Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[LadyForCamus]

I mean, even if everyone here declared themselves a gnostic atheist right now, what practical difference would that really make to anybody, including the theists? Is it just the satisfaction of being able to say "well you're making a claim TOO!" that you want, Chad? Even if it were so, that wouldn't bolster the case for God/s at all. It wouldn't make the position, "a God exists," any more likely to be correct. The evidence, or lack thereof, still speaks for its self.

[Esquilax]

I mean, even if everyone here declared themselves a "gnostic atheist" right now, what practical difference would that really make to anybody, including the theists?  Is it just the satisfaction of being able to say "well you're making a claim TOO!" that you want, Chad?  Even if it were so, that wouldn't bolster the case for God/s at all.  It wouldn't make the position, "a God exists," any more likely to be correct.  The evidence, or lack thereof, still speaks for its self.

Lack of evidence for god? Haven't you ever seen the centuries-old, baseless assertions of Aquinas?

Wooters has this really big hard-on for redefining and dictating the positions of those who disagree with him for them; he's already said in this thread that he thinks most people using the "lack of belief" definition of atheism secretly believe there are no gods, and who the hell knows how he determined that, but actually supporting his wild assertions has never been his bag. This is just another attempt to "win" the god debate by negative means, just subtracting and twisting the stated positions of the opposition instead of simply providing evidence, because he has none. Because everyone knows you can get to positive evidence if you just pretend anyone who disagrees with you secretly believes something just as irrational as you do!

[robvalue]

Right. For all practical purposes, I can say "this thing you are describing is imaginary mate".

I'm just being intellectually honest by admitting the limits of my ability to know for sure about such things, especially given the extremely untestable nature of the description.

By far the most likely situation is that each theist has their own god, living in ther imagination. It's completely consistent, requires no assumptions, and is supported by the evidence of simply listening to theists.

It is far more unlikely that it is actually a real thing, which would require a wealth of assumptions, and twisting all the available evidence to produce a completely unexpected result. But I gain nothing by claiming to know for sure this isn't the case.

[pocaracas]

It is far more unlikely that it is actually a real thing, which would require a wealth of assumptions, and twisting all the available evidence to produce a completely unexpected result. But I gain nothing by claiming to know for sure this isn't the case.

To think that... if god is real, then it is a part of reality... as such, it would be just as testable as any electro-magnetic field.
But the common conception of god seems to place it beyond the real... I call that "not real"... but feel free to go meta.

[LadyForCamus]

I mean, even if everyone here declared themselves a "gnostic atheist" right now, what practical difference would that really make to anybody, including the theists?  Is it just the satisfaction of being able to say "well you're making a claim TOO!" that you want, Chad?  Even if it were so, that wouldn't bolster the case for God/s at all.  It wouldn't make the position, "a God exists," any more likely to be correct.  The evidence, or lack thereof, still speaks for its self.

Lack of evidence for god? Haven't you ever seen the centuries-old, baseless assertions of Aquinas?

Wooters has this really big hard-on for redefining and dictating the positions of those who disagree with him for them; he's already said in this thread that he thinks most people using the "lack of belief" definition of atheism secretly believe there are no gods, and who the hell knows how he determined that, but actually supporting his wild assertions has never been his bag.This is just another attempt to "win" the god debate by negative means, just subtracting and twisting the stated positions of the opposition instead of simply providing evidence, because he has none. Because everyone knows you can get to positive evidence if you just pretend anyone who disagrees with you secretly believes something just as irrational as you do!

::bold mine::

Which is an incredibly lazy tactic IMO. I don't see many people here using that technique on our theists: "You don't really believe in God. Deep down you know it's ridiculous." If that were all WE had, well...that would be pretty sad.

Ah, yes...St. Thomas Aquinas. Chad's mentor. Need anyone say more? [emoji13]

[LadyForCamus]

It is far more unlikely that it is actually a real thing, which would require a wealth of assumptions, and twisting all the available evidence to produce a completely unexpected result. But I gain nothing by claiming to know for sure this isn't the case.

To think that... if god is real, then it is a part of reality... as such, it would be just as testable as any electro-magnetic field.
But the common conception of god seems to place it beyond the real... I call that "not real"... but feel free to go meta.

