Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[One Bad Pig]

There is a reason at least 3 atheist posters on these boards flatly refuse to engage with [Adrift] now.

Well yeah, because he so clearly exposes their hypocrisy and disingenuousness. He likes to use this thing called "evidence" and refuses to play to emotion-based arguments.

[firstfloor]

Does not really answer the questions as to why we believe. I cited Dawkins who clearly described his belief was based on the lack of objective evidence for the existence of Gods, and if simply review Tassman's post his argument is clearly the same. I can cite many atheists and strong agnostics who present the same argument.



What if you found objective evidence for the existence of unicorns?

Yes, beliefs are formed on the basis of facts that you are aware of and your own interpretation of those facts and countless miscellaneous bits and pieces of information and experiences that you pick up as you go through life. All I said was that you cannot choose deliberately to manufacture for yourself any given belief. I cannot say: today I will believe in unicorns, and expect any degree of conviction. Having said that, we also know that a mind can be trained to believe almost anything, even something absurd.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, beliefs are formed on the basis of facts that you are aware of and your own interpretation of those facts and countless miscellaneous bits and pieces of information and experiences that you pick up as you go through life. All I said was that you cannot choose deliberately to manufacture for yourself any given belief. I cannot say: today I will believe in unicorns, and expect any degree of conviction. Having said that, we also know that a mind can be trained to believe almost anything, even something absurd.

You dancing around my citations and the basic nature of the reasons people believe. Atheist and other Philosophical Naturalists do not consider 'countless miscellaneous bits and pieces of information and experiences that you pick up as you go through life.' This basically confuses the issue. The question of the belief in Gods or unicorns by the Philosophical Naturalism is based on whether the objective evidence supports their existence, and the bottom line is that is science as referenced..

[shunyadragon]

Beliefs are what you hold to be true to some degree. If you do not believe in unicorns you cannot simply decide to start believing in them.

Tassman believes . . .

[Bisto]

I would count it as hugely US-influenced.

I haven't been to the U.S., so I couldn't really tell. I do know my two aunts who lived there around a decade, and some church brethren who've lived there around two decades, say they see big differences (they say they like it here better ). And you literally can't go to a Latin American country farther away from the US than mine anyway

But oh well, it's your opinion.

[Roy]

Huh? The part I was taking issue with in your post was obviously your confusing of terms by asserting that there is such a thing as theist or atheist agnostics. That should have been clear not only based on my underline, but also in the other quotations I cited. Nothing in the above requotes says anything about an atheist agnostic or a theist agnostic. To the contrary, Huxley says that both atheists and theists claim a certain gnosis and that the agnostic does not claim gnosis.

Then Huxley is wrong. Or, most likely, Huxley was concentrating on the majority of atheists/theists who do claim 'gnosis', and not on the minority who admit that they do not know whether or not there are gods, but side uncertainly with one view or the other.

It isn't necessarily an acknowledgment that no knowledge is possible one way or the other (though it may be that), it is also an acknowledgement that the knowledge is simply currently unavailable (at least, to the agnostic himself).

Agreed - but I don't think it affects the point. An agnostic can still say "I don't know, but...".

Pascal's wager is aimed at producing theistic agnostics.

His use of the term atheist was and is standard. As Craig points out in the article I cited,

Assertions and arguments from authority aren't helpful.

it's only in the middle of the twentieth century that certain atheists started promoting this concept of the so-called "presumption of atheism", and it's only within the last decade or so that this new redefining of atheism has spread through the internet.

Most etymological resources I can find suggest otherwise, that "atheism/atheist" was used to refer to lack of belief as well as active disbelief millennia ago, and that lack of belief may have been the original meaning. I know from my own personal experience that you are wrong on the last point, since I was actively engaged in atheist groups on the internet more than thirty years ago, and this same point was regularly raised then.

But most people, and including most atheists in the world, stick with the traditional definition of atheism to mean "the belief that there is no god/s".

Most people might. Most Christians seem to. But not most atheists. I have seen this discussion played out time and time again, and it is always the believers that insist that atheism is a belief that there is no god, and the atheists insisting otherwise. Certainly most atheists I've encountered characterise atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief in a lack, and I am very sceptical that you have any grounds for claiming otherwise. How could you possibly know?

Again, as Craig points out, when asked whether one is a theist or an atheist, what is really being asked is "Do you believe there is a god/s or not?"

To which the answer is "I do not believe there is a god."

[Roy]

pedantic much?

Pointing out the existence of polytheistic religions is hardly pedantry... unless you're avoiding admitting you screwed up.

[Roy]

How does that prove your point?

Simple.

I said that theists faced with scepticism regarding the existence of their deity would rapidly retreat from anything involving Biblical or Koranic specifics.

You immediately raised natural theology, which you admitted does not involve Biblical or Koranic specifics.

Also, framing it as something a theist "rapidly retreats" to is...strange. Theologians conceived of the arguments that make up Natural Theology while theism itself was still the vastly predominant position within scholastic circles. What exactly were they retreating from?

I wasn't talking about long-dead theologians, I was talking about people like you.

[Sparko]

Pointing out the existence of polytheistic religions is hardly pedantry... unless you're avoiding admitting you screwed up.

I screwed up? I said Atheism means "No God" I think that would include "Gods" since if it doesn't believe in one God, it doesn't believe in multiple or any Gods. You were being pedantic.

[Roy]

Among atheists especially, there's an implicit belief that natural theology is supposed to show that the Christian god exists, which is beyond the purpose of natural theology.

That doesn't seem to stop Christian apologists using it in support of the Christian god.

Natural theology is a bridge to other elements.

Or an anchorage.

[Roy]

I thought it was clear. Atheism doesn't do what you said it does. Atheism doesn't make a claim that philosophical naturalism is the justified result based on methodological naturalism.

That is exactly what my references show that Dawkins and others claim.

So? Dawkins being an atheist doesn't mean that everything he says is part of atheism

A lack of belief is a belief choice.

When did you choose not to believe that Ceres is populated by ice-skating zebras in turquoise tutus?

[Sparko]

That doesn't seem to stop Christian apologists using it in support of the Christian god.Or an anchorage.

It's a base starting point. First you give evidence that a god exists, then you show it is the Christian God.

An analogy: Proving Abiogenesis only shows that life developed naturally. It doesn't prove evolution, yet evolutionists use it in support of evolution. Because it is a starting point.

[Roy]

Pointing out the existence of polytheistic religions is hardly pedantry... unless you're avoiding admitting you screwed up.

I screwed up? I said Atheism means "No God"

You actually said "Besides I didn't mention which God. I said "God" which means any religion." "God" does not mean any religion. You screwed up.

[Roy]

It's a base starting point. First you give evidence that a god exists, then you show it is the Christian God.

I find too many people attempt the anchorage (aka "base starting point"), then simply assert the presence of the rest of the bridge.

An analogy: Proving Abiogenesis only shows that life developed naturally. It doesn't prove evolution, yet evolutionists use it in support of evolution. Because it is a starting point.

That'd be better written the other way round - that evolution is used as a starting point for abiogenesis - as the evidence for evolution is far far better than that for abiogenesis.

[Sparko]

You actually said "Besides I didn't mention which God. I said "God" which means any religion." "God" does not mean any religion. You screwed up.

yeah you really are pedantic. Are you so desperate to "score points?"