.

In other news, finding someone not guilty does not necessarily mean finding them innocent.

[ignoramus]

So basically we're born ignostic? (default), then become agnostic if you aren't ...ermmm ...initiated whilst vulnerable.

[robvalue]

I guess you could say that, yeah

I'm still ignostic because I haven't heard a god claim that makes any sense.

If you cut the crap and just say "Was this reality designed", then I'll become agnostic. I don't know, and I don't think it will ever be possible to know.

If you wibble on about a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense and garbage to do with morality as well, then not only do I not know, I don't even know what you're talking about.

[MJ the Skeptical]

A lot of atheists are mad at me. Perhaps for good reason- I've been a bit of a meanie-poo.

But a part of me also feels justified in acting all rambunctious and feisty because that's how I was treated early on without justification.

But I'm willing to set all that aside and start afresh. Clean slate and all.

Is this something we're all amenable to?

Did you really refer to yourself in the 3rd person? I don't even know you and I can tell you're an insufferable douche.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

41 pages responding to a troll. Come on guys and girls, let's just let this thread die now.

[ignoramus]