- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYou suggested that my argument is flawed and wrong... But have done absolutely
Bump this. 😛
nothing whatsoever to back up this claim.
It's by no means unreasonable for me to ask that you retract this claim or substantiate it.
For ease of reference here is the argument again.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/why-are-you-are-an-atheist.168681/page-7
Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position. In other words, they claim that when persons are born, they are naturally atheists and that it is only through indoctrination that they become theists. But, this claim is nothing more then an unsubstantiated opinion. How does an atheist know that people are not hardwired to believe in God? How does an atheist know that children don't naturally believe in God and have to be taught not to believe in God?
WHICH GOD?
Matt Slick is a Christian and naturally only thinks about [his version of] the Christian god.
However, it was only relatively recently in history that the idea of the Christian god was even invented.
And moreover before and during the rise of Christianity a majority of people in the world have believed in different
or no gods. If everyone was born pre-loaded with belief in the Christian god this would not be the case.
If you don't indoctrinate people with belief in the Christian god, they don't magically start believing in that god.
Therefore, it is not an idea we are born with. [and that's before adding in any science on the topic]
Next, the rational default position on any truth claim is lack of belief until there is sufficient evidence/reason to
believe one way or the other.
The claim that a god exists is no different and the default lack of belief position is an atheist position.
If the atheist says that it must be a cognitive choice to believe in God, then again we have to ask how the atheist knows this.
This atheist, like most if not all here, do not say that it is a choice to believe in gods. In point of fact I just got done
writing a post explaining exactly why you don't choose to believe things. Which is a common refrain from the atheists
on this site. So this is a straw man.
People believe in things without really understanding why, and oftentimes they're surprised at what they do believe in naturally. So, that doesn't work either.
It is true that people seldom understand why they believe something. In fact the evidence suggests that almost all 'reasons'
given for why a person believes something are post-hoc justifications for a 'decision' we don't understand.
So when an atheist says that atheism is the default position, he is offering nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion upon which he wants to build an argument that atheism is somehow valid or superior or natural. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.
Atheists are not he we are they.
This is an unsubstantiated claim as it rests upon the 'argument' that comes before that I just rebutted and refuted
without even trying.
But, what if it is true that atheism is the natural position of the person? Now, we are not saying that is the case, but what if it were? Would it mean that there is no God? Of course not. Even if an atheist were to hold the position that atheism is the default position (which cannot be verified), what does that have to do with whether or not God exists? It is irrelevant to the issue.
Then why are you so freaking scared of admitting that lack of belief is the neutral starting position with respect
to any belief claim?
It's not like we are actually arguing that atheism is correct because it's the default position. As I/we make clear
any and every time this comes up. Again, this is a straw man attack on a position we don't hold and are not arguing.
So, when atheists like to say that atheism is the default position, I like to respond with a request for them to prove it. They can't. They need to stop offering unsubstantiated opinions as facts.
Actually we can, and he would know that, which means he's lying.
11 May 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAre you pre-supposing (incorrectly) that not believing in God has left a hole in my life?!
Are you pre-supposing (incorrectly) that not believing in God has left a hole in my life?!
I also do not believe in the Yeti. Has this left a yeti shaped hole in my life too?
(I fully accept that to a theist 'God' and the 'Yeti' are not the same, so kindly reciprocate the understanding that to an atheist they effectively are the same and that n ...[text shortened]... quires filling).
As for what I do believe in, many things, all of them rationally verifiable.
Not at all.
As for what I do believe in, many things, all of them rationally verifiable.
Firstly, how is the non-existence of God rationally verifiable?
Secondly what else do you believe in that is rationally verifiable?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
11 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt is not my prerogative to verify the 'non-existence' of something.
Firstly, how is the non-existence of God rationally verifiable?
Secondly what else do you believe in that is rationally verifiable?/b]
Replace 'God' with 'monkey juggling elephants' and you can see what a nonsense the question is. " how is the non-existence of a monkey juggling elephant rationally verifiable?
How else could i answer other than that such a notion is irrational and unsupported by any verifiable evidence. - If your position is to argue that God (or a monkey juggling elephant) does exist then it is down to you to present your rationally verifiable evidence. (God is you bag dude, not mine).
Rationally verifiable things I do believe in:
The existence of cheese.
The existence of rain.
The existence of my pet hamster etc etc.
(Hamster added for effect. I do not own a hamster, I repeat, I do not own a hamster.....Okay, i did once own a hamster, but I do not currently own a hamster....Okay, I lost my hamster...Have you seen my hamster?....I miss that hamster).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you saw a painting would the existence of the painter be rationally verifiable?
It is not my prerogative to verify the 'non-existence' of something.
Replace 'God' with 'monkey juggling elephants' and you can see what a nonsense the question is. " how is the non-existence of a monkey juggling elephant rationally verifiable?
How else could i answer other than that such a notion is irrational and unsupported by any verifiabl ...[text shortened]... ly own a hamster....Okay, I lost my hamster...Have you seen my hamster?....I miss that hamster).
12 May 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOk, fair play. Let's pretend it was a painting of the eiffel tower or the Niagara falls would you say that could be formed by rust, mold and happenstance?
My dear chap, nowadays there are robots that can paint, and I have seen beautiful images formed by rust, mold and happenstance.