How about, "Super-duper for REALZIES"? [emoji12]

[pocaracas]

To think that... if god is real, then it is a part of reality... as such, it would be just as testable as any electro-magnetic field.
But the common conception of god seems to place it beyond the real... I call that "not real"... but feel free to go meta.

How about, "Super-duper for REALZIES"? [emoji12]

[Esquilax]

Which is an incredibly lazy tactic IMO.  I don't see many people here using that technique on our theists: "You don't really believe in God.  Deep down you know it's ridiculous."  If that were all WE had, well...that would be pretty sad.  

Well, atheists haven't been given dispensation to do that by a magic man, which is sort of the problem with theistic overreach generally. Of the two groups, only theists have a book of instructions for which "preserve the core claim" is the sole purpose, the actual aim of theistic argumentation is to reach a preferred conclusion rather than allow evidence to inform their conclusions, and given that there's no evidence for theistic claims, we get dirty tactics like "you secretly agree with me," instead. Holy books cannot substantiate their wild claims, and so what they're left with is silencing all those who might point that out, which is why the bible gives believers license to impute malevolent or ignorant motivations onto non-believers with accusations of sin or demands that creation is just obvious, rather than evidence that might establish the existence of a god.

Theists have no evidence, but they're committed to the truth of their conclusion, and so instead of the conclusion being wrong, you just don't believe it for evil or illegitimate means. Pay no attention to the lack of evidence, says the book, nor to those who argue against the claim. They're only saying those things because of sin, or because of secret additional beliefs that make them totally as unreasonable as the claim!

You won't get atheists doing that because atheists aren't taking their cues from a source text that prioritizes erasing dissent over critical discourse.

[Mystic]

I disagree with the author. A lot of Atheists...recognize.

1. It's possible time must have started.
2. It's possible that there is no real possibility of the universe being in a timeless state then causing a time state.

This is gives plausibility to Deism in many of their minds.

That is to say, a Creator may be necessary for all we know. This is not the same as possibilities of fairies etc. 

I further argue. Some Atheists positively know time must have started and always talk about the universe was without time and then shifted to time, but give possibility in that it may be impossible for that to happen.

In this case, active disbelief would a positive faith in not only that they know it's possible a timeless creator didn't create this world, but that are relatively certain that a Creator is not the only option available.

That said, I feel the most honest Atheist I know on these forums is Tiberius in which he stated that he doesn't know whether Theists actually know God exists. He just believes he himself doesn't know God exists and hence doesn't believe in God.

And this is logical step to take. The reason being if you are open to the possibility of it existing, you should not deny the possibility of people having knowledge of it existing unless you can prove: Where it to exist, it would not impart knowledge.


I further argue you should question whether that knowledge is in you (but I understand Atheists will not do that) somehow, but you just have to recognize it.


All points of time came to be, and if all points of time came to be, then it cannot be said any of time didn't start or that time over all didn't start or that all of time didn't start, and hence we know time started.

So if a person accepts that much, they have to think what is more special pleading saying that universe had a timeless state that resulted in time state universe as we know it or to say no it could not have started change in itself without time being present already. 

That said a person can say he still doesn't believe either way. But it is a whole different thing to treat the possibility of the Creator in the realm of invisible dragons or what not.

The same is with consciousness being explained by a soul or a soul being observable to us. Or other things like the transcendent nature of love or goodness.

People can say they don't believe either way, but it's a whole different level of dishonesty to say you know it's not true or you know a Creator cannot or has not imparted knowledge of it's nature of it's existence to human beings.

[robvalue]

We really don't need to "do" anything. We're surrounded by people who have imaginary friends. What exactly should we do? What can we do?

We try and get along with them as best we can, and to step in if we seem harm being caused.

Remember, not even members of the same sect of the same religion can even agree what the hell it is they're even talking about. So how they expect to put a coherent case to atheists, I have no idea.

And believing "in God" is quite different from believing a bunch of really specific things about that God, and worshipping it. The reason many of us aren't in religion has nothing to do with the existence of "God".

It has crossed my mind that some theists might be jealous. I'm not trying to be a dick about, but seriously, I wonder. It's such an easy stance to defend (not that you are required to defend it): I don't believe stuff until I have evidence. The theist, on the other hand, has to jump through hoops and twist themselves in knots trying to define and validate their belief; then to try and correlate it with reality.