a common atheist fallacy

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

You may not need a reason, but there are reasons. This is a causal universe. Everything is an effect of something, right?

 

There are new ideas in physics about the energetic properties of empty space.  No god required.  

[Dan56]

On 5/25/2018 at 1:01 PM, cuchulain said:

thats my point, though...or at least partially.  you have insufficient evidence that the bible IS a first hand account aside from fulfilled prophecy which could be fake.

 

Yes, its all accepted by faith.. Nearly anything can be faked, my grandma thought the moon landing was faked ☺️. But I see enough biblical credibility to have convinced me it couldn't be fake. What's sufficient evidence to one is insufficient to another. Most Atheist wouldn't believe a miracle if they witnessed one,  they would instead be looking for an explanation of how the trick was done 😊

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There are new ideas in physics about the energetic properties of empty space.  No god required.  

I never implied a god was required. I stated that a cause was required. "energetic properties" would be a set of causes. The job of science is to sniff out the causes, and the underlying causes beneath the causes.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I never implied a god was required. I stated that a cause was required. "energetic properties" would be a set of causes. The job of science is to sniff out the causes, and the underlying causes beneath the causes.

 

Yes.  The new discoveries in physics, about the properties of space, are amazing.  It's an exciting time to be alive.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Yes, its all accepted by faith.. Nearly anything can be faked, my grandma thought the moon landing was faked ☺️. But I see enough biblical credibility to have convinced me it couldn't be fake. What's sufficient evidence to one is insufficient to another. Most Atheist wouldn't believe a miracle if they witnessed one,  they would instead be looking for an explanation of how the trick was done 😊

 

Of course.  And many miracles have been exposed as frauds.  There is no virtue in being fooled by bogus evidence.

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Of course.  And many miracles have been exposed as frauds.  There is no virtue in being fooled by bogus evidence.

I honestly doubt anyone could convince me that God exists. Shown conclusive proof, I suspect I would just believe I was crazy. If God doesn't exist, it is like I am inoculated against a lie. But skepticism is unhealthy when it blinds us to the truth, and what could be more tragic than a blind man who doesn't even realize he is blind?

[mererdog]

On 5/26/2018 at 12:26 PM, cuchulain said:

that, of course, is special pleading when considering that if god qualifies for not needing a first cause, the universe itself could also need no first cause.

Biblical interpretation tends to get presented as a false dichotomy: either it is all true, or it is all false. But what if it is 14% true? What if God is powerful, but not all-powerful? What if God created the universe, but was also created by something outside the universe?

This is a fundamental problem with this subject. People ask "Why dont you believe in polar bears?" and everything I know about polar bears comes from cartoons. If they try to educate me on real polar bears, I just keep saying "That's not what the cartoons said!"

 

As I see it, the only way the universe can not need a "first cause" is if the word "first" is meaningless, in context. This would still mean that everything has a cause, but that at least some things occur either simultaneously or in an infinite timeframe.

Edited May 28, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 5/26/2018 at 12:21 PM, cuchulain said:

i never once in this topic made the claim that there is 'not enough evidence'.  WORD GAMES...or is it straw man, when you misstate someone's argument and THEN defeat the new version?

 

i have claimed throughout that the evidence is insufficient, not that it's not present.  it doesn't meet my level of acceptability...which acknowledges that the bible IS evidence, but i view it as poor evidence.

When I look up the word "insufficient" in a dictionary, it says the most common meaning is "not enough".

"insufficient evidence" would therefore most commonly be understood as "not enough evidence". Nothing in the context of your post suggested that isn't what you meant. Neither word games nor a straw man, but simply an honest attempt at comprehending your writing.

Please note, however, the differences between saying the evidence is the cause and saying that your view of the evidence is the cause. The first creates implications about how others should believe (They saw the same evidence), while the second does not. The second creates personal accountability for your personal belief, while the first gives the external responsibility for your internal decisions. See why I think these points matters?

