I don't believe in Atheists

[eriador]

Subjectivism

Your point being ... ?

A.

A subjectivist would argue that it's only possible to prove something to yourself, which really doesn't prove anything. Everybody is going to see the "truth" differently, which means that nothing can be proven for sure to exist or not exist. Really, it may not be the most elegant, but it serves to negate all of this debate about proving things.
(emphasis added)

That's why I don't see what your point is. Are you talking as a (self-declared) solipsist?
As for subjectivism, I say there are COMMON EXPERIENCES that we can use to prove ("reasonably") that things exist or not. What are you saying?

A.

I agree, common experiences can be used to say "you and I agree," but there is no way to say "this is true." Basically, it's fair to say that "we both agree that x exists" but not "x exists, and here's why," because that is only valid for you. Some people will agree on more things than others, but you can't tell them that. You can only speak for yourself.

I hope that made an iota of sense.

[suminonA]

I agree, common experiences can be used to say "you and I agree," but there is no way to say "this is true." Basically, it's fair to say that "we both agree that x exists" but not "x exists, and here's why," because that is only valid for you. Some people will agree on more things than others, but you can't tell them that. You can only speak for yourself.

Well, you keep defending extreme positions. First solipsism, now subjectivism.
If you haven’t noticed yet, I’m not advocating absolute objectivism here. There is a subjective part inherent to our individual consciousness. But saying that there is no way to really agree on things, and demanding “absolute truths” doesn’t help much IMO. Nor does throwing terms around.

If you’re just defending “opposite/extreme” points of view for the sake of it, then I’ll tell you this (again), to save you the trouble: I’m not going to debate unfalsifiable positions.

A.

[Dink_Meeker]

SuminonA and Eriador, I don't like the two of you.

[suminonA]

SuminonA and Eriador, I don't like the two of you.

What's so special about the two of us ?

A.

[eriador]

I think it's because he has to look at our longwinded, abstract and pointless posts to get read of the "unread posts" flag.

[hive_king]

Pointless being the key word. Especially you, Eraidor.

[suminonA]

[...] to look at our longwinded, abstract and pointless posts to [...]

eriador, do you consider my posts pointless?

A.

[Matty]

h_k:

I must disagree with your assertion, Jota, that Indetectable = Non-existant. For all of human existance, there have been quasars in the far reaches of the galaxies. However, untill recently, we had not the foggiest idea that they existed, nor any way to detect them or their manifestations, since they have no effect on anything on Earth. Yet they exist.

jota:

undetected =/= undetectable

The fact that we have detected them proves that they aren't undetectable.

Yes. The Undetectable = Nonexistent argument assumes that all possible tests have been performed for the sought entity. As zeroguy noted, that's sometimes not possible, or possible but not practical yet. For those entities, a reasonable person is forced to be agnostic, perhaps with some educated guess (astronomers are almost certain that planets smaller than Earth orbit other stars, even though none have been detected, because they exist in this solar system and no telescope is powerful enough to spot small extrasolar planets).

But I think God is different. A theistic God is omnipotent. If it wants us to be certain it exists, we will be (but that is not the case). If it wants to hide, then no mortal can find it (and so to all our intents and purposes it does not exist). If it wants us to be able to discover its existence, it will have left enough evidence to be convincing. A purely logical theist would say that there is enough evidence, and therefore God exists; a purely logical atheist would say that there isn't enough evidence, and therefore God doesn't exist, TAI&P.

Faith: Belief through pure faith is not a tenable position: Assume that there are at least two possible mutually inconsistent religions that require faith. There is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, for both. Each has the exact same claim on your faith, so it is impossible to choose one. To go ahead and believe one of them anyway is a contradiction.

So it all hinges on the evidence. What constitutes evidence for God? Is there enough? If there is, can that evidence give us further properties of God?

[eriador]

Pointless being the key word. Especially you, Eraidor.

Some evidence...

Suminon, I was referring to OUR posts, not yours.

And it was a joke. Get over it.

[suminonA]

Suminon, I was referring to OUR posts, not yours.

And it was a joke. Get over it.

First, you might want to consider the concept of inclusion and then talk to me about the relation between “our” posts and my posts.
Second, I don’t find your jokes especially funny, nor all of your arguments really serious, that’s why I ask before deciding if you are serious or not.
Third, I have nothing to get over. Try to be a bit more polite. Thank you.

