William wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:21 pm
[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #152]
I wouldn't refer to those incidences the same as you do. It is not a question of there being such a thing as 'atheist lies'
or 'atheist truths'. There is neither lies or truth evident in the position of lacking belief in gods.
Remember the argument re the position. Atheism is
not anything else BUT lacking belief in gods. Anything else, therefore isn't atheism, but something else.
If theists [usually religious/evangelical] dismiss evidence as 'atheist lies', if I were an atheist, I would tell them that I am not presenting the evidence because I am an atheist, but because the evidence supports something which shows or implies that a religious claim is faulty.
My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the actual evidence. That is what I would tell them, because that would be the truth.
Also, in doing so I at least offer an opportunity toward potentially helping to educate such folk as to what atheism actually is, so they don't confuse atheism with any evidence against religious/evangelical beliefs which I present, because I do not do it "in the name of atheism". I just happen to lack belief in gods, and any
reasons I might have for lacking belief have nothing to do with the actual position of atheism.
Every little bit of truthfulness helps keep confusion at bay, and I don't lack belief in truthfulness - nor is that the position of atheism - or theism.
Presently, as an agnostic theist non+anti evangelical, I think of truthfulness as subjective opinion about objective facts/truth.
Facts go through a filtering process...and so 'truthfulness' might not be the
actual truth as per the facts.
Odd. I thought I'd replied to this, but apparently not. I did refer to 'atheist lies' as being a term I'd seen used 'once or twice'. That is the view of Some theists and actual facts are nothing to do with it.
Strictly speaking, we can't be Totally sure of anything, but the probabilities or at least reliably repeatable common experiences, gives us a basis for functioning in life and so Occam's razor is really a survival mechanism, though doubting everything we thought we knew wasn't even something that occurred to us until we began reasoning and philosophy.
All that means is that evidence and reason counts for everything and faith and preference for nothing as to what's true or not and while bias and preference is undeniable, the trick is to ignore that and look at the merits of the case (both sides) even if one prefers one side. It's a trick that people generally don't learn because (for whatever reason
) it is not taught. Anywhere, so far as I know. Perhaps because those who make the curriculum don't use it, would see no value in it and would think it a bad idea.
"We philosophers taught people to reason. think and question"
"If only you had been cut into little pieces first!" (Aristophanes)
So the point is that however atheists argue, the case is rational and the Theist case (as I see from the way the arguments go) is faith -based and they see nothing wrong in that.
Thus I'd argue that, while arguing that truthfulness is opinion, as you do above, it is too much of a temptation to use it as a gap for God. (or the supernatural) and I'm sure you're smart enough to see how, and that reason and evidence, verification and repeated results at least provides a preferential hypothesis -option and to prefer a less well supported one (e.g theism) is not logical nor based on evidence (ID and cosmic origins has been discussed but can be again, if necessary) and preferring it is evidently based on Faith or at least preference.
Of course some might have been bamboozled by the evidence. Notoriously Anthony Flew was made a Theist by Behe's IC argument, which was later shown faulty. While it was to Flew's credit that he changed him mind on the basis of evidence, it was a lesson not to be rushed into things, and wait for the thing to be argued out. The Theist attempt to bumsrush us into accepting NDE's as evidence for Heaven is another warning.