Edited May 28, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

not enough, inadequate.  thats the def.  word games and i'm done.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Biblical interpretation tends to get presented as a false dichotomy: either it is all true, or it is all false.

 

1.  But what if it is 14% true? 

 

2.  What if God is powerful, but not all-powerful?   What if God created the universe, but was also created by something outside the universe?

 

3.  This is a fundamental problem with this subject. People ask "Why dont you believe in polar bears?" and everything I know about polar bears comes from cartoons. If they try to educate me on real polar bears, I just keep saying "That's not what the cartoons said!"

 

As I see it, the only way the universe can not need a "first cause" is if the word "first" is meaningless, in context. This would still mean that everything has a cause, but that at least some things occur either simultaneously or in an infinite timeframe.

 

 

1.  Even in a work of absolute fiction, it is still possible to find true facts.  Ice is cold.  Fire is hot.  Human blood is red.  The story is still fiction.

 

2.  What if we decline to make ourselves crazy, with silly speculation?  Seriously, get a grip.

 

3.  A lot of people -- some on You Tube -- firmly believe in the Flat Earth.  Other people persist in believing in the Hollow Earth.  People believe in strange, silly things.  I don't care.  It's not my problem.  If people want to believe in Bible inerrancy, or Big Foot, or Gremlins, or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy -- this is also not my problem.  Or your problem.  I used to have a friend who insisted that she didn't believe in vitamins.  Again, not my problem.  If people refuse to accept proven facts, and live in reality  -- it's their issue.  Not mine.  

 

[Geordon]

On 5/25/2018 at 2:17 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

When I'm confronted with unthinking dogmatism, ...

 

 

, I just sigh and walk away.

 

 

On 5/25/2018 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

  There are no valid reasons to believe that God exists. 

 

Devil's Advocate:  What would you consider to be a valid reason to believe?

 

On 5/26/2018 at 10:01 AM, mererdog said:

The specific "something" in question was evidence. Cuchulain made the claim that there is not enough evidence. My point was that there is no objective standard for how much evidence is enough.

 

The thing is, though, that any supposed evidence presented by Christians to date (not just here, but everywhere they accost non-Christians) is not objective evidence that their God exists.  By all accounts of Atheists that I've read, even a single  piece of objective (def. 1 and 1.2) evidence (def. 1.2) would be adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview.  To date, all evidence provided has been subjective (def. 1 and 1.1) in nature.  

 

This is the crux of the argument.

 

On 5/26/2018 at 10:26 AM, mererdog said:

You may not need a reason, but there are reasons. This is a causal universe. Everything is an effect of something, right?

 

Buddhists call this "dependent origination" and it is a cornerstone of the belief system.

 

On 5/26/2018 at 10:42 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I can't even find a reason why it matters, if God exists or not

 

Ultimately, it's immaterial, isn't it?  Belief in whether or not gods exist or not is not going to change the way we act while we walk the Earth.  Once we shuffle off this mortal coil, it will be too late to do anything about it, anyway.  IMO, what is more important is the actualization of compassion.  THAT will go a long way to improving the world in every corner.

 

On 5/26/2018 at 4:50 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Pantheists redefine God.  God is no longer a supernatural entity.  God is now everything and everything is God.  Nature is Sacred.  Also the natural order and the Universe.  All terms for the same thing.

 

I'm "hurt" that you neglected animists and polytheists in your hair splitting. 

 

Animist: The belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe

Polytheist: The belief in or worship of more than one god

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, Geordon said:

 

, I just sigh and walk away.

 

 

 

Devil's Advocate:  What would you consider to be a valid reason to believe?

 

 

The thing is, though, that any supposed evidence presented by Christians to date (not just here, but everywhere they accost non-Christians) is not objective evidence that their God exists.  By all accounts of Atheists that I've read, even a single  piece of objective (def. 1 and 1.2) evidence (def. 1.2) would be adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview.  To date, all evidence provided has been subjective (def. 1 and 1.1) in nature.  

 

This is the crux of the argument.

