by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
So, you're making a "no true scotsman" argument that real atheists wouldn't have a debate, Pelican? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Does it make sense to decide BEFORE you have sufficient information on which to base a decision, or is it better to await information?
YES or NO?
It makes sense to decide when you have exhausted all reasonable efforts to get as much reliable information as possible.
Do "true" atheists care what believers think? I don't think they do.
It's secret agnostics, wannabe atheists, who go out of their way to prove believers wrong...in order to strengthen the wall they have erected to keep out their own spiritual leanings.
Define a 'true atheist'.
If anything you've got it back to front - or more likely just completely wrong.
Let's say that I'm black. Now, let's say that I am comfortable with being black. Let's also say I'm proud of being black. Why then should I attempt to prove the beauty of my blackness to whites? No reason to do so.
When atheists are comfortable in their skin they do not need to prove believers wrong, they simply don't care. What is this based on? Personal experience.
Pelican, right, that's why Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning, Jimmy Johnson all still compete. That's why actors still try to get a Oscar. They're good, why keep trying to prove it?
Wait, it's the opposite..... people like a challenge and like to debate and compete, so they will. And using your logic, you posting here means you aren't comfortable in your beliefs.
No one would talk about god were it not for the existence of theists who just won't shut up.
Simon,
"No one would talk about god were it not for the existence of theists who just won't shut up."
Now, that's something I can agree with!
Welcome to atheists who you know have read and studied the bible, some elders, some pioneers, some bethelites, male or female in a position or not, you know they are largely well informed on god, the bible, jesus, religion and its history.
We also have examined the evidence and reasonings for not believing in god, hence we are agnostics or atheists.
Yet some have the balls to say that the atheists here havent given god a chance? This is one of the few places on the internet where that point is hugely dishonest or ill thought out.
Welcome to a rare species, ex informed and religious neo atheists,...
Now, being someone who has 25 yrs in religion and 8 years out, please do tell... What effort have you made to appreciate the atheist stance? To say we are ignorant of yours is ridiculous! We were you for MOST of our life.
By the way..... it is wekk known since the 2010 pew study that atheists are not theologically challenged...
" Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.
On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.
Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences."
Viviane,
Do you believe that the belief in a superior being who exists outside of our physical boundaries is a danger to mankind?
Do you believe there is nothing that exists outside of the physical that we can see and touch?
Are you certain about your beliefs?
Dear Pelican,
I hope you get a response to your question but the thread explores only one kind of theism: Christian theism that equates God with Jesus.
Personally, I think yours is a good question.
Good night,
Maeve
Simon said-
Normally, yes - it make sense to get sufficient information before making a decision. But then the question of the existence of god is probably unlike most others and for the reasons already stated it will never be provable either way beyond all doubt. Is that important? Is it fair to demand 100% evidence one way or the other to make the right decision?
There are lots of situations in life where we have to make decisions without a 100% complete understanding of all available information. This happens in day-to-day life, in science, you name it. To demand completeness of information would mean "analysis paralysis" where you would never decide anything. We play percentage games and probabilities all the time whether we realize it or not. So I think we already have sufficient information to make a perfectly informed decision that the Jewish god as described does not exist.
Simon, thanks for playing along, since Cofty is likely off to bed by now (it's now 3:30am in UK).
Obviously, you're right: the ENTIRE BASIS of the scientific method is based on not accepting hypotheses until AFTER sufficient evidence has been presented to support the claim.
It's the only rational way to make decisions, since as you say, real life isn't perfect, and none of us are omniscient; flip-side is access to too-much information can leads to 'analysis paralysis' (as you said).
If we agree that it's reasonable to reserve making a decision to accept a belief until enough compelling information is presented, then it makes NO sense to criticize theists for claiming, "God's ways are mysterious to us, and there are some answers to questions that we just don't know", since the Bible itself tells them they don't have enough knowledge! Hence, the theist's refusal and/or inability to answer is NOT a sign of irrationality, but it's actually a step in the right direction, the ONLY rational response they could provide!
That's why theists refuse to answer the question Cofty demands of them; they remain mute, claiming the "we don't have a need to know" defense (as offered in Job), analogies that rely on our inability to comprehend the reason (the dog/owner analogy), or even the "benign neglect" defense (i.e. experiencing some short-term loss to serve some unknown greater good, where God will make it even-better than before for everyone (as he did with Job, giving his twice as much). The "God is punishing us for some sin" is still a fave with Westboro Baptist church types...
These strategies are based upon principles hinted at in the Bible, and most are internally-consistent, and even externally-consistent with the others, so theodicy is the WEAKEST-possible basis to challenge a theist's beliefs since it's the one issue that Judaism has had plenty of opportunity to iron the bugs out: the "Why has God foresaken us" answer come up ALOT, due to repeated defeat at the hands of others. Turns out that the perky attitude of "never let them see you sweat" resonates quite strongly with humans Worldwide, since people love the idea of a God who avenges THEIR suppressors, redeeming them in the last act of the show. That's the main benefit that religions provide: providing comfort in times of life's uncertainties, a perfect non-committal answer to the question of WHY.
Hence believers remain mute on the unanswerable question, as does the rational scientist, as does the agnostic. Theists are logically-correct to do so, since the concept of appealing to 'known unknowns' is identical in approach when used by each.
As usual, the Bible SHOTGUNS many answers which allows believers to 'cherry-pick' which answer seems most-appropriate to their particular needs (and they ignore the rest, saving them for the next time. The priest who provides comfort is in essence 'cold reading' the parishioners, seeing what answer actually soothes them, as Cofty's first post shows).
The flaw of theodicy is that it's ALL based on ONE STINKER of a presupposition: that God exists, in the first place!
If only we could get MORE believers to go back in time and demand more-compelling evidence before accepting the belief in God, we'd be cooking with gas! That's why it's important to check the validity of ALL the premises in an argument, since all it takes is ONE invalid supposition to sneak in (or even an invisible one, buried as a presupposition) and the conclusion is likely to be invalid, as well.
However, attempting to topple Xian theology with theodicies is about as illogical as theists who accept conclusions BEFORE seeing evidence; both are examples of illogic. The problem is many theodicies ARE valid when analyzed separately, since their actual value in such debates attempting to challenge theology arises from by examining their PROBABILITY, and not trying to prove their invalidity (as 80-some pages shows).
Toppling illogic via countering it with more illogic is, well.... illogical.
IMO, the approach of challenging theodicies is more productive if one attempts to challenge them by declaring them as invalid as if by royal edict, but by accepting them as valid, and by weighing the relative probabilities of each outcome.
Adam
