Atheists should step up

[DBT]

It seems that theists tend to ignore the meaning and significance of a lack of evidence to support a belief.

 

[steve_bank]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

Stating the tiresome obvious, it is incumbent on those who make a claim that something exists to ptove it.
all we have to say is is that you proofs are not substantive and show the fallacies.

If you get in my face claiming Jesus talks to you it is up to you to convince. It is not on me to explain why I think your faith is imaginary.

 

[Keith&Co.]

More seriously, how many gods (yes, plural) are actually mentioned in the bible? I remember seeing a list somewhere that was even higher than I thought. I've seen arguments that are way more coherent than the OP's that Jahweh and Jehovah are actually not the same god, Mammon, Beelzebub, etc. are the ones I remember off the top of my head. Yet, even though all these other gods are mentioned in their own book, xians claim there is only one.

Not only are they bad at theology, they're bad at arithmetic.

Some of the demons listed were the names of gods of neighboring tribes

 

[Rhea]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

Oh, dear Lion, you poor thing.
You miss the other answers outside of your pinched, limited understanding of a dichotomous world. But there are more than two possibilities, there are many. Here’s just one more:

I do not “believe there is no god,” no. Rather, I am unable to muster up a belief based on your evidence. Sorry, falls short of belief. I watch you make your claims and there is just not a flicker of belief for your imaginary friend. No tug, no, “wait, did I almost see something?” no, “maybe I can buy that...”. It just plain fails to get a rise. Sorry. It’s a big nothingball.

I LACK belief. There’s no belief in the other direction of god(dess)(es), there’s simply a lack. The claims fall flat. A dud in the great comedy of life. No laughs. And likewise no groans. Just a bored stare.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have always thought atheists should step up and meet their burden of persuasion.
You either believe there's no God(s) in which case you are a believer, (LOL. See what I did there?) or you have some sort of objective, empirical evidence to support your claim.
Bring it!

That is not how it works, for two reasons:

1. That 'either-or' suggests it's exclusive. But - for example - I believe that humans do exist. I have plenty of evidence, but I do believe it - precisely, in part, because I have plenty of empirical evidence.

2. More importantly, you're not considering priors. For example, I believe that Klingons do not exist. I assign to their existence probability almost zero as a prior, and I see no evidence raising the probability. It's not that one needs to have evidence of non-existence to make belief in non-existence rational. It's enough that the prior is almost zero, and then no new information raises the prior sufficiently.

The existence of God has an astronomically low prior, and there is no further information that raises the probability enough to doubt the belief that it does not exist. In fact, further information against existence (in the form of suffering, mostly) weighs more than further information for existence (here, information includes empirical discoveries, philosophical arguments, or anything relevant), but even in absense of further information against God, the information supporing his existence is not enough to raise the probability beyond the level that make the nonexistence secure beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., there would be unreasonable on my part to not believe he does not exist).

Of course, probabilities are assessed by my own epistemic sense, but that is always the case (i.e., one can't jump out of it, even if one can consider the matters more carefully), whether one is assessing the claim that God exists, or a (for example) logically consistent Moon Landing or Holocaust conspiracy theory.

But for a more elaborate argument against theism, here's a link (though it's old and I would improve it if I had time, but it's good enough).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More seriously, how many gods (yes, plural) are actually mentioned in the bible? I remember seeing a list somewhere that was even higher than I thought. I've seen arguments that are way more coherent than the OP's that Jahweh and Jehovah are actually not the same god, Mammon, Beelzebub, etc. are the ones I remember off the top of my head. Yet, even though all these other gods are mentioned in their own book, xians claim there is only one.

Not only are they bad at theology, they're bad at arithmetic.

That's interesting. Because Lion has said he believes the gods of other religions too, as incomplete images of God.

That is an interesting out. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting.

But doesn't that contradict the Bible if the God in that book was violently opposed to gods of neighboring tribes?

The Midianites took Moses in and cared for him... and God then orders Moses to smite the Midianites.

 

[AirPoh]

That is an interesting out. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting.

But doesn't that contradict the Bible if the God in that book was violently opposed to gods of neighboring tribes?

The Midianites took Moses in and cared for him... and God then orders Moses to smite the Midianites.

That's unethical.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's unethical.

Nothing is unethical for you if you're the one who gets to define ethics.
Or, if you transcend the ethics you inflict upon your subordinates.
Or, if you're a perfectly ethical being, but others are born sinners, and deserve to be treated however they get treated, because...reasons.
Or, if 'because shut up!'

 

[funinspace]

As a theoretical agnostic; functional atheist...whatever...

And AGAIN, Lion ignores the direct testimony of actual atheists to prop up a strawman of his own, for his own agenda.

It's no strawman. There are atheists who want to preach - be vocal and outspoken.
I'm not making this up;

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views?
...we atheists need to be more outspoken
...At this point in my life I no longer defend atheism; I actively promote it.
...we need to be more outspoken and activist
...it is disheartening to hear other atheists downplay the significance of promoting our views.
...it can still have a strong impact on other people.
...the bullshit atheist lines about "nobody ever changes their minds" needs to stop.
...Others who secretly hold doubts can become more confident and motivated
...The time for staying silent and pacifist about atheism/religion has long since passed.
...We need to be more outspoken and vocal.

There are Christians who want to make homosexuality a capital crime, and then prosecute on that.

I'm not making this up;

PS Praise Loki!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is an interesting out. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting.

But doesn't that contradict the Bible if the God in that book was violently opposed to gods of neighboring tribes?

The Midianites took Moses in and cared for him... and God then orders Moses to smite the Midianites.

That's unethical.

I remember writing a paper about this in Hebrew Scriptures back in college. I don't think anyone else (mainly Catholic students) caught this. Moses pulls an Abraham, and says "Whateva"... but unlike Abraham in the end not killing his son, Moses smites the Midianites.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's no strawman. There are atheists who want to preach - be vocal and outspoken.
I'm not making this up;

The strawman is that you make it a dichotomy.
That we're EITHER one or the other.
Despite the number of atheists telling you differently, and the number of times they've told you differently, you paint atheists this way.

 

[Brian63]

Note that being vocal and outspoken about your beliefs is not the same as preaching. People are activists for all sorts of causes---environmental groups, pro-choice groups, pro-life groups, charities for those in poverty, gun control, gun rights, funding for special education, political activists, etc., etc., etc., etc. It generates a misunderstanding to use the word "preach" to describe anyone who is openly advocating for anything. It should be left used in specifically religious contexts and when someone advocates for religious views (although we atheists can adopt it in humor sometimes, too).

 

[Wiploc]

Well, if you'd please disprove all of the other gods except your own, we'll follow suit with the last one.

The standard Christian god is a self contradiction. And, since Christians stipulate that no other gods exist, that leaves no gods at all.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up. I believe that there isn't any God, certainly not the biblical one, and see ample empirical evidence to support that belief.

 

[Brian63]

Yeah, PyramidHead. Agreed.

Also I do not see why so many atheists on this board let Lion rattle themselves so successfully. So many insults flying back-and-forth, in thread after thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and see ample empirical evidence to support that belief.

But no matter how many times you list the evidence you see and explain why you find it convincing, Lion will insist that atheists all presuppose their atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

and see ample empirical evidence to support that belief.

But no matter how many times you list the evidence you see and explain why you find it convincing, Lion will insist that atheists all presuppose their atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

and see ample empirical evidence to support that belief.

But no matter how many times you list the evidence you see and explain why you find it convincing, Lion will insist that atheists all presuppose their atheism.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah, PyramidHead. Agreed.

Also I do not see why so many atheists on this board let Lion rattle themselves so successfully. So many insults flying back-and-forth, in thread after thread.

I find myself agreeing with Lion a lot, not on the source of his beliefs about atheists (or the conclusions he draws, even) but in the sense that I reject the Fully Armored Rational Skeptic Warrior Atheist persona so many of us projected in the early period of society's acceptance of us, right after 9/11. In those days, the prevailing attitude among atheists was to be proudly, militantly sensible about our non-belief. We were expected to accept the scientific method as arbiter of all facts, the notion of an unquestioned human progress, our universe as a glittering playground of delights, and life as a rare and improbable gift. Many of these are closer to religious ideas than, say, the casual acceptance of religious thinking about the afterlife. I have come to question all of them, and now disagree with all of them, but it seems like many atheists stopped questioning the philosophical underpinnings of their worldview when they dropped the literal belief in deities and immortality. And I participated in that too, for a while. "Now that I've purged the last few irrational beliefs from my system, I can relax in the knowledge that I have everything pretty much figured out!"

As time went on, at least in my case, that became less and less obvious, and I now see life as a continual cycle of new understandings that cast old ones in a more comprehensive light, each subsequent one retaining more of itself than the last as the cycles repeat. I didn't go back to religious thinking about gods, but I did become a pessimist about reality generally, I did abandon the secular moral theories that hinged upon some kind of inherent human value, and I did enthusiastically embrace the radical communism that so many religious people warned was the logical extension of atheism. Regarding that last part, I would simply add that it's also the logical extension of truly Christian morality, but anyway.

 

[Brian63]

Too often in heated internet exchanges people will often just *argue for the sake of arguing* and trying to out-insult each other, and not really passing on significant or educational information. Your post there was different, revealing, and more interesting to read, PyramidHead. Thank you for posting that.

