Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[QED]

Why must a personality be overlaid onto God's nature?

Harvey, if personality is not being overlaid onto God's nature then there is nothing more to argue about.

[harvey1]

Harvey, if personality is not being overlaid onto God's nature then there is nothing more to argue about.

Sure, the existence of God. Unity (God) does not have personality. However, Unity can act and be personal if our lives themselves must conform to unity principles. For example, if the story of our lives is one of overcoming, then there could exist a set of unity principles which resolves that story in a manner in which we have overcome. This would be an example of how it is possible for Unity to be personal without having a personality.

[QED]

Sure, the existence of God. Unity (God) does not have personality. However, Unity can act and be personal if our lives themselves must conform to unity principles. For example, if the story of our lives is one of overcoming, then there could exist a set of unity principles which resolves that story in a manner in which we have overcome. This would be an example of how it is possible for Unity to be personal without having a personality.

I'm not sure what your first complete entence signifies But the significance of your next sentence can't be missed; you say that God does not have a personality. This doesn't sound like the sort of God most people are praying to. If you'll pardon me for saying so, Unity sounds rather mechanistic to me. As well as coming to the rescue, unity is also what makes sure the suicide bomber silences his victims so effectively. People who worship God and follow the teaching of Christ have a constant battle witih unity as [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4778400.stm]this tragic account[/quote] demonstrates. Here the priest finds herself unable to preach forgivness and reconciliation following the murder of her dauhgter in the explosion at the Edgware Road underground last year. I hesitate in drawing attention to this story, because I have no end of respect for bereived parents like this. But we are asked how one can lack belief and I have no difficulty understanding tragedies like this in the context of a mechanistic unity but if I put myself in the position of a beleiver I would be finding that beleif untenable in similar cisrcumstances. BTW, I appreciate that this very brave person appears to be managing this situation by retaining her minisry.

[Scrotum]

Going back to the very beginning is the only valid means, I think, to find any kind of an objective answer. Of course, we can say that it's all a mystery, but even saying it's all a mystery does not answer any questions. You might as well say nothing at all.

Hold on, i thought THAT was religion, you know, giving up finding out, and saying goddidit... Never explaining where this concept of God is derived from, now how you make this logical conclusion...

Sorta like Bugmaster says the door is locked, never seeing the door, never heard about the door, never checked the door. Just. plainly states it, based on nothing.


Strange, ok then GOD, IF YOU EXIST; STRIKE ME DOWN NOW.

If he does not, clearly he does not exist, see if i will return, proof of Gods existence is at stake, i just challenged him.

[Scrotum]

Well, i dont know the board time, but it has been many many hours, and "God" has had amble opportune to show his existence.

I have just proven that God, does not exist.

[McCulloch]

... ok then GOD, IF YOU EXIST; STRIKE ME DOWN NOW.

If he does not, clearly he does not exist, see if i will return, proof of Gods existence is at stake, i just challenged him.

...

Well, i dont know the board time, but it has been many many hours, and "God" has had amble opportune to show his existence.

I have just proven that God, does not exist.

As much as I enjoyed your demonstration, and may even agree with the conclusion, you really have not proven anything other than God has not chosen to listen to you or to strike you down.

[harvey1]

Well, i dont know the board time, but it has been many many hours, and "God" has had amble opportune to show his existence.
I have just proven that God, does not exist.

It says in the scriptures that this is not the way to tempt God. If you want to tempt God, you should jump from a high cliff into a ravine (at least 50 feet), and then dare God to save you. I agree, if God doesn't save you, then you may have put forward interesting evidence of God's non-existence (or at least God's unwillingness to save an atheist). Make sure someone relays the news, and good luck.

[Scrotum]

As much as I enjoyed your demonstration, and may even agree with the conclusion, you really have not proven anything other than God has not chosen to listen to you or to strike you down.

Actually No. God had a chance to convert this entire forum. But why did he not do it? Hw could have shown that he existed, instead of the none-existence he have had during the last 4,5 Bilion years....

It says in the scriptures that this is not the way to tempt God. If you want to tempt God, you should jump from a high cliff into a ravine (at least 50 feet), and then dare God to save you. I agree, if God doesn't save you, then you may have put forward interesting evidence of God's non-existence (or at least God's unwillingness to save an atheist). Make sure someone relays the news, and good luck.

No, because then I would have to do something to prove him. He should prove himself, obviously, its not our obligation to prove existence.

If you cant Handle that God does not exist Harvey, i cant help you. I could offer you exlanation of the world if you wish. I can come over to your home, and simply explain why people believe in a God, why they refuse to let go of it (fear) and so forth. And laso make historical explanations for you, and hopefully, you will be bright enough to see that its a human creation.

Whats your Real Name and Address, and i am prepared to visit you, and have a talk about it.

[harvey1]

No, because then I would have to do something to prove him. He should prove himself, obviously, its not our obligation to prove existence.

Just a thought... You can come off the ledge then.

If you cant Handle that God does not exist Harvey

I can handle it, it's just that philosophical arguments point to God's existence. I'm sorry that you don't participate in such discussions. I realize that you prefer dogmatic statements.

i cant help you. I could offer you exlanation of the world if you wish. I can come over to your home, and simply explain why people believe in a God, why they refuse to let go of it (fear) and so forth. And laso make historical explanations for you, and hopefully, you will be bright enough to see that its a human creation.

Or, I could come to your house and explain why human survival is based on knowing how reality is (otherwise our ancestors would have all been eaten by lions in the Pleistocene), and therefore why we can trust our intuitive notions about the origin of the world. I would also show you that children seek independence from their parents, and that in struggling for independence a certain percentage of kids rebel against the parents (e.g., their religion). Hopefully you'd be bright enough to see that for most atheists they have taken this struggle into adulthood. Btw, if you want to start crying about that past, it's okay.

[harvey1]

Essentially, it sounds to me like you're saying, "The Universe was intelligently designed specifically to produce us humans". Let me know if that's so, before I start dissecting your argument.

No. The universe was designed specifically to allow for what appears to be an open path toward the evolution of high intelligence and consciousness within the universe.

How is this different from what I said?

Humans are a species descended from primates. I don't think the universe was specifically designed for humans, primates, etc. any more than I think that flying requires Boeing 747s.

I was not convinced, for reasons I'm sure I've stated. Just because you post something, doesn't mean it's automatically true.

The argument is out there if you ever wish to comment on it.

Sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that all rationality comes directly from God. Thus, I have never stated that the world is "irrational", whatever that means.

I didn't say this is what you said, but this is what you said reduces to being.

for similar reasons I reject the notion that the First Uncaused Cause (tm) is the Christian God... I wasn't making an argument, I was merely attempting to illustrate my worldview to you by analogy.

If your belief is based on "similar reasons" which as I showed is based on a logical fallacy, then why isn't your belief based on a logical fallacy?

I realise that you have faith that God exists, and that no amount of evidence or argumentation can sway your faith

No, BM, you are mistaken. Reasons convince me of what I believe. If the reasons were of a nature that convinced me otherwise, then I would believe those reasons. Faith is how you react to a situation when you have your good reasons in place, it does not abandon reason as you suggest. I might add, that I have supported each of my beliefs with reasons, but all you provided have been agnostic arguments and arguments for the identity theory of mind which is irrelevant with regard to whether atheism is true. So, please understand, from my perspective your beliefs are based on faith since you have not (or cannot?) provide reasons for your beliefs.

I understand that proving that your arguments are unsound, or invalid, does not prove that your conclusion is false.

You misunderstand the bad reasons fallacy, or at least my objection by citing that fallacy. The IPU argument does not demonstrate that God could not have very mild to moderate properties that are quite reasonable to postulate. Rather, it invents ludicrous properties for God to arrive at the same conclusion that theists conclude as being true, and then the IPU fallacious argument uses that reasoning to conclude that the theist's own conclusion is indeed false by reductio ad absurdum. You are not, as you say here, proving my arguments as unsound or invalid, you are only using unsound and invalid reasoning to reach the same conclusion that I reach using sound reasoning. That's why you are committing this fallacy.

However, it demonstrates why I'm justified in my thinking that your conclusion is false.

That's why it is a fallacy, because it does not demonstrate what you wish to think it does.

In other words, you may be 100% right, but without a valid, sound argument, you are powerless to convince anybody. That's the major weakness of faith, IMO.

I have provided a number of arguments. To date, very few atheists have commented on these arguments. Only QED has nibbled at them, but he has not raised his hand in class multiple times, so he's still approaching those arguments only very slowly. I don't recall where you've addressed many of these arguments beyond a very superficial manner.

Why should I invent my own mythological creature that's functionally equivalent to the IPU, when everyone already knows about the IPU?

You are following many others by arguing for your point in using a logical fallacy. That is not much different than creationists who post the same creationist arguments ad nauseum because they haven't thought their own arguments through themselves. When I read theist philosophers, I find myself disagreeing with 30-40-50% of what they write. I'm always saying, "that argument sucks," etc.. I think for myself. If I happened to use a logical fallacy in my argument, then it's my own fault. I thought it through, and that's what I arrived at. If it is a fallacy, it is a fallacy that I committed. This isn't true for those who use the IPU fallacy. They don't think it through, they just cut and paste the argument. Frankly, I would be very embarrassed if I ever referenced that argument if I were you.

After listening to your arguments ("atheists are in league with Satan!")

I didn't say that. I said that atheists have trouble with abstract concepts that are what I would call spiritual concepts.

I seriously doubt that you can imagine what it's like to lack faith in a god.

I play that exercise all the time. That's why I try to discuss issues from the point of a beginning using an atheist's perspective. I think it leads to absurdities, and that's why I think it is important to really think through these issues.

So, I cannot experience your faith, and you cannot imagine living without it... where does that leave us ? Is debate between us even possible at all?

