tytalus wrote: Clearly, nothing precludes it. But as of yet there is no reason to believe in god-concepts, either, any more than in Shrunk's dragon or that you owe random folks $10,000. I see you didn't give a yes or no answer to Shrunk's question on that dragon, though. Are you busy writing checks, perhaps?

He clearly said "Yes" to whether the dragon was as likely to exist as God. I can understand him hedging a bit more on the issue of the $10 000, however, though I'm not sure how he would justify it logically.

He did say that, but he is also hung up on this 'precludes' notion and the belief/strong atheism false dilemma. I'm curious to see if he can escape that bad argument and see unknown/irrelevant as a reasonable response.

@Tytalus

I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.

As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god, and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility, the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.

Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

maynard wrote:@Tytalus

I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.

As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god, and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility, the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.

Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

You're very misinformed about the nature of atheism. Rarely does anyone "want" to lack belief. In fact, many of us had crises of faith before leading to the logical conclusion that there probably isn't a god.

And we don't have "faith" that there isn't a god. There's simply no evidence that there IS one, therefore it's simply a conclusion we've reached.

Wow. I should be used to this by now.

maynard wrote: Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

That's where you get it wrong. The lack of belief in the existence of God results from a commitment to the intellectual principle that one should only believe in entities for whose existence evidence exists. I sincerely would really love to have a purple dragon sitting atop my computer monitor, but my commitment to this principle precludes me from believing in it.

maynard wrote:Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

No, that's wrong. You can speak for your own position, but not that of millions of others.

I don't believe in a god and I don't want to lack belief. Desire isn't a part of it. I won't speak for others, but I would be surprised if you get more atheists who align with your version of their position than mine.

maynard wrote:I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

Again, you don't get to tell other people what they believe. As it goes, you can chalk up one vote for someone who doesn't "have faith in a universe that has no god.".

maynard wrote:@Tytalus

I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.

As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god, and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility, the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.

Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

An interesting argument, although you have made some baseless assumptions about the motivation of the skeptic. Moreover, the believer, by Shrunk's dragon exercise, is shown to use the same evidence-based evaluation of reality -- with a telling exception made for their god-concept.

You either find it reasonable to dismiss concepts with no evidence forthcoming, maynard, or you don't. I still find it unclear as to whether you actually believe Shrunk's dragon exists. Likewise the evidence-free concept that you owe some random folks $10,000. I suspect you do evaluate the reality of concepts based on credible evidence, but I have yet to see you admit it.

As with mmmcheezy, I am an ex-theist and fought for a couple of years to hold onto my particular religion before giving it up. In no way did I want to abandon that god-concept or 'have faith' in a universe without it. God-concepts handily tie up issues like causality, meaning, purpose -- if you overlook their logical flaws.

Shrunk has described it well: a commitment to the intellectual principle that one should only believe in entities for whose existence evidence exists. I am curious to see if maynard recognizes or values such a principle. I think his behavior already betrays such a commitment, but he may not wish to admit that, as it undermines his faith.

maynard wrote:@Tytalus

I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.

As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god, and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility, the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.

Fine, if you want to believe in something without evidence go ahead. Your choice.

maynard wrote:Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

No!
I lack belief. No desire required. I have never wanted to lack belief, I actually DO lack belief.
I have heard what theists have to say about their gods and the afterlife and it sounds like rubbish to me.
You have confirmed above that your belief is based on desire. I desire a lot of things but that doesn't mean that they're either true or likely to happen.

maynard wrote:I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

I have no such faith. I don't know how the universe as we know it came about, but I don't need an explanation and I certainly don't need one that involves wishful thinking.

maynard wrote:@Tytalus

I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.

As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god, and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility, the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.

Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation. They want to lack belief in god, and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.

I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.

Why do theists keep getting this part wrong? I want to be filthy rich, but that doesn't make it so. I'd like to have an invisible friend following me around who sticks up for me and fights battles for me in times of trouble and guarantees me to get that job I always wanted. There is no evidence that it does exist nor is there any evidence that it does not exist. Yet, my desire for it to exist does not cause me to believe due to the lack of evidence for its existence. If I were to believe regardless of a lack of evidence then I should believe in an infinite number of unsupported claims, practically a wild goose chase. To do otherwise is just nit-picking. So the lack of evidence for the non-existence of something is irrelevant, unless I should believe every claim everyone every makes without support. The lack of evidence for the existence of something is what is relevant, and lacking any such evidence there is no reason to conclude that said thing exists. Wants, desires, faith, etc are irrelevant.

If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

Uh, no, you established it.
By the way, it's false.

I'm open to the possibility that a Creator of some sort exists, I actually reject the claim made by traditional religion that this entity is the source for human morality, or what we would call "God". That religion claims such thing with total certainty as if it was absolute truth buggers me totally.

thedistillers wrote:***Mod Note*** Reports for this post have been dealt with. ***/Mod Note***

1) Human beings aspire to be happy. The logical consequence of atheism is despair and nihilism. If atheism is true, there is no reason to care about truth, or anything else, so even if God doesn't exist, it's more rational to believe and hope God exists, to live a happier life.

