Theism vs Atheism Part 2

[finder]

I can't say, or rather, I can say for myself but I can't speak for anyone else. Show me a religion that worships an undefined god, one with no attributes or characteristics, and I'll examine their claims and let you know.

It seems their "claims" would negate any undefined status of such a god thus reverting it back to the category of you don't see it so it mustn't be so. Why not you put as much effort into looking for and understanding the perimeters or the possible scope of existence of such a god as you have the natural things of our world? I believe some answers can be only found inside us. And it depends on whether or not we really want the answers.

[Jack]

Why not you put as much effort into looking for and understanding the perimeters or the possible scope of existence of such a god as you have the natural things of our world?

Because I see no value in such a waste of intellectual effort. The natural world is all around us, full of mystery and wonder. The ideas of gods reside in people's imaginations and desires, and since it's in their heads it's less accessible and the evidence unverifiable.

[finder]

That's true, one can find all kinds of statements by atheists claiming they don't rule out the possibility of God or a god 100%.

But of course you know our minds better than we do so you're able to "read" our true beliefs, right?

No Jack, just the age old adage, "actions speak louder than words."

[BlackSheep]

Why not you put as much effort into looking for and understanding the perimeters or the possible scope of existence of such a god as you have the natural things of our world? I believe some answers can be only found inside us. And it depends on whether or not we really want the answers.

I sought these answers for many years. Many people over very many years had spent far more and in general they seem to have more and more variable opinions on it. Seems yo me if there are answers they are not find-able.

[BlackSheep]

No Jack, just the age old adage, "actions speak louder than words."

Then please tell us the actions that make it so plain to you.

[finder]

Because I see no value in such a waste of intellectual effort. The natural world is all around us, full of mystery and wonder. The ideas of gods reside in people's imaginations and desires, and since it's in their heads it's less accessible and the evidence unverifiable.

How can you admit ignorance on the one hand and conclude it has no value on the other? How do you know?

[finder]

Then please tell us the actions that make it so plain to you.

Well your response in #40 is a prime example. You claim you searched for the answers but because you didn't find what you were looking for you took the easy way out. I don't mean that in a demeaning way; it's just that it is a lot easier to put the issue of God to rest by deciding not to believe then it is to earnestly seek the true answers regardless of what they may be, if they seem to make sense or not, or if the answer you arrive at concurs precisely with what others concluded.

[Dave In Canada]

Well your response in #40 is a prime example. You claim you searched for the answers but because you didn't find what you were looking for you took the easy way out. I don't mean that in a demeaning way; it's just that it is a lot easier to put the issue of God to rest by deciding not to believe then it is to earnestly seek the true answers regardless of what they may be, if they seem to make sense or not, or if the answer you arrive at concurs precisely with what others concluded.

How do you know he took the easy way out? Is it not possible that he instead looked at other religions or read about atheism and found that it spoke to him?

I think finder that you simply fail to understand like most theists is that most agnostics or atheists were at one time theists. I think you fail to understand that when people leave their faith because they have either found it lacking in any real substance or they have found something else that speaks to them and to them is more logical and reasonable.

If you can a ask yourself why you are a Christian and do not follow other religions your answer will be similar to ours except that it is your faith in which we do not follow. Try to think outside of the box and you will have a better understanding of atheists or better yet read Sam Harris' book "Letters to a Christian Nation"

[finder]

How do you know he took the easy way out? Is it not possible that he instead looked at other religions or read about atheism and found that it spoke to him?

I am suggesting just that, that atheism "spoke" to him and told him to take the easy way out. After all, theism takes faith where as atheism relieves one from being concerned about their life, thoughts and deeds being judged against a back ground of perfection. Then if one finds in the end God is, well they can just blame God for hiding the evidence, right?

I think finder that you simply fail to understand like most theists is that most agnostics or atheists were at one time theists. I think you fail to understand that when people leave their faith because they have either found it lacking in any real substance or they have found something else that speaks to them and to them is more logical and reasonable.

Actually your statement above, especially the embolden part, causes me to understand even more that atheists who claim to have been theists in the past never really understood theism and generally confused it ( and still do) with religion.

If you can a ask yourself why you are a Christian and do not follow other religions your answer will be similar to ours except that it is your faith in which we do not follow. Try to think outside of the box and you will have a better understanding of atheists or better yet read Sam Harris' book "Letters to a Christian Nation"

Perhaps. Guess I'll have to look into that book.

[finder]

Ok Dave in Canada,

I went to get the book by Sam Harris (kindle) but first I checked out what was in it here: Letter To A Christian Nation: Quotes

Admittedly he makes a correct observation that beliefs tend to not make sense when things like

65% of Americans believe in the literal existence of Satan. 73% believe in Hell.

Are discovered although I don't know where he got his statics. But overall he seems to misrepresent Christianity and is obtuse in his approach to theism in general. I have heard of and listened to Sam Harris before. So I am not compeled at this time to spend 10 bucks on trash, sorry.

[Meleagar]

Perhaps you're thinking of ignostics or even agnostics of a sort, but there's no reason a person who lacks religious belief must also "have no opinion about or interest in the subject". Just because I don't believe in alien abductions my disbelief doesn't prevent me from having an interest in debates on the topic or having an opinion on the veracity of the claims made supporting alien abduction. Many atheists were once theists and therefore have a vested interest in and opinion of religious belief.

I was addressing CarlPilkington's statement: "It's not exactly fallacious, it's just a semantics disagreement. If the above is how you define atheism, than call me an agnostic. Of course, that would make me agnostic on subjects such as big foot and the lochness monster and I would say that I am in the sense that I really have no opinion or interest in those subjects."

The evidence is easy to find.

Then please present it here. I'll settle for a rigorously conducted poll that indicates what atheists actually claim to believe - that there is no god, or that they have no belief about it one way or another.

What an audacious statement. It's the very fact that we question the quality and credibility of your "evidence" that leads to a rational denial of its validity. That point is clearly made by many of the posts following yours in that thread.

And in those posts I pointed out the problem with such denials. Let's take the testimonial and anecdotal evidences for god;that evidence was found to be non-credible and without quality by those involved in the argument, which led to their denial of it as evidence. Since I had presented no specific testimonial or anecdotal references, their problem could not be with credibility of the witnesses or those presenting the anecdotal stories; their issue was that the evidence was testimonial and anecdotal in nature in the first place. However, (as I pointed out repeatedly), testimonial and anecdotal evidence is how they came to conclusions about most everything in their life - reading scientific journals or publications, history books, listening to news reports or watching media, reading newspapers - all of that is nothing more than testimonial and anecdotal information. They were applying selective hyperskepticism to the subject in question - the theory or proposition that a god of some sort exists - to categorically deny the same kinds of evidence they would accept in virtually any other case.

As I pointed out in the O.P. of that thread, denying categories of evidence (testimonial and anecdotal) one would accept in virtually any other case just because this case is about god demonstrates an a priori bias and intellectual dishonesty.

A point which has been agreed with by others in this thread including non-believers.

Then we've established, IMO, that most atheists posting here have a ludicrous and unsupportable belief. Just because they will not admit for debate that they believe it is true that no gods exist doesn't mean that they don't actually believe that, and I think it is a fairly obvious inference from how they post on the subject that they believe no gods exist. If you "just don't know" one way or the other, you hardly go around belittling, attacking, and ridiculing those who believe. Ridiculing, attacking and belittling demonstrates a vested interest in the debate.

Even if we conceded that there is a possibility that a god or god-like creature of some sort exist in some fashion somewhere in the universe there's still no verifiable evidence of that,

Can you support your claim that there is no verifiable evidence of that? Of course not - just more universally-negative claim rhetoric. I've provided that verifiable evidence in the other thread, including the fine-tuning and first cause (big bang) evidence, which is all scientifically verifiable. I provided it and linked to several scientific sources that indicated the evidential connection between the fine-tuning evidence and the idea of a god of some sort in the words of the very scientists and articles addressing that evidence. You might want to re-read this post before you issue forth any more rhetorical denials.

Most theists, though, do not suggest that their god is a god like that.

What difference does that make?

Their gods have distinct characteristics and attributes and most theists believe their gods directly influence believers on this planet. Such claims are worth investigating and subjecting to the scientific method, where in all the cases I'm familiar with they have failed to prove definitively the existence of any particular god.

The argument isn't about "definitively proving the existence of any particular god", but rather a general case about what is more likely based on the evidence and argument available; that a god of some sort exists, or that no gods of any sort exist. The former is a view supportable by evidence and argument; the latter we agree is ludicrous and unsupportable - yet that is actually what many atheists believe, even if they refuse to honestly debate that view.

We all know that? You might be convinced of it but I hardly am and I doubt others who aren't mind readers would question that statement as well. It's not just insulting to presume that when someone tells you what their opinion is of theism they must be lying if they dare disagree with your opinion but it suggests you posses powers of perception beyond that of mere mortals.

It is an inference I make, and any relatively objective viewer can make, from the posts atheist here make themselves. As I have said, one hardly argues with vigor and apparent personal emotion, using phrases that belittle, ridicule, and dismiss a subject if they don't believe one way or another about it. It doesn't take superhuman powers to parse that incongruency and reach a sound conclusion.

[BlackSheep]

Well your response in #40 is a prime example. You claim you searched for the answers but because you didn't find what you were looking for you took the easy way out. I don't mean that in a demeaning way; it's just that it is a lot easier to put the issue of God to rest by deciding not to believe then it is to earnestly seek the true answers regardless of what they may be, if they seem to make sense or not, or if the answer you arrive at concurs precisely with what others concluded.

Easy way out? You assume I wanted something very specific, I sought out god whatever that meant. If I found answers that as you said "concurs precisely with what others concluded" I would have been very happy and content. But instead I saw no sign of him and so I kept searching, I expanded my search. I am still both open and skeptical to all evidence of the truth. I am not going to spend my life exploring one path when that path seems to be a dead end and thta is what you seem to be suggesting.