Working on a fun way to describe thinking about religion

[NGardner]

We have a basic empty drinking glass. Asking the common person if the glass contains liquid they will say "of course not". This is the atheist position. The agnostic would say " we can't be sure if the glass contains liquid or not, it doesn't look like it does, I stick my finger in and it comes out dry but I still don't want to be hasty and say the glass has no liquid, what if it is some special liquid that can't be seen and doesn't feel wet." The religious person would say "not only does the glass contain liquid, it is the best tasting incredibly hydrating liquid that has no end, in fact the liquid created the glass"

 

What do you think?

[dsayers]

I like this for one specific reason and also have a criticism if that's okay.

 

What I like about it: It rightly portrays the atheist as the origin. One thing I've always disliked about the words atheist and anarchist is that they make it seem as if they are the deviation and theism and statism are the norm.

 

The criticism I have: I think you've given too much credit to the agnostic in your analogy. An agnostic (and I say this as somebody who once self-applied that label) is somebody not willing to subject the proposition of a deity to rigorous scrutiny. They might say things like "we can't know," but not only can we know, but they don't accept this standard for any other aspect of their lives. Your analogy made them sound as if they put the most effort into their response.

 

What is this for if you don't mind me asking?

[Marshall B]

I like it. The difference is in the testable existence of the glass right? No one would deny the glass exists. They would just say it does or doesn't have water. That's testable. God isn't.

Im an atheist as well and would love to work on my arguments and sharpen my tools a little but I don't think this talks anyone out of anything. To another atheist like myself it seems like a good analogy because it is so similar to us. To someone who believes in a soul, another dimension, supernatural history lessons, etc maybe not. I still like it I'm just trying to put myself in the other position's shoes. 

[thebeardslastcall]

The religious person can't see the glass. They say the book says it's full so it must be full and anyone that tries to find the glass and look at it must be evil and trying to fool people into believing the glass isn't full, when the book clearly says it's full. If you show them an empty glass they'll say that's the wrong glass and you're just trying to trick people. Religious people aren't rational. With all that said, however, it's a nice counterview to try to frame the situation more favorably.

[DCLugi]

But if I think about the imaginary water in the glass long enough I am no longer thirsty.

[Will Torbald]

We have a basic empty drinking glass. Asking the common person if the glass contains liquid they will say "of course not". This is the atheist position. The agnostic would say " we can't be sure if the glass contains liquid or not, it doesn't look like it does, I stick my finger in and it comes out dry but I still don't want to be hasty and say the glass has no liquid, what if it is some special liquid that can't be seen and doesn't feel wet." The religious person would say "not only does the glass contain liquid, it is the best tasting incredibly hydrating liquid that has no end, in fact the liquid created the glass"

 

What do you think?

The antitheist would say that not only is the glass empty, he is happy it is so.

[thebeardslastcall]

The antitheist would say that not only is the glass empty, he is happy it is so.

 

That adds another negative to the example I didn't think of at first. You're choosing to say the glass is empty instead of full and that fits into their narrative of the atheist perspective being a bleak and empty viewpoint that leaves us all without anything to drink and dying of thirst. That the glass being empty is a bleak viewpoint that leads to death. Why did you choose to have the default position empty instead of full and can you reverse it and still have it work to your satisfaction? I think the atheist position should not only be the default and apparent position, but the positive and preferred one. The idea of God to me is the bleak and negative view, but that's not how theists see it because they still think their position is the full glass and atheists is the empty glass. So not a metaphor I would choose to use as you originally put it.

[Will Torbald]

That adds another negative to the example I didn't think of at first. You're choosing to say the glass is empty instead of full and that fits into their narrative of the atheist perspective being a bleak and empty viewpoint that leaves us all without anything to drink and dying of thirst. That the glass being empty is a bleak viewpoint that leads to death. Why did you choose to have the default position empty instead of full and can you reverse it and still have it work to your satisfaction? I think the atheist position should not only be the default and apparent position, but the positive and preferred one. The idea of God to me is the bleak and negative view, but that's not how theists see it because they still think their position is the full glass and atheists is the empty glass. So not a metaphor I would choose to use as you originally put it.