A.

[eriador]

stupid me got people confused. sorry

I was not trying to insult you, I was be self-deprecating and stupidly included you, and as above, got people messed up.

Big mea culpa here. How about we forget all that?


----------------

I agree, common experiences can be used to say "you and I agree," but there is no way to say "this is true." Basically, it's fair to say that "we both agree that x exists" but not "x exists, and here's why," because that is only valid for you. Some people will agree on more things than others, but you can't tell them that. You can only speak for yourself.

I hope that made an iota of sense.

[suminonA]

How about we forget all that?

Forget ... what?

(no harm done )

A.

[jotabe]

I don't believe that believing can be done mainly with our reason. You believe with your heart. And for that, evidence is meaningless.
Being tenable or not for a certain belief is an irrelevant point.

[suminonA]

I don't believe that believing can be done mainly with our reason. You believe with your heart. And for that, evidence is meaningless.
Being tenable or not for a certain belief is an irrelevant point.

It is relevant when "defending" your beliefs. Especially if the one defending is part of an "evangelical" religion (i.e. a "spreading one"). It also includes the “transmitting it to your children” case.

A.

[mr_thebrain]

Religion as Baseball

Calvinists believe the game is fixed.

Lutherans believe they can't win, but trust the Scorekeeper.

Quakers won't swing.

Unitarians can catch anything.

Amish walk a lot.

Pagans sacrifice.

Jehovah's Witnesses are thrown out often.

Televangelists get caught stealing.Episcopalians pass the plate.

Evangelicals make effective pitches.

Fundamentalists balk.

Adventists have a seventh-inning stretch.

Atheists refuse to have an Umpire.

Baptists want to play hardball.

Premillenialists expect the game to be called soon on account of darkness.

The Pope claims never to have committed an error.

[Matty]

I don't believe that believing can be done mainly with our reason. You believe with your heart. And for that, evidence is meaningless.
Being tenable or not for a certain belief is an irrelevant point.

My point was that it doesn't make sense to believe with your heart, because there is no way to decide between two different religions without using reason. If you can't use reason to decide because there is insufficient evidence, then each has an equal claim to arational belief. But you can't believe both.

[jotabe]

I understand your point. I just say that, for a believer, it's meaningless. For a believer, there are truths that trascend the reason.

[Boothby]

I'm sorry, but this statement makes no sense:

"there are truths that trascend reason"


There are claims (things that people claim are truths) that transcend reason.

But, you know, for something to be a "truth," it really has to have some, uh...truth to it.

Otherwise, it's just something that "feels good."

[Rei]

I disagree that "truths transcend reason." Rather, I think that reason stems from truth. Truth and reason are inseperable.

[hive_king]

Rei, how do you define "truth"?

[jotabe]

I agree that reason stems from truth. But that only means that truth is greater and former than reason. Hence, truth trascends reason.

[Matty]

I understand your point. I just say that, for a believer, it's meaningless. For a believer, there are truths that trascend the reason.

I anticipated replies like that, which is why I structured my statement the way I did. Notice I didn't come right out and say "Believing something without proof is irrational." That can always be answered with "Well, belief can be irrational if it wants," and we are at an impasse. Instead, I used the plurality and mutual exclusivity of the world's religions to point out that even if you decide to take a leap of faith, there is no way to determine the direction of the leap, either using belief or reason. Faith pulls you in all directions at once, and reason pulls you not at all. Therefore, relying on pure faith is not a valid way to pick a religion.

But you're correct that faith is kind of a "black box--" that is, if you* say you believe something just because you believe, no one can directly challenge that. But if you just picked your religion because it's the one you grew up with, and/or the one most of the people you know practice, then you're lying to everyone, and getting away with it. If that's okay with you, cool.

One more thing:

I agree that reason stems from truth. But that only means that truth is greater and former than reason. Hence, truth trascends reason.

Yes. Truth is not just reason. The other part is empirical evidence. (I cannot mathematically prove the existence of New York, for example. They only teach grad students how to do that). But reason and evidence, together, constitute truth. If you define truth to be something that someone wishes or hopes is real, then truth has no meaning at all.

*Rhetorical, general you, not you-you.