Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is the mendacious Theistic accusation of Atheistic belief a facile attempt to validate their own irrational belief?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 3068 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 18:49:12 BDT
Archibald F says:
"Is the mendacious Theistic accusation of Atheistic belief a facile attempt to validate their own irrational belief?"
Not really a good start to a considered discussion to start off by accusing all theists of being lying, accusatorial and irrational. Makes me think your own views are not as 'rational' as you like to think they are! If you want a sensible discussion with people who have a different view than yours, best to not start by insulting them!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 18:59:16 BDT
C. A. Small says:
No , all the atheists I know arrived at the position because firstly there is no evidence for any god, and lots of evidence that science is correct.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:00:47 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Wrong- atheism is a lack of belief- nothing more.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:01:50 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Well Tu Fu your point isn't entirely clear, as you never expanded on it with any evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:05:03 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Sorry but this is precisely my point, and the point of this thread. You say you don't think people arrive at Atheism through evidence, but then you don't offer any evidence for that assertion. I was already aware that some people thought this, the point of this thread isn't so that they can restate that, it's so they can offer evidence to validate it.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:17:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 19:27:36 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Fair enough, I never suggested it was all theists, that's not really the point. It is my experience that dialogue with theists result quite a significant amount of times in this assertion being made though.

Well it may be adversarial but but to be fair they are irrational to an Atheists. there's nothing scientific about how theists reach their position of belief though, so it's not really a fair comparison. If someone told me I held an irrational belief I'd expect evidence to back up that assertion. In fact I am inviting theists to do precisely that in this thread, but so far it's been pretty much opinion, with no empirical evidence offered.

"There is belief on both sides, one the belief that God does exist, the other the belief that God does not exist."

Well now that's the claim, where's the evidence.Theists state plainly there's is a belief, Atheism is by definition the opposite, It's not my belief that god doesn't exist, I just see the evidence all pointing that way. If you claim my Atheism is a belief, or that it's based on a belief or beliefs then it's incumbent on you to provide evidence to validate that claim.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:19:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 20:55:45 BDT
O.Binladen says:
No I don't. Repeating the accusation is rather pointless unless you have some evidence to present, as the thread title makes it plain that some theists hold this assertion to be true, the point of the thread is for those theists who make that assertion to present any evidence, if they have any, do you have any? As simply attcaking the philosophy of materialism is indicating which side of the debate you're on, but not actually offering empirical evidence salient to the thread.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:25:34 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 20:56:24 BDT
O.Binladen says:
If you re-read the title you'll see that I never claimed all theists said it. So while you're entitled to that opinion, you do seem to have based it on your mis-reading of the thread title.

Nothing I've read thus far contradicts that assertion either, no one is offering empirical evidence for the claim after all. People who make the claim can answer the title, if they feel insulted, with evidence, if it's valid I'll consider the title answered, their assertion valid, and mine refuted. If on the other hand no evidence is offered then the title would seem perfectly valid.

Posted on 19 May 2013 19:46:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 19:52:07 BDT
Except we did, Tu Fu. You didn't want to hear the answer. This makes one wonder why you posed the question at all...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:54:19 BDT
'I do think it is a bit adversarial to describe the beliefs of a theist as irrational.'

Which is a mistake on your part, since belief in the supernatural is irrational by its very definition.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 19:57:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 20:57:12 BDT
O.Binladen says:
I'd assumed that any theist takes it as a given that Atheists by definition find religious beliefs irrational. I think people are being overly sensitive, and perhaps ought to focus on finding some evidence to refute the thread title. I thought they'd welcome the chance, and though I never expected the evidence to validate their claim I did think there'd be some clever ontological arguments at least.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:00:33 BDT
Archibald F says:
" I never claimed all theists said it." No, but you are using a lot of emotive language, unhelpful to objective debate, suggesting you have an issue with theism in general.

Regarding your upset, if I look up atheism in my dictionary, it says "the theory or belief that God does not exist." So it describes atheism as a belief. Ah, but, you say, that dictionary definition is wrong. And many atheists would agree with you on this, saying atheism is not a belief, but an unbelief, based on a lack of evidence.