Sorry, I think you're confusing me for the OP. In any case, I made a distinction of calling it the antitheist position, not just an atheist one. It is demonstrably preferable to have a world where meaning is personally chosen rather than imposed, and misfortunes are not the result of petty sins.

[thebeardslastcall]

Sorry, I think you're confusing me for the OP. In any case, I made a distinction of calling it the antitheist position, not just an atheist one. It is demonstrably preferable to have a world where meaning is personally chosen rather than imposed, and misfortunes are not the result of petty sins.

I was quoting you, but then talking to the OP in regards to what you'd said and what it made me think about, sorry if that wasn't clear.

[NGardner]

Thanks for the criticism. I was trying on a easy to explain metaphor, but its clear it needs some refinement.

[Pelafina]

You can think of many examples where the correct answer seems obvious, but you were wrong because of the counter-intuitive nature of the solution.

 

Things are seldom what they seem.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

We have a basic empty drinking glass. Asking the common person if the glass contains liquid they will say "of course not". This is the atheist position. The agnostic would say " we can't be sure if the glass contains liquid or not, it doesn't look like it does, I stick my finger in and it comes out dry but I still don't want to be hasty and say the glass has no liquid, what if it is some special liquid that can't be seen and doesn't feel wet." The religious person would say "not only does the glass contain liquid, it is the best tasting incredibly hydrating liquid that has no end, in fact the liquid created the glass"

 

What do you think?

 

While I am all for funny analogies, it isn't a logical objection.

 

1- It presupposes Atheism.

2- The glass is multi-chambered and you are forcing the research into a certain compartment (materialism), while irrationally rejecting the existence of any other chamber or alcove because you have not experienced them. Yet, the axioms upon which empiricism depends on are not themselves either material or provable by empiricism.

3- It would be a ridicule to theologians based on the presumption of Athiesm, so if it is an argument it would be ad hominem abusive along with question begging.

 

 

Just saying, but theism is more intuitive which is reverse reflected in the analogy.

[shirgall]

1- It presupposes Atheism.

 

Atheism exists before any belief systems because it is a *lack* of belief. It is only because there are belief systems that there is a term for not believing in any of them.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Atheism exists before any belief systems because it is a *lack* of belief. It is only because there are belief systems that there is a term for not believing in any of them.

Aha, lack of belief system... except the active rejection of theist theories? Ignorance or unawareness is much different than what one would mean by atheism which amounts to semantic hoops. What is the term for not believing that there are no deities?

Denying the theist of the existence of a greater reality than the material one is a worldview bruh (ex. "it is irrational to believe God exists", "God doesn't exist").

[shirgall]

Aha, lack of belief system... except the active rejection of theist theories? Ignorance or unawareness is much different than what one would mean by atheism which amounts to semantic hoops. What is the term for not believing that there are no deities?

Denying the theist of the existence of a greater reality than the material one is a worldview bruh (ex. "it is irrational to believe God exists", "God doesn't exist").

 

No, we all don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, we just didn't identify it until someone brought it up. It didn't believe in Jesus before I heard about him. I don't believe in him now. It took no extra effort to maintain that state of being.

 

Atheists don't pressure others about their beliefs unless those beliefs are pushed upon them. I spend zero effort arguing with people about the existence of Zeus.

 

Theists are the ones with the extraneous positive belief in deities that they need to support. I don't need to support not supporting them.

 

Skepticism pre-exists all belief systems that posit the extra-natural and the non-empirical. Atheism is the label we put on skepticism of deities.

[dsayers]

Aha, lack of belief system... except the active rejection of theist theories? Ignorance or unawareness

You're being deliberately deceptive. If I say to you "I reject X," this is a meaningless statement. If I say "I reject X because of Y and Z," then this is an adherence to rationality in so far as Y and Z are rational. You've left out the Y and Z to project that rejection of claims is based on preference because that's how you arrived at your competing conclusion (by way of preference).