Says who? Why happiness, why not food, shelter, security, someone to breed with? Happiness and god don't put food on the table.

2) The universe had a beginning. It is irrational to believe a universe can start to exist without a cause, for ex nihilo nihil fit. Only what we call "God" can be the cause for the universe, for the cause of the universe has to be personal and immaterial. Therefore atheism is irrational.

Why does there have to be a cause? Why not just be? It is there is no cause, and if there is so what? Besides we know what the beginning was, and it wasn't a god.

3) You can only make sense of the universe if it behaves in a predictable way. If atheism is true, there is no rational reason to believe the universe will continue to behave in a predictable way. We cannot make sense of the world we live in if atheism is true. Therefore atheism is irrational.

And you believe that the weather reports are always true, because god sends messages to the meteorologists?

4) There is no rational explanation for the Gospel accounts, unless Jesus really rose from the dead. Only God had the power to raise Jesus from the dead. Therefore God exists, and atheism is irrational.

What have the gospels got to do with the universe? And what about the people who've never heard of the gospels, are they irrational too?

5) Atheists can't even prove their position, using evidence and logic. Therefore atheism is irrational.

What position? I can take a photo for you next to a well-known landmark, will that prove my position?

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

While he implicitly accuses the skeptic of 'bias' and 'faith' in terms of what they will accept, it has already been established through the dragon experiment that maynard likely operates using the same bias, with an exception for his god-concept. That kind of inconsistency simply will not do, sir.

tytalus wrote:

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

While he implicitly accuses the skeptic of 'bias' and 'faith' in terms of what they will accept, it has already been established through the dragon experiment that maynard likely operates using the same bias, with an exception for his god-concept. That kind of inconsistency simply will not do, sir.

It is bias and faith. You're a skeptic, you're predisposed, inclined, to doubt the existence of god. Does that sound like objectivity, or does it say more about you than it does about the existence of a god? It certainly doesn't indicate a universe that has no god, we've established that. All that's left is your skepticism.

I'm faithful, you're skeptical. My faith and your skepticism are both sides of the same coin of assumption. I go out of my way to assume that there's a god. However, rather than merely witholding belief (which I can do also) , you're going out of your way to assume there isn't a god.

maynard wrote:

tytalus wrote:

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

While he implicitly accuses the skeptic of 'bias' and 'faith' in terms of what they will accept, it has already been established through the dragon experiment that maynard likely operates using the same bias, with an exception for his god-concept. That kind of inconsistency simply will not do, sir.

It is bias and faith. You're a skeptic, you're predisposed, inclined, to doubt the existence of god. Does that sound like objectivity, or does it say more about you than it does about the existence of a god? It certainly doesn't indicate a universe that has no god, we've established that. All that's left is your skepticism.

I'm faithful, you're skeptical. My faith and your skepticism are both sides of the same coin of assumption. I go out of my way to assume that there's a god. However, rather than merely witholding belief (which I can do also) , you're going out of your way to assume there isn't a god.

Not just god-concepts, maynard; about anything which is proposed, for which credible evidence is not forthcoming, I am skeptical. And we know from the dragon experiment, since you did not assume it exists, that you operate in the same manner. As a result, I am unconcerned with your complaints about my objectivity. The argument you use is flawed.

It is regrettable that while the concepts of atheism, lack of belief and skepticism have been explained to you, you continue to make claims of belief and faith towards the skeptic that have been denied and demonstrated to be false. Lack of belief is withholding belief. Operating as if there is no god is not the same as assuming there isn't one. Best of luck convincing the credulous.

maynard wrote:

tytalus wrote:

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

While he implicitly accuses the skeptic of 'bias' and 'faith' in terms of what they will accept, it has already been established through the dragon experiment that maynard likely operates using the same bias, with an exception for his god-concept. That kind of inconsistency simply will not do, sir.

It is bias and faith. You're a skeptic, you're predisposed, inclined, to doubt the existence of god. Does that sound like objectivity, or does it say more about you than it does about the existence of a god? It certainly doesn't indicate a universe that has no god, we've established that. All that's left is your skepticism. I'm faithful, you're skeptical. My faith and your skepticism are both sides of the same coin of assumption. I go out of my way to assume that there's a god. However, rather than merely witholding belief (which I can do also) , you're going out of your way to assume there isn't a god.

How many times do we have to tell you before you get it? no belief in god=/= belief in no god.

tytalus wrote:

maynard wrote:

tytalus wrote:

maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself. It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept. And that's based on your faith.

Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on. And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept. We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god, so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.

While he implicitly accuses the skeptic of 'bias' and 'faith' in terms of what they will accept, it has already been established through the dragon experiment that maynard likely operates using the same bias, with an exception for his god-concept. That kind of inconsistency simply will not do, sir.

It is bias and faith. You're a skeptic, you're predisposed, inclined, to doubt the existence of god. Does that sound like objectivity, or does it say more about you than it does about the existence of a god? It certainly doesn't indicate a universe that has no god, we've established that. All that's left is your skepticism.

I'm faithful, you're skeptical. My faith and your skepticism are both sides of the same coin of assumption. I go out of my way to assume that there's a god. However, rather than merely witholding belief (which I can do also) , you're going out of your way to assume there isn't a god.

Not just god-concepts, maynard; about anything which is proposed, for which credible evidence is not forthcoming, I am skeptical. And we know from the dragon experiment, since you did not assume it exists, that you operate in the same manner. As a result, I am unconcerned with your complaints about my objectivity. The argument you use is flawed.

It is regrettable that while the concepts of atheism, lack of belief and skepticism have been explained to you, you continue to make claims of belief and faith towards the skeptic that have been denied and demonstrated to be false. Lack of belief is withholding belief. Operating as if there is no god is not the same as assuming there isn't one. Best of luck convincing the credulous.

Regarding god concepts, it's not a case of you merely lacking and witholding belief in something. I can do that too, and I do. It's a case of you taking it a step further (as I do, but in the opposite direction, with my faith) and assuming that there's no god.

In other words, the fact that there's nothing about the universe which precludes a god causes you to withold belief in one, because you don't (or can't?) know whether or not there is one. But your assumption that there is no god, in other words your skepticism and doubt and lack of belief, is not only an acknowledgement that you don't (or can't?) know, it's a faith of sorts just like my faith is. If it isn't faith, then the only other thing to do is say that you conclusively know that there's no god. But you can't say that, and you wisely haven't said it.

You don't know if there's a god but you think there isn't. That is faith in a universe that has no god. If I wasa betting man, I'd bet that there's a god, I'd bet everything I have, even my life. If you were a betting man, I'm sure you'd place a big bet on yourself that there's no god. Now it's really starting to sound like faith.

If an agnostic is someone who thinks that there's no way of knowing if there's a god or not, then you must, as an atheist, think that there is. How do you decide what constitues that? Again, we're back to faith. There is nothing else to use to decide that.

maynard wrote:

Regarding god concepts, it's not a case of you merely lacking and witholding belief in something. I can do that too, and I do. It's a case of you taking it a step further (as I do, but in the opposite direction, with my faith) and assuming that there's no god.

In other words, the fact that there's nothing about the universe which precludes a god causes you to withold belief in one, because you don't (or can't?) know whether or not there is one. But your assumption that there is no god, in other words your skepticism and doubt and lack of belief, is not only an acknowledgement that you don't (or can't?) know, it's a faith of sorts just like my faith is. If it isn't faith, then the only other thing to do is say that you conclusively know that there's no god. But you can't say that, and you wisely haven't said it.

You don't know if there's a god but you think there isn't. That is faith in a universe that has no god. If I wasa betting man, I'd bet that there's a god, I'd bet everything I have, even my life. If you were a betting man, I'm sure you'd place a big bet on yourself that there's no god. Now it's really starting to sound like faith.

If an agnostic is someone who thinks that there's no way of knowing if there's a god or not, then you must, as an atheist, think that there is. How do you decide what constitues that? Again, we're back to faith. There is nothing else to use to decide that.

Unfortunately, there's not much point in further discussion here. In spite of repeated explanation you are insisting that skepticism, doubt, lack of belief = assumptions -- even when the error is clearly wrong, i.e. lack of belief = withholding belief (To retain; to keep back; not to grant). Not only are your claims demonstrably false, but you insist upon telling me what I think. I can do little more but reject your rhetoric.

Ironic, considering that from the other side, skeptics have tried to figure out what you think as opposed to your method, and yet you won't say. I suppose it might cause some frustration had I not seen this rhetoric employed so often against the skeptic. For me it is just old news, an amusing demonstration of how little theistic wordplay changes, in the absence of any interesting evidence to examine.

maynard wrote:Regarding god concepts, it's not a case of you merely lacking and witholding belief in something. I can do that too, and I do. It's a case of you taking it a step further (as I do, but in the opposite direction, with my faith) and assuming that there's no god.

In other words, the fact that there's nothing about the universe which precludes a god causes you to withold belief in one, because you don't (or can't?) know whether or not there is one. But your assumption that there is no god, in other words your skepticism and doubt and lack of belief, is not only an acknowledgement that you don't (or can't?) know, it's a faith of sorts just like my faith is. If it isn't faith, then the only other thing to do is say that you conclusively know that there's no god. But you can't say that, and you wisely haven't said it.

You don't know if there's a god but you think there isn't. That is faith in a universe that has no god. If I wasa betting man, I'd bet that there's a god, I'd bet everything I have, even my life. If you were a betting man, I'm sure you'd place a big bet on yourself that there's no god. Now it's really starting to sound like faith.

If an agnostic is someone who thinks that there's no way of knowing if there's a god or not, then you must, as an atheist, think that there is. How do you decide what constitues that? Again, we're back to faith. There is nothing else to use to decide that.

Let's see, we've got a misunderstanding of the term atheist, a whole lot of "you can't disprove it, so it's real", quite a lot of God-of-the-gaps, a Tu Quoque fallacy, a little bit of solipsism, and a touch of Pascal's Wager. All underpinned with a lack of understanding of the burden of proof, methods of acquiring knowledge in general, and the current state of scientific knowledge of the world. Nothing new to see here...