The real problem is that I can't get you to think the way even atheist philosophers think. For example, you're stuck in your behaviorist views, yet there are no atheist philosophers who ascribe to that view. That's the discouraging part. You're a real smart guy, but if you can't advance by abandoning outmoded views, how in the world are we going to make progress on more difficult issues? To say the least I'm disappointed because I was hoping we could at least discuss modern philosophy instead of the behaviorist philosophy that began in the 1920's.

I don't think that the world is ultimately rational, as you well know. I do think that the world most probably operates according to some rules...

Those two sentences contradict each other.

but I don't think that logic (with its modus ponens, syllogisms, and whatnot) is part of those rules. I've said as much, multiple times.

I've never committed to classical logic as being the ultimate logic of the Universe.

The reason I disbelieve in dualism is that I see no evidence for it, and I do not see it as logically necessary. You've tried to convince me otherwise, without success so far.

You never responded to my argument that if the decisions of the Self is determined solely by quantum mechanics, then how do you justify that your decisions are any better than those of the late David Koresh. Both of your "minds made decisions" solely based on the quantum laws which were based on the state of the atoms at any given point. Physics cannot put a value of your decisions as being in anyway better than his decisions (when he was alive). Quantum mechanics is value neutral with respect to the future state and structure of the atoms. QM makes no value judgments. This would mean that you are not justified in arguing that atheists are right and that theists are wrong.

You can always claim that I am wrong, but being wrong is not the same thing as being rebellious. In order to rebel against a god, I'd first have to believe in his existence.

Not necessarily. As kids grow up they seek independence from their parents, and as they become teenagers many rebel against some of the things that the parents stand for. Why isn't possible for one to rebel against their parents beliefs on God, grow up not believing in God, and even justify that unbelief because they don't see any reasons for such a belief? The only way to know if this is the case is by seeing if those reasons are well-founded. If someone doesn't have good reasons, but they still resist, chances are good that the atheist is just rebellious against the concept of God.

I can grasp it, I just don't think it exists. I can also grasp the concept of Enochian magic, but I don't think it exists, either. And I can grasp the world of Harry Potter in great detail (down to individual street addresses, thanks to J.K.Rowling), but I don't think that Hogwarts exists at all. Can you honestly not see the difference between understanding a concept, and believeing that it's true?

I can obviously see that difference, but I can tell that atheists do not grasp certain concepts because they do not provide a counterargument, nor do they even address the issue. So, I think that's good evidence that atheists simply have closed their minds to the subject, and they simply do not want to consider it further. That's a psychological issue, and I think it is fair game to ask what is psychologically causing atheism. Conversely, if theists do not answer objections, then I think it is fair game to ask what psychologically is causing their beliefs since they are no longer motivated by reasons.

Ok, so basically, anyone who disagrees with you must be mentally challenged or downright insane. Sorry Harvey, that kind of talk may win you points in politics, but it's not particularly convincing.

Not at all. I expect answers to my questions. That's all I've ever requested.

I'm not using miracles to prove that God exists.

Are you backing off from your assertion that certain historical events could not be explained without God's direct divine intervention into human affairs?

Perhaps you didn't read exactly what I said (this is becoming to be more the rule than the exception, btw):

We cannot differentiate an insignificant "natural" event from a "miracle" (meaning that God intervened in a manner that the event was special), but subjective human experience can only make sense of the event if God's intervention is invoked. This, at times, makes for a better explanation, and that's when it is subjectively acceptable to say that it was a miracle. Miracles are always subjective experiences, so as a result there will never be an objective determination.

Subjective means that one cannot establish that view by objective means, right? That means that an atheist can subjectively deny that there is a miracle. So, for the record, I never stated that miracles prove that there's a God. Please, please, try and take more care in avoiding such careless accusations. It is tiresome to have to correct these kind of misgivings on your part.

I've given tons of evidence, and most of it has not been disputed.

What are you talking about? QED and I dispute you pretty much at every turn. Now, granted, I haven't read every single thread you've ever posted, but I'm only human!

Actually, you haven't dealt with many of my arguments. You've denied platonism, but you left those discussions to discuss your 1935 version of behaviorism.

As for QED, he's done a good job at making his objections known, but he has dropped the discussion repeatedly in many places, and I have mentioned this to him. He said he didn't raise his hand in class, so more must be done on both of our parts to advance our discussion on these issues.

So, historians disagree, and it's possible that the Soviet Union fell due to a combination of factors... therefore God exists? You have to be more explict there in step 2, as Garry Larson would say.

I was demonstrating how subjective interpretation is hard to put into objective terms when it comes to miracles. The arguments I'm presenting for God are objective in that we can all look at the reasoning processes to make sure the conclusions necessarily follow. If they do, then it's hard to deny the truth of the matter.

Ok, it sounds like you're defining "miracle" as "any old thing that happens". That's an empty definition, which renders the concept of "a miracle" meaningless. You're free to define it as such, of course, I just don't see the point.

I'm not defining miracle as any ole' thing that happens. I'm saying that the topic of miracles is subjective, and that the objective argument for God's intervention can be demonstrated by showing that materialism and a realist view of causation are incompatible.