 

Consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME) is not a rational observation. To reject it on this basis is rational. Only one CEw/oME is an impossible claim (nothing exists in uniquity). To reject it on this basis is rational. The one CEw/oME happens to be the one YOU were taught about is an improbable conlcusion. To reject it on this basis is rational. This one CEw/oME must intervene is the coup de grace. Either you have evidence, in which case it's no longer a belief but a fact, or you are forced to reveal that your conclusion is without merit. To reject it based on this lack of evidence is rational.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

No, we all don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, we just didn't identify it until someone brought it up. It didn't believe in Jesus before I heard about him. I don't believe in him now. It took no extra effort to maintain that state of being.

 

Atheists don't pressure others about their beliefs unless those beliefs are pushed upon them. I spend zero effort arguing with people about the existence of Zeus.

 

Theists are the ones with the extraneous positive belief in deities that they need to support. I don't need to support not supporting them.

 

Skepticism pre-exists all belief systems that posit the extra-natural and the non-empirical. Atheism is the label we put on skepticism of deities.

False analogy abound as we are talking about the First Cause, Uncaused Cause, Pure Actuality, etc., whose existence can be known by reason alone; any philosophical argument for the good G-O-D is impossible to apply for a contingent being. Something like spaghetti requires cultural transfer of information, when children tend to form the concept of God without adult intervention (Atheism takes effort).

 

Atheists don't proselytize their beliefs?

 

If Atheists believe that their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational, then they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief, else they are not what they claim to be. Do you have any rational reason to reject God/creating-entity theories? A yes or no would do. If so, then provide the logic and/or material empirical evidence.

 

Do I understand that you are skeptical of the laws of logic or the First Principles of rational thought, along with the existence of other minds and mathematics? Can you empirically derive and support your statement regarding the nature of skepticism?

[shirgall]

False analogy abound as we are talking about the First Cause, Uncaused Cause, Pure Actuality, etc., whose existence can be known by reason alone; any philosophical argument for the good G-O-D is impossible to apply for a contingent being. Something like spaghetti requires cultural transfer of information, when children tend to form the concept of God without adult intervention (Atheism takes effort).

 

Atheists don't proselytize their beliefs?

 

If Atheists believe that their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational, then they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief, else they are not what they claim to be. Do you have any rational reason to reject God/creating-entity theories? A yes or no would do. If so, then provide the logic and/or material empirical evidence.

 

Do I understand that you are skeptical of the laws of logic or the First Principles of rational thought, along with the existence of other minds and mathematics? Can you empirically derive and support your statement regarding the nature of skepticism?

 

Atheists don't believe in a position. They START in a position of disbelief. Do you believe in Zoroaster? You probably never considered it. That's what it's like to be an atheist. They believe in one less god than you do, out of the thousands of possibilities. Atheists don't have to justify their lack of belief in Zugzug the lightning bear either.

 

Some atheists actively campaign against ideas being pushed upon them. You can try to dress it up as religion if you want, but that doesn't make it so. You could even posit that they are trying to return you to the state of grace you were born into, the state of not believing in anything you couldn't touch.

 

I am not making an extraordinary claim at all. I'm not making *any* claim about gods. I don't hold it as axiomatic that god exists. I don't have to justify a claim that I am not making.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Atheists don't believe in a position. They START in a position of disbelief. Do you believe in Zoroaster? You probably never considered it. That's what it's like to be an atheist. They belief in one less god than you do, out of the thousands of possibilities. Atheists don't have to justify their lack of belief in Zugzug the lightning bear either.

 

Some atheists active campaign against ideas being pushed upon them. You can try to dress it up as religion if you want, but that doesn't make it so. You could even posit that they are trying to return you to the state of grace you were born into, the state of not believing in anything you couldn't touch.

 

I am not making an extraordinary claim at all. I'm not making *any* claim about gods. I don't hold it as axiomatic that god exists. I don't have to justify a claim that I am not making.

So are you claiming that Atheists don't understand theism or are bewildered by it? Why are you asserting ignorance of something of which you are obviously not ignorant of?

 

Your position is transparently incoherent:

 

Claim #1: There is no Atheist position; it is a void.

Claim #2: Actually, the Atheist position is that theist arguments are a) false, b) can't be falsified or proven false.

Claim #3: Claim #2 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

Claim #4: Claim #3 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

Claim #5: Claim #4 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

...

ad inf.

 

Come on man, get real.

 

 

Then we have a fallacy about 'one less god!'.

 

If you eliminate... Hilary Clinton... from being the previous president, you are not eliminating the existence of a president. If you reject an especially far-fetched common descent scenario, that doesn't mean you reject common descent.

 

Now, a lot of people believe in Mount Everest existing in the Himalayas, but not in any mount Everest existing outside the Himalayas! For some inexplicit reason, if you don't believe in some things under a certain label, then it is more rational to disbelieve all things that are also under that label. Ergo, you should feel persuaded to disbelieve in all Mount Everest, including the one existing in the Himalayas. Therefore, everyone is an "a-mount-everest-ist" even if they believe in a mountain called Everest, and they need to be one -even thought they are an "a-mount-everest-ist" already-, some just go one more mount Everest further.

It is a good idea to make use of valid logical deduction instead of bumper sticker quotes and one-liners for reasoning.

 

By your logic, theists are merely campaigning against the idea that there are no gods? By erecting monuments, demanding to address opposition, raising money, forming collage clubs, organizing events, forming churches, children camps, celebrate their worldview, have conventions, proselytizing in the internet and through posters, writing books? Theists are simply pushing back against the notion of no gods.

Can you bring me a comprehensive (and thus accurate and acknowledges the existence of non-theistic religions) definition of religion that excludes Atheism from being a religion?

 

To quote Leon Wieseltier's summary of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, by Alex Rosenberg:

"Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck. Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding? Is there free will? Not a chance! What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes. What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don't look for it; it will find you when you need it. Does history have any meaning or purpose? It's full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing."

 

 

That sounds more of a religion than Buddhism to me, with an apparent general consensus among those who call themselves Atheists.

 

You could even posit that they are trying to return you to the state of grace you were born into, the state of not believing in anything you couldn't touch.

 

Dude... you want to make not believe in the laws of logic or gravity?! Why?

 

 

You made a lot of extraordinary claims.

 

You are making claims about theist theories and arguments. You have heard of them; why did you reject them? You not wanting to share your personal views about God and defend them is irrelevant.

 

If you don't hold it as axiomatic that God - who is posited as a necessarily-existent being - exists, then do you hold it that He is possible to exist or impossible to exist?

 

Do you believe that logic, morality, and freewill can exist without God? If so then prove their compatibility with Atheism (and revolutionize philosophy). If not, then you have conceded your argument by denying those axioms.

[shirgall]

I didn't make any claims other than "I have no belief in any deities." I'll even add "I've never had a belief in any deities" if you like. It is up to those who claim that any particular god exists to prove that that particular god exists. In fact, it's up to those who claim that gods in general exist to prove that gods in general exist.

 

When someone comes up to me with a claim, they get to make an argument for it. I don't have to make an argument against it. Convince me with reason and evidence of your positive claim. I don't have to make a negative claim. The default position is that claims are false until they are backed up with accepted truths or accepted logical operations.

 

But we aren't there. You are claiming that it is axiomatic that God exists. You've created some new logical system with that as an axiom. You're telling me that I'm foolish because, "Assuming that God exists, prove that he doesn't." No thanks.

 

Since we can't come to terms on the logical systems and definitions, there's no point in talking to you about it.

[thebeardslastcall]

He's saying a lack of belief in something is the default position.

 

"I don't believe in Everest" -> shown lots of pictures and evidence for Everest, accepts Everest as real. The default position isn't saying it's there, it's saying you don't believe something is there until you have evidence to convince you it's there or likely there. The position isn't even really a belief generally so much as it is working on the probabilities. If you have a small amount of evidence and no contradictory evidence you accept it might be there. As positive evidence accumulates and negative evidence remains absent you increase your functional acceptance of a position.

 

So the default position for Gods is to not believe in any. We only need reject Gods to the degree that we're told to believe in Gods to a greater degree than the evidence for that God (or any God) warrants. If you say atheists are anti-God it's generally to the degree that they've been asked to pretend to believe beyond what the evidence warrants they believe or accept. If they're actively working to reject Gods then they're generally just fighting back against this wave of demands for people to pretend to believe something they don't have sufficient reason to believe or accept to the degree that is being proposed, suggested, or demanded.

Also gravity, as a sort of physics, is inherently and unequivocally accepted regardless of what you say, because while you can deny it with words you can't stop gravity from acting upon your body (being). This is separate from a merely subjective acceptance of something. Everest is there whether or not any particular individual accepts this or not just as someone accepting or saying they believe something exists doesn't make it actually exist. If a billion people say there is a magical unicorn on the mountain but can't present any credible evidence for it then accepting it is true is accepting a lie.

 

Most people who tout a God don't have evidence for a God, they have a book and a mob. Being old doesn't make it true. Being widely claimed to be true doesn't make it true, it makes it a tribal (survival) based and enforced faith (pretending to believe) and delusion.

 

The core of atheism is about an honest relationship with the truth of reality despite popular opinions and survival pressures that would sway one to accept or pretend something false or to a greater degree than they actually understand and to a greater degree than the evidence warrants.

 

 

Do you believe that logic, morality, and freewill can exist without God? If so then prove their compatibility with Atheism (and revolutionize philosophy). If not, then you have conceded your argument by denying those axioms.

 

From how I've heard God defined I'm of the position that the belief in God is an acceptance of irrationality or falsity and evidence based positions impeding logic and morality and also that the notion of a supreme God is counter, not congruent, with free will.

Do you believe logic, morality, or free will exists? Then, if correct, they exist. Now for step two, can these things exist without God? If you answer is no you believe God as a subset of your beliefs in those. If God doesn't exist, but those first three things do (or any of them), then they can and do exist independent of a God. You're arguing one thing as if it's two things. If you can't accept the possibility of those things without God then God is axiomatic with those things until you understand why those things have to be or don't have to be linked and dependent in that fashion. To disprove God to you those connections must first be severed, meaning you must accept they do not exist or accept that they are not dependent on a God or you by default believe in God. So what is the real basis for your belief in God and how do you and did you structure those dependencies? Is your position based on evidence or a gut feeling and intuition you can't share or consciously reason through? If it's dependent on the former than how can you claim to give evidence? If it's the latter then you can provide evidence. 

One thing of note that seems to boggle many theists is that the atheist doesn't accept the illusion of an answer. Meaning if the words you're presenting don't have actual meaning, but just sound like they do, then they're not going to convince any atheist, because they aren't really sharing anything beyond the dynamic by which one pretends to believe as opposed to actual evidence and reasoning.

 

If you reject something that exists, like gravity, that self-corrects because splat. If you reject something that doesn't exist you only lose out to the degree that you are punished by the people for not believe. That is you aren't punished by a non-existent God, but by people, for not believing in God. If you accept something as true that doesn't exist how does that self-correct? That is much tougher and doesn't have the same self-correcting forces and thus religions become widespread and are only selected against to the degree that they impede survival and they can gain survival benefits by creating a tribal structure based on a shared lie. Regardless of how good or bad your sports team is there tends to be social benefits to aligning with a team. Atheists are slowly chipping away at the social and tribal benefits which is why there are more and more people able to profess a non-theist position.

 

If you don't hold it as axiomatic that God - who is posited as a necessarily-existent being - exists, then do you hold it that He is possible to exist or impossible to exist?

So you accept you've defined him as necessarily existent. Atheists don't accept that axiom. Why do accept a posit as a fact? Many have posited the opposite, but you reject that notion, do you know why?

[ShadowWhoWalks]

He's saying a lack of belief in something is the default position.

"I don't believe in Everest" -> shown lots of pictures and evidence for Everest, accepts Everest as real. The default position isn't saying it's there, it's saying you don't believe something is there until you have evidence to convince you it's there or likely there. The position isn't even really a belief generally so much as it is working on the probabilities. If you have a small amount of evidence and no contradictory evidence you accept it might be there. As positive evidence accumulates and negative evidence remains absent you increase your functional acceptance of a position.

So you don't have anything objective basis (such as unawareness or ignorance) and you did not provide any reason or reasoning for making the previous claim, much less for believing it in the absence of evidence to support it.

Which is a positive claim; I would ask you to elaborate but I can deduce what you meant below.

 

The 'default position' is shaped by the community (ex. one that believes in presumption of innocent vs one that believes in presumption of guilt). It is standard that every creation has a cause, along with children being hardwired to be theists, plus being the position being cross cultural and allowing a coherent worldview of reality compatible with the objectivity of logic, existence of morality, and freewill.

You claim there is no evidence. To make your claim a more structured as an argument:

• "If (not) [Q], then I am convinced (unconvinced) about the existence of a deity".
• "If (no) [P], then the theists have (have not) proven their case".

Q and P must be specified and be valid, if they are ambiguous then you haven't thought your position through.

 

So the default position for Gods is to not believe in any. We only need reject Gods to the degree that we're told to believe in Gods to a greater degree than the evidence for that God (or any God) warrants. If you say atheists are anti-God it's generally to the degree that they've been asked to pretend to believe beyond what the evidence warrants they believe or accept. If they're actively working to reject Gods then they're generally just fighting back against this wave of demands for people to pretend to believe something they don't have sufficient reason to believe or accept to the degree that is being proposed, suggested, or demanded.

 

So you are confirming what I said; you are actively rejecting theists arguments and theories. Yet, Atheists seem too eager to avoid the intellectual obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for their rejection (going as far as to deny the burden of rebuttal, which devolves into "You argument is wrong because I don't like the conclusion").

 

Also gravity, as a sort of physics, is inherently and unequivocally accepted regardless of what you say, because while you can deny it with words you can't stop gravity from acting upon your body (being). This is separate from a merely subjective acceptance of something. Everest is there whether or not any particular individual accepts this or not just as someone accepting or saying they believe something exists doesn't make it actually exist. If a billion people say there is a magical unicorn on the mountain but can't present any credible evidence for it then accepting it is true is accepting a lie.

 

You can't touch it (thus Shirgall is obligated to reject it to maintain consistency with his statement), only observe the effect of the physical law; point made. Just like we can't experience a bat's ultrasonic vision yet conclude it, we can conclude the existence of God by observing the effects (such as the universe).

 

Most people who tout a God don't have evidence for a God, they have a book and a mob. Being old doesn't make it true. Being widely claimed to be true doesn't make it true, it makes it a tribal (survival) based and enforced faith (pretending to believe) and delusion.

 

if you add the phrase, "therefore there is no God” to the end of your assertion, it shows the logic, or lack thereof, for rejecting the existence of a proposed first cause.

Fallacy of silence + fallacy fallacy. If that is the reason for your rejection then it is irrational. Heard of a guy who believes Obama is a democrat because the sky is blue.

 

The core of atheism is about an honest relationship with the truth of reality despite popular opinions and survival pressures that would sway one to accept or pretend something false or to a greater degree than they actually understand and to a greater degree than the evidence warrants.

 

 

Yet, the "truth" is mere subjective computation of a meat machine in Atheism, in which 'reason' is merely a by product of irrational processes or biological impulses. Holding it as transcendent is contradicting your belief. Which brings us to the questions of: Is there a source for this incorrigible truth? And if so what is its source?

 

From how I've heard God defined I'm of the position that the belief in God is an acceptance of irrationality or falsity and evidence based positions impeding logic and morality and also that the notion of a supreme God is counter, not congruent, with free will.

 

I'd like you to hear your case then.

 

Do you believe logic, morality, or free will exists? Then, if correct, they exist. Now for step two, can these things exist without God? If you answer is no you believe God as a subset of your beliefs in those. If God doesn't exist, but those first three things do (or any of them), then they can and do exist independent of a God. You're arguing one thing as if it's two things. If you can't accept the possibility of those things without God then God is axiomatic with those things until you understand why those things have to be or don't have to be linked and dependent in that fashion. To disprove God to you those connections must first be severed, meaning you must accept they do not exist or accept that they are not dependent on a God or you by default believe in God. So what is the real basis for your belief in God and how do you and did you structure those dependencies? Is your position based on evidence or a gut feeling and intuition you can't share or consciously reason through? If it's dependent on the former than how can you claim to give evidence? If it's the latter then you can provide evidence.