 

 

Buddhists call this "dependent origination" and it is a cornerstone of the belief system.

 

 

Ultimately, it's immaterial, isn't it?  Belief in whether or not gods exist or not is not going to change the way we act while we walk the Earth.  Once we shuffle off this mortal coil, it will be too late to do anything about it, anyway.  IMO, what is more important is the actualization of compassion.  THAT will go a long way to improving the world in every corner.

 

 

I'm "hurt" that you neglected animists and polytheists in your hair splitting. 

 

Animist: The belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe

Polytheist: The belief in or worship of more than one god

 

 

 

Number one:  What would it take to get me to believe in God?  You didn't specify.  The God of the Bible?  In truth, I don't know what it would take to get me to believe.  The thing is -- God would know.  This has not happened yet.  What am I to make of this?  God doesn't exist?  God doesn't care enough to intervene?  God does not know, and is not all knowing, so isn't God?  God can't intervene, is not all powerful, so isn't God?  Piffle.  If God wants to change my mind, then God will give me a reason that I will find valid.  Until then -- Piffle.  

 

Number two:  Does it actually matter whether or not God exists?  Here's a simple thought experiment.

 

Pretend that God exists.  What changes?  Nothing.

Pretend that God does not exist.  What changes?  Nothing.

 

At the end of the day, God either "is" or "is not".  Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all equally irrelevant.   We can't even agree on a basic definition for God.  That really makes the debate silly.  People sure get steamed over it.  Believers, non-believers and disbelievers, all getting strung out, arguing over the existence of something, that they can't even agree what it is they are arguing over.

 

We can also fall back on the wisdom of Buddha.  "Fire is hot.  Ice is cold.  All the gods in all the heavens will not change this."

 

I don't know if Buddha actually said it.  It's a great thought.

 

Number three:  How different is Animism from Pantheism?  From what I understand of real Animist cultures -- they don't make a distinction between the natural and super-natural.

 

I tread carefully, when talking about Polytheism.  It's a lot more complicated than adding an "S" to god or God. 

 

Having said that -- My favorite definition of Atheist is -- "Someone who has one less god than a Monotheist".  

 

 

 

 

 

[Geordon]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Number one:  What would it take to get me to believe in God?  You didn't specify.  The God of the Bible?  In truth, I don't know what it would take to get me to believe. 

 

I didn't specify, because I'm not worried about trying to get you to believe or not.  That's your cross/karma/etc to bear.  I'm just trying my best to relieve suffering where and how I can.  Which leads me to number 2...

 

13 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Number two:  Does it actually matter whether or not God exists? 

 

Not a damned bit, if you'll excuse the play on words.   

 

14 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

We can also fall back on the wisdom of Buddha.  "Fire is hot.  Ice is cold.  All the gods in all the heavens will not change this."

 

 I don't know if Buddha actually said it.  It's a great thought.

 

Oh, you owe me a... something...  Mind bleach? ...for enticing me to search for that quote.  That was a rabbit hole that was bizarre, at best.  Anyway, the closest that I was either an oblique reference to Descartes (what a shock!) and a reference to the Ohio Educational Monthly from December, 1876.  I was too traumatized to look further than that 

 

Be that as it may, the statement that you quote is perfect, and what would be called "skillful means" in Buddhism.  It (whatever you define IT as) is as it is, nothing more.  And worrying about it is like eating soup with a fork (my own addition to the vernacular).

 

21 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Number three:  How different is Animism from Pantheism

 

In my understanding (as imperfect as it is), Animism sees divinity in all things in the natural world... Trees, rocks, clearings, lakes, rivers...  

 

Polytheists, on the other hand, see multiple independent, separate, and distinct divine beings.

[Geordon]

24 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

My favorite definition of Atheist is -- "Someone who has one less god than a Monotheist".  

 

Beautiful!  I love it!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

27 minutes ago, Geordon said:

 

Beautiful!  I love it!

 

At this point in my life, my label of first choice is Apa-theist.  Someone who doesn't care whether or not God exists.

 

I am so tired of arguing the true meaning of Atheist and Agnostic --  and which is the truest expression of what ever.

 

Bleeping crap.  I don't care anymore.  There's no more steam in the boiler.  Other people can argue the metaphysics and nuances.  I'm done.  At least, for now.  

 

  

 

  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Geordon said:

 

I didn't specify, because I'm not worried about trying to get you to believe or not.  That's your cross/karma/etc to bear.  I'm just trying my best to relieve suffering where and how I can.  Which leads me to number 2...

 

 

Not a damned bit, if you'll excuse the play on words.   

 

 

Oh, you owe me a... something...  Mind bleach? ...for enticing me to search for that quote.  That was a rabbit hole that was bizarre, at best.  Anyway, the closest that I was either an oblique reference to Descartes (what a shock!) and a reference to the Ohio Educational Monthly from December, 1876.  I was too traumatized to look further than that 

 

Be that as it may, the statement that you quote is perfect, and what would be called "skillful means" in Buddhism.  It (whatever you define IT as) is as it is, nothing more.  And worrying about it is like eating soup with a fork (my own addition to the vernacular).

 

 

In my understanding (as imperfect as it is), Animism sees divinity in all things in the natural world... Trees, rocks, clearings, lakes, rivers...  

 

Polytheists, on the other hand, see multiple independent, separate, and distinct divine beings.

 

 

To my understanding -- such as it is -- the gods are personifications.

 

Consider the mighty Thor of Norse mythology.  He is a storm god.  He is a battle god.  He is the Chaos of the storm.  He is the Chaos of battle.

 

Consider Loki, whose appellation is "Mischief Maker."  Sometimes, he is Thor's friend.  Sometimes, he is Thor's enemy.  Loki is also a personification of Chaos.

 

Sometimes, the two forms of Chaos are friends, working together.  Sometimes, they are enemies in harsh opposition.  Such is the inconsistent nature of Chaos.

 

Consider, Medicine Buddha.  No mere deity concerned with healing.  Medicine Buddha is the personification of healing.  He is healing.

 

This is the manner in which I regard all the gods.  Including the big "G" -- God.  Alas, the world is in the grip of literalists -- who truly can not see a metaphor staring them in the face.  People know well enough that Mother Nature is poetic imagery.  She is Sunshine and flowers and trees and wind and all the rest of it.  Somehow, God is supposed to be "real".  What is God -- but Mother Nature in drag?  

 

 

[mererdog]

18 hours ago, Geordon said:

 By all accounts of Atheists that I've read, even a single  piece of objective (def. 1 and 1.2) evidence (def. 1.2) would be adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview.  

Objective evidence is a myth. 

 

No one truly knows what is adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview. You can't know what it would take to get you to quit smoking, if you haven't quit smoking. And what it took to get you to quit last time doesn't tell you what it will take this time. Juries are inherently unpredictable.

Edited May 29, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

2.  What if we decline to make ourselves crazy, with silly speculation? 

Prudence and Paranoia are identical twin sisters. The kind that wear matching outfits, sleep in the same bed and ride a tandem bicycle. In their youth, they delighted in tricking others by assuming each other's identities. Now, looking at old photographs of themselves, even they can't always tell who is who.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Prudence and Paranoia are identical twin sisters. The kind that wear matching outfits, sleep in the same bed and ride a tandem bicycle. In their youth, they delighted in tricking others by assuming each other's identities. Now, looking at old photographs of themselves, even they can't always tell who is who.

 

That was interesting.  I'm not sure how it answers my question, but alright.

 

 

[Geordon]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Objective evidence is a myth. 

 

No one truly knows what is adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview. You can't know what it would take to get you to quit smoking, if you haven't quit smoking. And what it took to get you to quit last time doesn't tell you what it will take this time. Juries are inherently unpredictable.

 

I'm not talking about changing a worldview.  I'm talking about whether someone is able to rationally and unemotionally evaluate information on it's own merits.  Skills that are sorely lacking in our society these days.