And now I believe I will get up and make coffee.

You just can't take that away from them - what would they do without it? Argue for belief in god based on available evidence?

That's what happens when you start with a conclusion and run backwards.

There's a fundamental dishonesty about word games in general, but this one simply reeks of the sheer cowardice involved in attempting to shift the burden of proof by making somebody else's "theism hasn't proven its unsupportable claims" into a straw positive claim so the theist can tear down somebody else's non-position rather than deal with reality.

where an atheist equates their non-belief with a believer's belief.
Therefore proving it is the same for all atheists.

The dishonesty is fairly foundational with that sort. It's one thing if somebody says it once, but there's just no reaching somebody who is simply determined to stick to that lie. And the worst part isn't even all the other lies they'll base on that one, or use to cover it up. The worst part is the sheer arrogance and contempt in spamming such nonsense over more qualified people correcting such idiocy.

It has no place in honest dialogue, and nobody repeating it can be taken seriously.

One kind of belief depends on evidence, the other one does not.

Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist, because the subject has judged the evidence for deities as insufficient.

Theism is the belief that deities exist, regardless of whether or not there is evidence for or against deities.

Qualifying by suggesting that somehow the non-theist has "judged the evidence" is totally meaningless.


I understand that many on both sides are convinced that their believing is somehow more valid than the other side's, but being convinced that one is correct does not make one correct.

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2018, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Being convinced that "faith" doesn't require evidence and therefore any subject of faith is beyond proof, is itself an article faith, but also could be subject to proofs. The believer's rejection of such proof does not invalidate the proof.

But proof for either position is non-existent.

Based on the fact that there are billions of people who do have faith. Does it prove that the faith is correct? No, only that it exists.

They only dispute that the object of faith needs no evidence of existence.

The proof for a belief in god is god existing, so if proof doesn't exist, then god doesn't exist.

What a paradox!

Perhaps you'll clarify this paradox.

One kind of belief is built on evidence.
When the evidence is not clear-cut, you make a probalistic estimate. What are the odds that the dog ate the homework?



The other kind of belief is not built on evidence.
* You can believe in God without ever having seen any evidence to support that claim.
* You can believe in Zeus without ever having seen any evidence to support that claim.
* You can not believe in a hundred different gods without ever having seen any evidence to support the claim that they do not exist.
* You can still believe in God even if I disprove one of your religious claims.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT PLAY ANY ROLE WHATSOEVER IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF. IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF THINKING.



Let's make it clear with an example. Assume that you believe in God. What evidence would it take to convince you that God is not real?
* If you do have an answer, then you believe in God's existence because you have seen some kind of hard evidence that has lead you to the conclusion that God existing has a higher probability than God not existing.
* If you don't have an answer, then you have proven my point that religious belief doesn't care about evidence.

He has no interest in having an honest discussion with you or anyone else here. He tells us he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing and praising his efforts here. As you have noticed, he refuses to engage in dialog with people who disagree with him about, well, anything. Rather, he plays ridiculous word games and pretends to be stupid. This is what the members of his fan club want him to continue doing, apparently, and what they praise him for in those numerous personal messages they send him.

Which is to say the faculties of reason are not demonstrated.

Again about creationism and evolution.

'Some' people do have a 'belief' that G_d if He does exist, used an evolutionary process in creating what He did.

Disassemble this one again.

Had exactly zero to do with the point, but there it is all the same.

Not uncommon.

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2018, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

One lacks any belief at all in deities due to lack of evidence in said deities. The other believes there are no deities due to positive evidence that they do not exist.

Put another way, the first group believes you can't prove the negative, the second group believes you can.

Why are they incompatible? Both don't believe, only one makes a stronger statement than the other.

Even if the concept of certainty is not actually a part of that "certain belief".

One certain and one not. Or gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism as some put it.

Air smooch.

I take it you believe all your beliefs are correct?

On edit: How do you get emos to appear in the subject line?