Somewhat recently a family member came out publicly as being agnostic, after being Catholic for pretty much all her life. One thing she mentioned still sticks with me---that she observed some of the world’s greatest injustices and travesties, especially those caused by humans on each other---and as a Catholic she would be even more disheartened by them because she thought it was also disappointing to the daddy in the sky (my words, not hers). Now that she does not believe in God anymore though, she actually is more at ease and relieved to realize that we humans simply are not capable of fucking up the world enough to displease any deity or to warrant any kind of divine damnation. The universe instead simply does not give a shit about us, and will go on its way regardless of what we do in it. That helped ease her religious anxieties quite a lot. It is up to us then to actively improve things for ourselves, if that is what we want. Thoughts and prayers will not get the job done.

I do not recall ever having similar thoughts to what you describe, or encountering other atheists who did--- thinking that we had the world essentially figured out and that we are completely rational all the time. Just the opposite, actually for myself. Upon deconversion, I was energized by the process of re-writing my worldview according to what actually made the most sense (and not just what I was indoctrinated into). I learned sooooooooooooo much about myself that I had never known before, including a lot of my biases and faults and incorrect beliefs and flawed methods of thinking and forming beliefs, and now trying to correct them and improve them. Learning the basics of logic and philosophy to help form this new worldview was incredibly exciting and gave me more freedom to form my own identity. It was more humbling than aggrandizing for my ego.

 

[PyramidHead]

Too often in heated internet exchanges people will often just *argue for the sake of arguing* and trying to out-insult each other, and not really passing on significant or educational information. Your post there was different, revealing, and more interesting to read, PyramidHead. Thank you for posting that.

Somewhat recently a family member came out publicly as being agnostic, after being Catholic for pretty much all her life. One thing she mentioned still sticks with me---that she observed some of the world’s greatest injustices and travesties, especially those caused by humans on each other---and as a Catholic she would be even more disheartened by them because she thought it was also disappointing to the daddy in the sky (my words, not hers). Now that she does not believe in God anymore though, she actually is more at ease and relieved to realize that we humans simply are not capable of fucking up the world enough to displease any deity or to warrant any kind of divine damnation. The universe instead simply does not give a shit about us, and will go on its way regardless of what we do in it. That helped ease her religious anxieties quite a lot. It is up to us then to actively improve things for ourselves, if that is what we want. Thoughts and prayers will not get the job done.

I do not recall ever having similar thoughts to what you describe, or encountering others who did--- thinking that we had the world essentially figured out and that we are completely rational all the time. Just the opposite, actually for myself. Upon deconversion, I was energized by the process of re-writing my worldview according to what actually made the most sense (and not just what I was indoctrinated into). I learned sooooooooooooo much about myself that I had never known before, including all my biases and faults and incorrect beliefs and unhealthy methods of thinking and forming beliefs, and now trying to correct them and improve them. Learning the basics of logic and philosophy to help form this new worldview was incredibly exciting and gave me more freedom to form my own identity.

Ideally, that should be the outcome of taking seriously the clear-headedness about things pushed by the atheist movement. The problem is that for many, being clear-headed meant using the same categories of concepts that were applied to the rejection of religious claims to every area of inquiry. Where religious matters are concerned, a deeply emotional resonance with the object of worship is often what stands in the way of understanding it as a historical artifact. So, for atheists, the most important value to maintain in their exploration of topics other than religion was a totally emotionless rationality, utterly detached from any considerations other than the data and what they logically or empirically entail. Worse yet, many of us fell under the spell of thinking this kind of neutral appraisal of reality was not only desirable, but possible. What has become clear to me in the past year or so is this: no belief is without emotional content, no person is mostly guided by reason, and in fact, those who claim to be fully rational or close to it are actually the most emotionally driven, in a particularly damaging way since it's happening without their acknowledgement of it. A healthy acceptance of emotion and subjectivity in all things is a healthier attitude than the (still intimately emotional) subjugation of one's passions in the pursuit of analytical rigor.

 

[Lion IRC]

As a theoretical agnostic; functional atheist...whatever...

It's no strawman. There are atheists who want to preach - be vocal and outspoken.
I'm not making this up;

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views?
...we atheists need to be more outspoken
...At this point in my life I no longer defend atheism; I actively promote it.
...we need to be more outspoken and activist
...it is disheartening to hear other atheists downplay the significance of promoting our views.
...it can still have a strong impact on other people.
...the bullshit atheist lines about "nobody ever changes their minds" needs to stop.
...Others who secretly hold doubts can become more confident and motivated
...The time for staying silent and pacifist about atheism/religion has long since passed.
...We need to be more outspoken and vocal.

There are Christians who want to make homosexuality a capital crime, and then prosecute on that.

I'm not making this up;

PS Praise Loki!

You're agreeing that the God conclusion...confusion...delusion is no trivial matter right?
The implications of the God question almost demand that atheists do more than just NOT collect stamps.

Theology and religious epistemology deserve a seat at the table alongside so-called hard sciences.