The Existence of Athiests

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that there is a lack of evidence (for either argument). It is a matter of how convincing you find the evidence and how you judge its validity. I am atheist because I find the evidence that God (as described to me by various theists) does not exist, very convincing. I also believe in the utility of the scientific method, and if one uses that meth ...[text shortened]... h are illogical and therefore proof of the non-existence of it is simply not required.

Well stated, and generally agreed. I simply want to expand two points:

(1) I think you and I have both argued that, sometimes, absence of evidence can be reasonably taken to be evidence of absence.

(2) I would generally preference any natural explanation of phenomena over any supernatural (extra-natural) explanation, because the latter introduces a whole “supernatural category”—the elements of which themselves then stand in need of explanation (e.g., what are the characteristics of any supernatural being(s), are they internally consistent, etc.), as well as the nature of the relationship between the natural and the supernatural. That always seems to me to not just violate Ockham’s principle, but to trample it underfoot.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You countered with a weak defense but eventually arrived at the same spot, namely, that I am saying your rejection is fueled by guilt... which I still have not said.

As usual you have changed the claim rather than admitting you were wrong. At no point, have I said or implied that you said anything about what 'fueled' my rejection. That is something else altogether from what we were discussing. The issue was whether or not your statement implied I felt guilt.

Let's do this the easy way. Imagine if I (the raging theist) were to come upon evidence which convinced me of the delusory nature of God and conversely, the iron-clad proof of not only abiogenesis devoid of any outside force, but self-creating diverse life to boot. In other words, convincing evidence for the wholesale rejection of God and all that He represents to my psyche. But what if I persisted in my belief toward God? In the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence otherwise, would my rejection of the non-God world inspire even a smidgen of guilt toward this alleged reality?
Instead of guilt, I would have beliefs unsupported by my own judgement--- a house divided against itself. I fail to see where guilt would enter in this scenario. Perhaps you can tell me how you see the same.
So, lets make the analogy more accurate, lets further suppose that you are a closet atheist ie you know that the God you believe in does not exist.
Let us also look at the phrase 'accountable to the same' that you used. How would that apply in your analogy? It was after all, a key part of your statement that I would wish to make my accountability more manageable.

Think about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you have changed the claim rather than admitting you were wrong. At no point, have I said or implied that you said anything about what 'fueled' my rejection. That is something else altogether from what we were discussing. The issue was whether or not your statement implied I felt guilt.

[b]Let's do this the easy way. Imagine if I (the raging ...[text shortened]... statement that I would wish to make my accountability more manageable.

Think about it.[/b]

As usual you have changed the claim rather than admitting you were wrong.
And, as usual, you are charging me with doing something that is clearly unsupported by any dialogue herein. Verifiable, but you insist on making the charge nonetheless. Although it makes for great sound bite, it holds absolutely no truth and you are fully aware of the same. That is a textbook example of intellectual disingenuosity.

At no point, have I said or implied that you said anything about what 'fueled' my rejection. That is something else altogether from what we were discussing.
Not understanding my blather, I can buy. But not understanding your own words which so clearly and specifically make your point? How do you reconcile such inconsistency?

So, lets make the analogy more accurate, lets further suppose that you are a closet atheist ie you know that the God you believe in does not exist.
"Earth to Mr. Head." That is exactly what I have already said.

Let us also look at the phrase 'accountable to the same' that you used. How would that apply in your analogy?
Unfortunately, the analogy used won't fit every aspect in reverse. With a personal God, there is personal accountability for all persons. In the reverse situation, accountability would only 'fit' for said persons' own mental stability. By that I mean a consistent worldview. Guilt is not necessarily a requirement or result for either situation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I have decided I am just wasting my time on that particular argument. Either you cannot understand me, or choose not to understand me. Either way, a discussion where neither of us seems to be able to understand even remotely what the other is saying has no chance of getting anywhere.

So, back to the original point:
Do you believe that I am a closet Theist, and if so why?

Because it scares the crap out of them=the notion that their belief in magic makes no sense...

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have decided I am just wasting my time on that particular argument. Either you cannot understand me, or choose not to understand me. Either way, a discussion where neither of us seems to be able to understand even remotely what the other is saying has no chance of getting anywhere.

So, back to the original point:
Do you believe that I am a closet Theist, and if so why?

Do you believe that I am a closet Theist, and if so why?
Now we're getting into some dangerous ground. I have no reason to believe that you are not thoroughly convinced that belief in God is irrelevant and unwarranted. Any speculation on my part as to the impetus would be just that: speculation.

That being said, I have some suggestions as to why atheists hold such a view. To begin with, the existence of a label (atheist) which emphasizes the affirmation of a negative is, in itself, somewhat perplexing. Fixation on any position by taking the opposition has an effect of establishing the former as either the default or correct stance. Imagine someone describing themselves as an anti-capitalist (instead of socialist, for instance). We see this type of psychological wrestling and one-upmanship for the labels used in the culture war surrounding abortion: anti-choice, anti-life, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights, pro-choice, pro-life, ad nauseum.

I believe that everyone has a default position, with respect to a Creator, informed by what is seen and known of their world--- without revelation. I further believe that such a default position must be un-learned or pushed down into unbelief or unconcern... usually by such methods as 'higher learning' or the limited use of logic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you believe that I am a closet Theist, and if so why?
Now we're getting into some dangerous ground. I have no reason to believe that you are not thoroughly convinced that belief in God is irrelevant and unwarranted. Any speculation on my part as to the impetus would be just that: speculation.

That being said, I have some suggestions as to w ef or unconcern... usually by such methods as 'higher learning' or the limited use of logic.[/b]

You seem to imply that a-theism is equivalent to anti-theism. This is not the case.

In Western culture, theism has long been the default because theists had a stranglehold over society. They still do, though it's looser.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have encountered a number of theists on this site and off, who don't seem to believe in the existence of atheists.
For example:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But I know it must bring you great comfort in believing such nonsense: it makes rejection of the biblical truths (and therefore, accountability to the same) that much more manageable. ...[text shortened]... uilt? What is so hard about accepting that some people simply do not believe that God exists?

I'm an atheist too. I think I can explain this.

People believe what they're taught. If they're brought up Christian, they'll be Christian. Same goes for anything else. If you're brought up religiously and have a critical mind, you may be an atheist or an agnostic. However, Christianity has been predominant since the Roman Empire. Sadly, it ain't going away anytime soon.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That being said, I have some suggestions as to why atheists hold such a view. To begin with, the existence of a label (atheist) which emphasizes the affirmation of a negative is, in itself, somewhat perplexing.

And I have in the past argued that to avoid that confusion I am better off telling Theists simply that I am not a Theist, rather than giving myself a label, because by giving myself a label it gives the false impression that I have something of significance in common with all others under that label. However, I thought you had enough of an education to not be taken in by labels. Maybe I was wrong.

Fixation on any position by taking the opposition has an effect of establishing the former as either the default or correct stance.
Default maybe, but correct? Absolutely not. In fact, it is a declaration that one believe that his stance is the correct one and that the 'default' is wrong. In areas where most people are Muslim, they have a label for non-muslims - including you - does that mean they are correct and you are wrong?
Also, as pointed out by AThousandYoung a- is not the same as anti-.

I believe that everyone has a default position, with respect to a Creator, informed by what is seen and known of their world--- without revelation. I further believe that such a default position must be un-learned or pushed down into unbelief or unconcern... usually by such methods as 'higher learning' or the limited use of logic.
And I believe the opposite, that belief in a creator is invariably a result of either:
1. the limited use of logic.
2. indoctrination.
Most commonly 2.