But then you shoot yourself in the foot with your initial post saying "the truth that it's based on a logical rejection of faith in the absence of evidence". In science, acceptance or rejection are both evidence based. A scientific theory such as the multiverse is not rejected because of a lack of evidence, but remains just that, a theory, until evidence is available to prove or disprove the theory.

So your 'rejection' of belief based on lack of evidence is, in effect, a statement of faith, since you have taken a position without a basis of evidence.

If your position had been that you were undecided on the matter due to lack of evidence, this would not be a statement of faith, and I think this would be the position many 'atheists' would consider they hold. There are others, however, that would describe such a position as 'agnostic' rather that 'atheist'.

Interestingly, my dictionary also describes 'agnostic as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" so again we are back to that word 'believe'!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:17:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 20:22:47 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Well I do have an issue with theism, I am an Atheist, I'd have thought that was understood.

"Regarding your upset, if I look up atheism in my dictionary, it says "the theory or belief that God does not exist." So it describes atheism as a belief. Ah, but, you say, that dictionary definition is wrong. And many atheists would agree with you on this, saying atheism is not a belief, but an unbelief, based on a lack of evidence."

Does it? That's not what it says in mine. Here's the oxford definition:

"atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."

Anyway that's just the claim again, not actually evidence to validate it.

"But then you shoot yourself in the foot with your initial post saying "the truth that it's based on a logical rejection of faith in the absence of evidence". In science, acceptance or rejection are both evidence based. A scientific theory such as the multiverse is not rejected because of a lack of evidence, but remains just that, a theory, until evidence is available to prove or disprove the theory."

But that's a scientific theory, religion or theism is not. You wouldn't apply that to someone who made claims with just belief, especially if it's not based on any empirical evidence and makes some fairly fantastic claims. We're getting off track though as this thread is not about theism per se.

"So your 'rejection' of belief based on lack of evidence is, in effect, a statement of faith, since you have taken a position without a basis of evidence."

That's the claim again, not evidence, all you've done is try and use semantics to reverse where the burden of proof rest. I could refute it with all the evidence to support Atheism but that's not what this thread is for.

"If your position had been that you were undecided on the matter due to lack of evidence, this would not be a statement of faith, and I think this would be the position many 'atheists' would consider they hold. There are others, however, that would describe such a position as 'agnostic' rather that 'atheist'."

No, Atheists by definition are not agnostic, I'm afraid you've gone off topic and your assertion is entirely wrong.

"Interestingly, my dictionary also describes 'agnostic as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" so again we are back to that word 'believe'!"

Well you're back to it, but again this thread is not about Agnosticism, so that's irrelevant.

I have to say that no empirical evidence was offered there, though a glimpse of the mindset that asserts the claim of Atheistic belief is perhaps unfolding. I fully expected this thread to involve a fair amount of disagreement on what constitutes evidence, which is why I stated at the start that I was looking for empirical evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:32:03 BDT
Alan Pavelin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:36:08 BDT
Alan Pavelin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:36:20 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Well it's off topic but the main monotheistic religions do contain logical contradictions about the nature of their gods.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:39:05 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Again it's off topic, but science in a very short time has directly refuted claims about creation, as an example, purported to be the immutable word of an omniscient god.

Once again it's off topic, but I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that indicates there is intelligence behind the universe, perhaps you could indulge me and provide it here, and if you have direct empirical evidence salient to the topic at hand as well.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:41:08 BDT
Bellatori says:
Well, OB, you will find some of the best discussions are 'off topic'!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 20:45:54 BDT
O.Binladen says:
I had that coming. :-) I'll desist in the other thread.

Posted on 19 May 2013 20:56:02 BDT
Archibald F says:
"Well I do have an issue with theism, I am an Atheist, I'd have thought that was understood."
No, just because you are not something doesn't mean you must therefore have an issue with it. I'm not a school teacher but it doesn't mean I have an issue with school teachers.

"But that's a scientific theory, religion or theism is not." Interesting. I agree with you, but so many atheistic arguments seem to consider belief is the same as scientific theory - that there must be proof.

