historia wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:14 pm
This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:
Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:37 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:23 pm
If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a
belief.
I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.
I think we can all appreciate the case where a person might be
ignorant of a particular topic and thus have no beliefs about it. That seems straight-forward.
But, if a person previously believed in X but now no longer believes in X, while spending time on an online forum debating X, it seems less straight-forward (to me anyway) to say that they simply "lack" belief in X. Even if that person is merely contending that there is insufficient evidence (for them, at least) to believe in X, surely we must conclude that constitutes a belief
about X.
Question for debate: Is it accurate to say that atheists debating the existence of God on an online forum lack belief in God (or gods), or is there a more accurate way to describe their beliefs vis-a-vis God (or gods)?
It's accurate, and is the consensus logic based definition of atheism.
It's simple but question that theists put complicates it, so more explanation is needed. Everyone is logically agnostic about God in that nobody knows for sure, though theists often think they do, either on Faith (revelation) or belief (evidence). Atheists, not being persuaded by the evidence, nor, of course, revelation lack the knowledge that a god exists and logically not knowing means not believing until you do know.
Again, quite simple, but the Questions continue and complicate matters.
'But atheists say 'There is no God'. So that sounds like a gnostic (knowledge) position. That has implied caveats. Just as a theist using evidence believes a god does exist, and a theist using evidence may be convinced that the god is the god of the Bible, the atheist is not. ID is a good 'evidence' to use. Theists often point to evidence of design in nature to argue for existence of God (or A god). But atheists (who often understand the science better) see that that I/D evidences fail. And that is reason Not to believe in God, or any other god.
But more telling is the hands -on -god evidence. 'evidence' such as miracles or answered prayers fails as this turns out to be biased sample, fiddled evidence and wishful thinking. Thus a god that ought to be there, isn't there. So we have seen some argue for a deist god. It created everything but doesn't intervene. Very good. That gets over the whole prayer doesn't work and problem of evil thing. We are on our own, just as atheists believe. But nevertheless there is supposedly a god there (and often ID arguments such as fine tuned universe and cosmic origins is used). But already we have lost sight of the god of the Bible who was and supposedly Is very much hands on. We either get fiddling the evidence like God flooding Christians in Baton Rouge because of Gay marriages in Milwaukee. Not very convincing, this fiddled evidence, or we get explanations/excuses such as God can't intervene in any obvious way because it would negate Faith. Ok, we are into explaining away evidence
against God rather than pointing to evidence For. And this is obviously done to prop up the
a priori godfaith Logically non - belief is logical when the Theist argument is excuses as to why the evidence is actually against a hands -on god.
This
a priori faith -claim or belief messes up the debate a lot as logically these ID arguments don't get you to a god of any particular religion. First you have to validate a creator and then argue why yours is the particular one.
'Agnostics' (Deists or irreligious theists, who are really in the same camp as atheists) don't try to argue for Biblegod, but Believers (note capital B) assume that their particular god is the one they are proving with ID. It isn't but they never seem to get that. Logically, assuming a Creator as a given, they would then have to validate the Holy Book that tells us which god this is, and really there are only two contenders - The Bible (and the Torah) and the Quran. Both (or all three) read like recorded history and often it is, as we saw with the debate on the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Undoubted fact. Though , as I argued, it is a record of a siege which in act the Hebrews lost as they has to submit and pay tribute, but the Bible fiddles the event to make it seem that God saved them. So even the actual events don't validate a god, unless you ignore the analysis of the story and insist on believing the Bible version.
Even then, that only validates the god of the Hebrews. Christians then have to validate the change -over of God's support from the Jews to the gentiles. For atheists, this is a no -brainer. Paul (for reasons still debated) took the Jewish belief (1) and adapted it to suit the Gentiles, whom he wanted to save as much as his fellow -Jews. Christian apologists have to argue that it is the same god, unchanging and the string of excuses and quotemining is too tedious to go into here.
The point is that it is never going to convince an atheist and not because atheists are biased or closed minded, but because the doubts and questions are valid ones and the excuses aren't good enough for anyone who doesn't want to believe them, no matter how poor they are. Christian apologists forget that they are trying to convince atheists first but secondarily, to stop themselves being
unconvinced (2). Half their apologetics is pushing away the doubts and questions that atheists raise. Atheists are under little or no pressure. True some questions are searching but so many of them (as we saw in the one about the validity of deep -time geology, recently) depend on science denial. The atheist could simply say 'The science says No Flood' and leave it at that, but we try to explain.
But the point is that
Kalam and the ontological arguments(even if they were valid) are irrelevant other than giving the Believers a god to work with. Then they just have to prove which god is the most likely and that's the Gospels (with Christians - the Quran arguments are different, usually prophecies and science in the Holy Book). Which is why, for me, the Gospel validity is the only argument that is really relevant, and specifically, the Resurrection since, if that isn't true, Christianity isn't true, even if Jesus was a real person.
(1) whether Jesus and his followers were observing Jews or had become, effectively, gentiles is also a debate.
(2) which happens. Half (proverbial) the atheists used to be believers. On my previous board a lively debate about Rachel Slick went on because she described perfectly how she deconverted herself by trying to argue the Bible against atheists she met at college. No wonder some believers want to isolate themselves and their family from doubts and questions. Atheists welcome the debate.