My own experience certainly did not feel like un-learning.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would hope that your analytical abilities are better in everyday life. Where in my statement, does the word 'guilt' appear? Where in my statement does the concept of 'guilt' make itself known? Hint: nowhere.

Perhaps this is more insight than you meant to share, but if your previous thinking (when you considered yourself a believer) was marked by gu ...[text shortened]... t, then you clearly had the wrong information about God. Guilt, according to God, is a sin.

"Guilt, according to God, is a sin"

Where does that come from?

Surely you members of the god-squad must feel guilt when you commit a sin or is it that you're perfect?

Originally posted by Phis
"Guilt, according to God, is a sin"

Where does that come from?

Surely you members of the god-squad must feel guilt when you commit a sin or is it that you're perfect?

Where does that come from?
The word of God.

Surely you members of the god-squad must feel guilt when you commit a sin or is it that you're perfect?
Although some believers do indeed have reactions to their own shortcomings, those who are mature respond correctly, via I John 1:9. I'm not sure why you would even consider asking whether I view myself as having attained perfection. What a silly thing to suggest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I have in the past argued that to avoid that confusion I am better off telling Theists simply that I am not a Theist, rather than giving myself a label, because by giving myself a label it gives the false impression that I have something of significance in common with all others under that label. However, I thought you had enough of an education to no ...[text shortened]... octrination.
Most commonly 2.

My own experience certainly did not feel like un-learning.

... because by giving myself a label it gives the false impression that I have something of significance in common with all others under that label.
Oh, I see. Then I guess when you started this thread you meant to apply the label "atheist" to everyone who holds to that view besides yourself. Why I failed to make that distinction is beyond me. Must be my lack of higher learning!

In areas where most people are Muslim, they have a label for non-muslims - including you - does that mean they are correct and you are wrong?
The label they use--- infidel--- denotes a lack of faith. Unless things have changed lately, a Muslim wouldn't call me either aMuslim or anti-Muslim. However, their use of the negative certainly follows the formula that I suggested exists; namely, that those holding a position tend to characterize the opposite position in terms similar to default/non-default. Were I to be in a predominately Muslim area, I would be considered an odd-ball, of sorts (putting things mildly, of course)... just as if I were in Salt Lake City and not a Mormon, or Jerusalem and not a Jew, etc., etc.

However, that isn't the case with the situation you address. Atheism does not target one particular religion: it attacks the idea of a/the supernatural God regardless of subsequent beliefs. In that fighting position, it puts itself up against the default position of man.

Also, as pointed out by AThousandYoung a- is not the same as anti-.
That's a difference without much of a distinction as it applies here. One means without while the other means opposite or against. And it's really beside the point, anyway. The purpose of my use of those other labels was to show something related but not necessarily totally applicable in all considerations.

And I believe the opposite, that belief in a creator is invariably a result of either:
1. the limited use of logic.
2. indoctrination.
Most commonly 2.
Of the arguments against such a position, you'll be hard-pressed to explain away the world's geniuses whose grasp of logic and related fields surpasses any who frequent this website and yet persist in their belief that God does indeed exist. Even more telling is how the same hold to their belief in the face of being ostracized by those who disapprove of such belief, itself a form of negative indoctrination.

My own experience certainly did not feel like un-learning.
I cannot speak to your experience, I know only my own. However, it was my observation of the natural world and logic which brought me to the general realization that a Creator ought to exist--- sans any indoctrination whatsoever. I grew up in a home completely neutral on the topic of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh, I see. Then I guess when you started this thread you meant to apply the label "atheist" to everyone who holds to that view besides yourself. Why I failed to make that distinction is beyond me. Must be my lack of higher learning!

What I find odd is that you constantly fail to understand my posts - yet simultaneously show a better grasp of the English language than quite a few posters in this forum who do understand me.

The label they use--- infidel--- denotes a lack of faith. Unless things have changed lately, a Muslim wouldn't call me either aMuslim or anti-Muslim.
But you just said that that is what infidel means? Or do you simply mean not that particular English word? I suspect that in reality a lot of Muslims would use an Arabic word, which could correctly be translated as aMuslim or infidel at the translators discretion.