"You wouldn't apply that to someone who made claims with just belief, especially if it's not based on any empirical evidence and makes some fairly fantastic claims."
The Multiverse is a fairly fantastic claim. Much science we now accept was considered a fairly fantastic claim at its outset. The fact remains that you have rejected something because of lack of evidence, and because of a view that the claim is too fantastic. So what you are criticising others for, making choices without proof, is also what you have done.

"We're getting off track though as this thread is not about theism per se." I'd have said we were right on track, as this thread, created by you, asks if theists claim atheism is also a belief is an attempt to validate their own irrational belief. Now it strikes me, from what you say, that the reason you have an issue with theism, is because you have a fundamental insecurity about your own 'belief' based as it is on lack of evidence.

"where the burden of proof rest" - now you are going off topic. Or are you now making this thread into yet another about 'so where is the proof to back up your belief?" I thought it was about 'why do theists claim atheists have belief'.
Plus the burden of proof, for your belief, lies with you, and nobody else. It's nobody's job to try to convince you of what they believe. It's something you just have to sort out for yourself.

"I have to say that no empirical evidence was offered there" - So where does your thread ask 'what empirical evidence is there' - or what it is seeking empirical evidence for.

And as you yourself said, "But that's a scientific theory, religion or theism is not." So what are you looking for?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 21:04:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 21:23:49 BDT
'Depends what you mean by irrational. Supernatural beliefs are certainly not "anti-rational" '

Were these sentences intended to insult the reader's intelligence?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 21:11:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 21:19:35 BDT
O.Binladen says:
You'll have to explain in that case what specifically you mean by having an issue with it, my issue is that it's not supported by any evidence. Your school teacher analogy doesn't make any sense to me I'm afraid, unless you're saying you disagree fundamentally with people who are school teachers.

I'm not sure what Atheists have suggested to you that theistic belief is the same as scientific theory - but they're utterly wrong. Scientific theory is based on an enormous amount of evidence and research.

We're getting side tracked again, you're mentioning scientific theories and hypothesis that you say I've accepted, when I've not mentioned them, and they're not relevant to the topic at hand.

" Now it strikes me, from what you say, that the reason you have an issue with theism, is because you have a fundamental insecurity about your own 'belief' based as it is on lack of evidence."

I've been fairly patient but this is getting a little tedious now, you're just repeating the accusation and not offering anything in the way of empirical evidence. I have no beliefs, and I am an Atheist precisely because there is no evidence to support theism, and a great deal to refute it. Now back on topic please, with evidence thank you.

""where the burden of proof rest" - now you are going off topic. Or are you now making this thread into yet another about 'so where is the proof to back up your belief?" I thought it was about 'why do theists claim atheists have belief'.
Plus the burden of proof, for your belief, lies with you, and nobody else. It's nobody's job to try to convince you of what they believe. It's something you just have to sort out for yourself."

The claim is made by theists, I've asked for evidence, if they have any, you're using semantics to suggest that I should offer evidence for Atheism or the claim is proved. If you persist in this then I'll have to assume you don't have any evidence and are wasting my time, the clock is ticking..

""I have to say that no empirical evidence was offered there" - So where does your thread ask 'what empirical evidence is there' - or what it is seeking empirical evidence for."

The question in the title poses the question, I have asked for empirical evidence to support the assertion it refers to from the very start. Are you on a wind up?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 21:45:37 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"Depends what you mean by irrational. Supernatural beliefs are certainly not "anti-rational", unless they contain a logical contradiction."

Positional references to the natural are nonsensical. Try giving an example of something sub-natural or 3-metres-to-the-left of natural.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 21:57:10 BDT
Pendragon says:
"Try giving an example of something sub-natural"

Spin.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 22:32:17 BDT
Odd then that I believe God doesn't exist and can never be proved to exist. I cannot be an atheist then as mere lack of belief leaves open the possibility that the proof is out there.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xafaa0d50)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  67
Total posts:  3068
Initial post:  19 May 2013
Latest post:  15 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions