Faith

[jcribb16]

Quote from jcribb:
When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;"  I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....

Quote from Falconer:
That's an insane statement and I gotta shoot it down! lol those sane people who don't believe in any deity or specific afterlife savor reality much more than any religious person ever could hope to-- they believe in civilization and part of that foundation is educating one that they are accountable for their own actions while interacting with the world around them. The freethinkers tend to concentrait on the here-and-now rather than a one-in-a-trillion shot at their chosen afterlife idea and they writhe at the thought of wasting this life hoping to earn points with some randomly chosen god(s) they were raised to believe in or for whatever other emotional reason. This applies to the majority of religions- not just christianity.

To turn the argument around- what of the truckloads of people that use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds and get away with it because of the false shielding it provides (Catholics Priests and little boys? Ted Haggard and the whole gay prostitute thing?)? I mean with Ted Haggard, rather than authentically apologizing for his bigoted hypocrisy, he just said Satan got the best of him and people fell for it.

You are twisting words and going off on another tangent.  I was speaking of the 3 and their followers.  I was speaking of athiests, in particular.  The Christians believe in civilization and are accountable for their own actions, too. 

All I did is turn it around like it is done to Christians and gave a "maybe" for the wish-fulfillment scenario.  Sheesh....
 

[falcon9]

Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.

Quote from: falcon9:
No conclusive evidence [of "god" existing] has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum.  Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.

The claim an atheist makes—“no god,”

No, the claim would be 'there has been no conclusive evidence of the existance of god', (however, that would be requiring that a negative existential proposition be proven).  Fortunately, this is not the initial claim; that comes from deists who claim the existance of "god", (and claim to have presented "laid out evidence of god existing"). 

... which is what “atheist” means—is an "*untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint." 

Since 'theist' means "belief in the existence of one or more gods ...", then adding the 'a' to theist means not believing in one or more gods.  That's not equivalent to defining atheism as stating a claim that 'there is no god'; it merely means that atheists don't "believe" the claim that there
 is one, (or more).   

Legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler stated, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.”
{*Untenable - "Not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection"; Dictionary.com} 

The initial claim that theists make, (that 'there is a god'), is an untenable position since it lacks evidence to support the claim.  Counter-arguments
 do not require that the negative existential proposition, (that 'there is no god'), be disproved.

There have been atheists such as Karl Marx, philosopher Frederick Nietzsche,  Freud, and others, who claim that those believing in God have a "mental disorder," being "delusional" and "irrational," and even having a "*wish-fulfillment desire." 

Well, that'd be an appeal to authority argument which was raised by you so that you could argue against it?

 

*Wish-fulfillment also means in the "Medical Dictionary" - "In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream or other exercise of the imagination. ..." ; 
"Wikipedia" - " in psychology is the satisfaction of a desire through such involuntary thought processes such as dreams, daydreams, an neurotic symptoms. In Freudian psychoanalysis, it is when desires of the unconscious are unacceptable to the ego and superego because of feeling of guilt or societal or cultural restrictions such as taboos, giving rise to dreams.[1] For Sigmund Freud, dreams result from attempts by the unconscious to resolve a conflict of some sort, whether something recent or something from the recesses of the past.[2] In the ethics of belief, wish fulfillment can come out as a bad faith self delusion."

[Wikipedia and FreeDictionary.com]}[/color]

The above description of 'wishful thinking' sounds omninously-close to religious thinking.





[/quote]

[JediJohnnie]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.  

Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.

Quite right.Unfortunately -the human ego being what it is- many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......

[falcon9]

... many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......

"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

[SurveyMack10]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.  

Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.

Quite right.Unfortunately -the human ego being what it is- many Atheists will still defend an indefensible position,rather than "convert" to Agnosticism......

Agreed- most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

[falcon9]

... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

[SurveyMack10]

... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

[falcon9]

... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity.  The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

[SurveyMack10]

... most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

most people who take the stance that something is absolutely not true have the means to disprove it, but this isn't the case in religious arguments I guess.

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity.  The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."

[falcon9]

"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain."

That is the common and generally accepted definition of agnosticism, agreed.

"Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."

Conversely, that is not the common and generally accepted definition of atheism.  Atheism certainly does Not claim to be able to disprove the alleged existence of some proposed deity, (a negative proof is a logical fallacy - If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea).

[jcribb16]

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Lee Strobel (Former atheist), arrived at this result several years ago, and has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

[falcon9]

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.”

The problem with so-called "self-evident" statements is that that are circular and are not supported by evidence.

The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it.

That isn't the "only rational and reasonable conclusion" merely because it is asserted to be.  So, let's look at the allegedly "logical set of statements" apparently intended to support that premise:

Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.

Something does exist; this does not mean that the "something" is a deity.

• You do not get something from nothing.

Look up emergent phenomenon.

• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Possibly however, if that "something" is _eternal_, then it always existed and was not created.  It therefore does not require a creator.

• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.

The deduction is faulty since those aren't the only two options.  The other options include, (but are not limited to), a spontaenously emergent universe and no creator, (eternal or otherwise), a universe which expands and contracts in a cyclic manner over a varyingly long duration, (but not an eternal one), or as a 'meta-fractal' aspect/dimension of a 'larger' multiverse.

• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity.  The burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the universe is eternal in this instance.

• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

The person you've quoted to support your contention has used fallacious 'reasoning' and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

Lee Strobel (Former atheist), arrived at this result several years ago, and has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason."

Apparently, neither Lee nor yourself were familar with emergent phenomenon theory, (which would account for the 'appearance' of randomness, chaos and other misapprehensions of 'something from nothing'.  At least emergent theories have more reasonable evidence going for them than relying on the lack of evidence which constitutes "faith".


[/quote]

[JediJohnnie]

It's in indisputable fact that Something can't come from Nothing.No Order from Chaos.A Creation must have a Creator.Common Sense needs to be applied here,folks.

[falcon9]

It's in indisputable fact that Something can't come from Nothing.No Order from Chaos.A Creation must have a Creator.

Your "indisputable fact" is disputed by emergent phenomenon theories.  Just because you aren't familar with them, (or with reasoning), doesn't mean your opinion - not "indisputable fact"(s) can't be disputed.  Lo and behold, they have been.

Common Sense needs to be applied here,folks.

Conversely, reasoning needs to be applied where such 'uncommon sense' is based upon a false premise, (at best, a premise without any supporting evidence other than the empty opinion of a creationist).

[SurveyMack10]

"Agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain."

That is the common and generally accepted definition of agnosticism, agreed.

"Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can."

Conversely, that is not the common and generally accepted definition of atheism.  Atheism certainly does Not claim to be able to disprove the alleged existence of some proposed deity, (a negative proof is a logical fallacy - If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea).

Actually

Definition of atheism:
Noun
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--merriam webster

Definition of atheism:
Noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

dictionary-reference.co
(links aren’t allowed)

So as the definitions show, atheism IS a theory or belief system (or doctrine as used above). Also, it does claim God as nonexistent although you seem unable to support that claim.