However, that isn't the case with the situation you address. Atheism does not target one particular religion: it attacks the idea of a/the supernatural God regardless of subsequent beliefs. In that fighting position, it puts itself up against the default position of man.
So, you claim the default position of man is to have a religion. You give no evidence for such a claim and it is not implied in the word Atheism. That means your initial claim is flawed as you were seeking to use the word Atheism to make a claim, when the true reason is not the word, but your own personal beliefs.

That's a difference without much of a distinction as it applies here. One means without while the other means opposite or against. And it's really beside the point, anyway. The purpose of my use of those other labels was to show something related but not necessarily totally applicable in all considerations.
Well you could at least have found one a- word since the anti- situation is most definitely different.

Of the arguments against such a position, you'll be hard-pressed to explain away the world's geniuses whose grasp of logic and related fields surpasses any who frequent this website and yet persist in their belief that God does indeed exist.
Oh? Who might that be?

Even more telling is how the same hold to their belief in the face of being ostracized by those who disapprove of such belief, itself a form of negative indoctrination.
By whom are they ostracized? People of less intelligence?

I cannot speak to your experience, I know only my own. However, it was my observation of the natural world and logic which brought me to the general realization that a Creator ought to exist--- sans any indoctrination whatsoever. I grew up in a home completely neutral on the topic of God.
Ah! So you admit that you did not believe in a Creator by default! You have just proved your whole argument false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I find odd is that you constantly fail to understand my posts - yet simultaneously show a better grasp of the English language than quite a few posters in this forum who do understand me.

[b]The label they use--- infidel--- denotes a lack of faith. Unless things have changed lately, a Muslim wouldn't call me either aMuslim or anti-Muslim.
B ...[text shortened]... u did not believe in a Creator by default! You have just proved your whole argument false.[/b]

So, you claim the default position of man is to have a religion.
No, I claim that the default position of man is a belief in some supernatural god/gods. Religion is how man works out his end of the relationship.

You give no evidence for such a claim and it is not implied in the word Atheism.
I honestly didn't realize that such an historically verifiable fact was being disputed.

That means your initial claim is flawed as you were seeking to use the word Atheism to make a claim, when the true reason is not the word, but your own personal beliefs.
The initial claim is quite hardy, thank you very much. You cannot be an atheist without the primary concept of theism. This is why I said affirming a negative is problematic at its outset. It's akin to the following dialogue:

Unbeliever: "I don't believe in x."
Dispassionate observer: "Oh, really? What is x and if x doesn't exist, where did you get your concept of the same?"
Unbeliever: "That doesn't really matter, now does it?"

Oh? Who might that be?
Let's get this straight. Are you honestly saying that you truly do not know or have not heard of even one person of the genius category who is also a believer? Are you attempting to characterize all believers as lacking in either higher education, technical expertise or both? If so, you'll have to start another thread to in order to adequately address such ignorance.

By whom are they ostracized? People of less intelligence?
People in their related fields, for instance. Varying degrees of intelligence, to be sure.

Ah! So you admit that you did not believe in a Creator by default! You have just proved your whole argument false.
Cute. By default position, I am referring to those who have reached a certain level of self-consciousness and general awareness of their surrounding world. Obviously, a baby at the breast has little grasp of much beyond elementary levels of pain and pleasure. Should we conclude, then, that man's default position is equivalent to the same? Let's at least agree to argue like adults.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I claim that the default position of man is a belief in some supernatural god/gods.

That's the claim that atheists strongly disagree with. The assumption cannot be made; there is no valid basis for it. Nothing, not even a 2000 year old textbook loaded with inconsistencies can make that assumption true.

I feel it best to simply accept the good moral tenets of a religion. People don't need an illusion of God to live a moral and fulfilling life.