The Main Problem With Atheists!

[POI]

Taken from post 19 of this thread - (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41593&start=10):

(i.e.) "I think the main problem many/most atheists have re this is that they tend to carry around the baggage of belief". --- I think what he means here is that atheists are now jaded, sinical, and/or such atheist minds are now closed in entertaining any possibility to the 'supernatural/divine/etc'..

I feel this point is necessary to bring up here and now because this particular interlocutor has brought this topic up more than once, and I feel we need to now focus upon it... Why? If most atheists have such "baggage", are atheists then unable to discern actual truth/reality? I'd instead say ALL reside within an "a posteriori" position, (or) the knowledge we obtain through prior experience(s). Hence, don't we ALL carry around "baggage"? Meaning, aren't we all clouded by our preconceived conclusions, based upon our experiences? If so, then I guess the next question(s) would be for debate:

1) Since we all carry (a postiori) 'baggage', is it still possible to discern a truth claim? I'd say yes.
2) If we all carry around 'baggage', then why bring it up?
3) Regardless of one's "baggage", couldn't God change one's mind regardless? I'm thinking of the story about "Saul of Tarsus", just for starters.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I recall the 'baggage of belief' was in the materialist default, which is to say the way we all know the world works, including the God believers, who rely on the products of science every day.

the 'Baggage' the theists have is a self - centred ignorant and arrogant assumption that God hath made everything nice for all our benefit and Jesusgod gets the credit for mans' work. After prayer has failed, they rush to hospital, and if medical science saves her, Jesus gets the credit.

Folks we are talking belief - baggage and no mistake.

Science is not baggage but a basis of evidence and reason. It is the default theory, it is the starting place for any debate about the way things are and a priori god is not. That is the 'baggage' theism hauls with them and is why they can never, ever, make a rational argument, because their baggage is irrational and the atheist baggage is rational.

'Baggage' could also mean mindset, but in fact the mindsets are based on the baggage based on whether one takes materialist science as the starting point or godfaith, so it amounts to the same thing. Atheism is fact -based (unless one dismisses science) and Theism is godfaith - based, even if it doesn't deny science.

Yet again, I am truly thankful that my bonce does not find itself in this position - either rejecting reason or trying to make an irrational belief look reasonable. Take Lane - Craig. Bible or just a sortagod, he is smart enough to know that kalam fails to make a case for God. Though the godfaith might be strong in that one in which case he is irrational and that needs to be exposed, or he knows it is a false argument and I'm sure he does as he carefully avoids mentioning God or a god as that would refocus the claim. He is being deliberately crafty, but he may think that's ok as he knows it is true on Faith anyway .I think that's how it works.

Anywhoo, it is irrational and without logical merit, slice it where you like.

[William]

Maybe try again POI.

[POI]

Maybe try again POI.

Nope, it's not straw because I say we ALL harbor a postiori positions about reality.

[William]

Maybe try again POI.

Nope, it's not straw because I say we ALL harbor a postiori positions about reality.

Yes, it still is straw because you are arguing something different to what I was arguing.
I wasn't arguing that some do and some do not carry baggage. I was being specific to certain types of atheists - those that come from a Christian background in which they were influenced by certain concepts they were led to believe in as true and how they argue only from the point of view of those concepts they were influenced by.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

I think the main problem many/most atheists have re this is that they tend carry around the baggage of belief that the only process of science which matters, is the process of physical science.

Such belief is an obvious limitation difficult for them to free their minds from.

Maybe try again POI.

Nope, it's not straw because I say we ALL harbor a postiori positions about reality.

Yes, it still is straw because you are arguing something different to what I was arguing.
I wasn't arguing that some do and some do not carry baggage. I was being specific to certain types of atheists - those that come from a Christian background in which they were influenced by certain concepts they were led to believe in as true and how they argue only from the point of view of those concepts they were influenced by.

1) If he is strawmanning you, then its your own fault for writing so unclear.
You spoke first of "many/most atheists" and now its just "certain types of atheists - those that come from a Christian background in which they were influenced by certain concepts they were led to believe in as true".

I didnt know that most atheists were christians once?! Can you elaborate?

2) I am confused what you mean by "influenced by certain concepts". Do you mean christian concepts or some concepts that led them away from christianity?! Can you elaborate?

3) Please give examples to prove your point from the OP. Please cut an paste examples from our forum. Thanks.

[POI]

Maybe try again POI.

Nope, it's not straw because I say we ALL harbor a postiori positions about reality.

Yes, it still is straw because you are arguing something different to what I was arguing.
I wasn't arguing that some do and some do not carry baggage. I was being specific to certain types of atheists - those that come from a Christian background in which they were influenced by certain concepts they were led to believe in as true and how they argue only from the point of view of those concepts they were influenced by.

It is not a strawman because I acknowledge that we all 'carry baggage'.

[William]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #6]

1) If he is strawmanning you, then its your own fault for writing so unclear.

See my reply post #3

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

It is not a strawman because I acknowledge that we all 'carry baggage'.

This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.

(SOURCE)

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

It is not a strawman because I acknowledge that we all 'carry baggage'.

This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.

(SOURCE)

What's ironic here, is you are committing the same offense in which you are accusing me of committing.... Here is part of the OP (again).

If most atheists have such "baggage", are atheists then unable to discern actual truth/reality? I'd instead say ALL reside within an "a posteriori" position, (or) the knowledge we obtain through prior experience(s). Hence, don't we ALL carry around "baggage"? Meaning, aren't we all clouded by our preconceived conclusions, based upon our experiences? If so, then I guess the next question(s) would be for debate:

1) Since we all carry (a postiori) 'baggage', is it still possible to discern a truth claim? I'd say yes.
2) If we all carry around 'baggage', then why bring it up?
3) Regardless of one's "baggage", couldn't God change one's mind regardless? I'm thinking of the story about "Saul of Tarsus", just for starters.