[Sounds like that saccharine tacky song that's sung during the public teevee national holiday specials. Or back when Jerry Lewis had his telethons. Give me industrial strength sacred hymns or none at all. 😏]

I am allowed emojicons in the header bc I am moistened with divine properties. 😉

If you show me a selfie of you walking on water, I may reconsider my beliefs.

needy 💰 or in trouble 🚓 or need back-up 🚁 or....
😊

Ima hesitant to ask what manifested as a miraculous manifestation....

I didn't even know they were there.

See, my ability to smilie face the header. 😉

And I am tech challenged.

I think mb this thread has run the gamut.

But who am I to say.

There is a large difference.

Proof is objective. Prove does not depend on who is looking at it and whether that particular person at this particular time and with these particular circumstances decides to let it count as proof or not.

If a proof is based on fallible perception and arbitrary decisions and biases of whoever is doing the proof at the time, then it's not a proof.





(My experience tells me that our conversation will very soon come to a very sudden end, because this happens usually in this forum: As soon as I demand from a religious person that they define the words they are using, they stop talking to me.)

The agnostic atheist has no claim to prove. If you limited yourself to discussing the gnostic atheist claim that no gods exist you might have a point. But you can’t seem to do that.

Once he adopted the position that all atheists have a belief system, he can’t go back without looking foolish, so instead of remaining silent in his error he doubles down on the foolishness and removes all doubt.

how someone who literally says "I don't know" "believes their position is correct?"

is expressing a view that is unprovable. One who says that they do not know is open.

try again.

You should feel special.

That is because deities are not defined and you cannot prove/disprove that which is not defined.

What would count as evidence that a god you know nothing about does or doesn't exist?

And it's a dull one.

"Believe" can mean "think, opine, have the marginally-informed view."

"Believe" can mean "earnestly credit, think true beyond any doubt."

A witness who says, "I believe it was the butler who killed madame" might be lazily speculating or ardently stating something considered undeniably true.

So in that, you're right. But so far it's straw as far as the man extends.

"Atheists believe there is no god" is indeterminate between the two readings, and I'd say that both readings are true for some subset of atheists. My BIL is now the "think, opine, have the marginally-informed view." There's no umph beyond that except to say, "Stop trying to foist your beliefs on me, you believer, you. I slightly commit to the proposition 'there is no god', but that's about it."

My BIL was the kind of guy who, 20 years ago, would argue, shout, and generally be an asshole at Xmas or anything else. Not because he was inconvenienced, but because he thought others were ultimate idiots for the inanity of believing in a deity. He was adamant: Their f--king is no god, dammit, and if you think so you can't pretend to call yourself educated.

Notice that's a firm belief, as firm as any Xian's in their god, in the non-existence of a deity.

My BIL converted from one definition of "belief" to another. In this, it's not a question of evidence--the evidence you accept rather depends on how you want to consider the evidence. Then again, I'm from linguistics, where "evidence" is a fraught term and much argued over. So for me, Lakoff is a sort of babble-rousing philosopher thing, not really a linguist, because he allows "evidence" in the form of "after thinking about it over a cup of bourbon, I've concluded this is true, and that's all the evidence I need for a sweeping claim." I'd require weeks of field work, testing possible evidence against native speaker judgments, a range of native speakers, and playing with the "evidence" to see where the limits of the judgments given fell--then go back with the revised evidence to the first round of native speakers. (I consider Chomsky to be a piker when it comes to evidence.)

I can belief religiously in the non-existence of all sorts of things.

I can belief religiously that there is no invisible pink unicorn.

I can believe religiously that there is no pet-dragon sitting on your shoulder right now.

I can believe religiously that I'm not sending this message via carrier pigeon.




Believing religiously in the non-existence of something is utterly meaningless because there are infinitely many things you could possibly not believe in.

"I believe he world will explode by the time I finish this sentence."
*pause*
"OH, LOOK... Beliefs - especially unfounded beliefs without any kind of reasoning behind them, can be wrong."

TlalocW