 

Reading in Atheist philosophy should suffice to support my claim, but to argue for God being axiomatic:

 

LoL:

 

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and the LNC is sufficient to prove their objectivity; if their source is human minds that contradict each other then it is not objective. Atheism cannot account for it, thus consistent Atheism would reject the existence of truth and self-refute itself.

 

To make an other argument:

• 1- If the laws of logic exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.

• 2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products.

• 3- Therefore, if the laws of logic exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind (God's mind).

• 4- The laws of logic exists.

• C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind which is universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, and source of intentionality.

 

M:

 

Morality has to be objective as well since a 'subjective morality' cannot be stated coherently and self-refutes itself (it is a universal value to reject universal values)

 

My moral opinion is that some moral statements are more valid than others, and that some principles of morality are absolute and do not depend on human opinion; do you approve of my position? If you do and it is true for the holder, then by definition it is true for everyone and moral relativism is false. If you deny that the view is true, then the belief in relative morality is contradicted due to belief in objective moral statements.

 

The argument is simple: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist, however objective moral values and duties exist, therefore God exists.

 

FW:

 

Materialism demands that every action is a deterministic chain of causality leading back to the Big Bang; freewill would be an impossible contingent uncaused causer. However, this would lead to self-refutation as it claims universal delusion and denial of the agency that is indvidually observed within each of us, while it is claimed that ‘consciousness’ - whatever that is - is under the impression that the thoughts are its own, and that it evaluates, thinks, judges, concludes, etc. when it is only receiving results of something that has already happened and has no control over.

 

One thing of note that seems to boggle many theists is that the atheist doesn't accept the illusion of an answer. Meaning if the words you're presenting don't have actual meaning, but just sound like they do, then they're not going to convince any atheist, because they aren't really sharing anything beyond the dynamic by which one pretends to believe as opposed to actual evidence and reasoning.

 

Irrelevant to basic theism.

Also, the intellectual value and philosophical illiteracy among New Atheists is nothing to brag about.

 

If you reject something that exists, like gravity, that self-corrects because splat. If you reject something that doesn't exist you only lose out to the degree that you are punished by the people for not believe. That is you aren't punished by a non-existent God, but by people, for not believing in God. If you accept something as true that doesn't exist how does that self-correct? That is much tougher and doesn't have the same self-correcting forces and thus religions become widespread and are only selected against to the degree that they impede survival and they can gain survival benefits by creating a tribal structure based on a shared lie. Regardless of how good or bad your sports team is there tends to be social benefits to aligning with a team. Atheists are slowly chipping away at the social and tribal benefits which is why there are more and more people able to profess a non-theist position.

 

Some people claim to reject the existence of other minds, the existence of a world outside the mind, and the objectivity of logic; what is their penalty?

Genetic fallacy using story telling about the origin of the phenomenon of religion.

 

So you accept you've defined him as necessarily existent. Atheists don't accept that axiom. Why do accept a posit as a fact? Many have posited the opposite, but you reject that notion, do you know why?

 

I am simply setting the concept straight. If you don't believe that God is axiomatic then you believe that God is impossible (basic ontology). So what reason do you believe that God is impossible?

 

I can provide more reasons, but I believe the LoL+M+FW arguments are sufficient. Atheism simply obliterates logic along with the most basic of axioms and requires believing in the impossible; it is incoherent.

 

Are you suggesting that there have been notable effort by Atheists to posit structured arguments for their positions?

[ShadowWhoWalks]

The default position is that claims are false until they are backed up with accepted truths or accepted logical operations.

 

So I should irrationally (If it is not justified by reason it is justified by emotion) believe this claim is false with no logic or reason until you back it up with logic and/or evidence? Why not be an agnostic or deist?

 

I already defended God being axiomatic, but clarify the apparently self-refuting quoted statement above and I'll provide direct arguments.

[shirgall]

So I should irrationally (If it is not justified by reason it is justified by emotion) believe this claim is false with no logic or reason until you back it up with logic and/or evidence? Why not be an agnostic or deist?

 

I already defended God being axiomatic, but clarify the apparently self-refuting quoted statement above and I'll provide direct arguments.

 

If are forced to have the existence of God as axiomatic you are admitting there is no proof that he can exist. I'm glad we agree, but I discard the axiom as unnecessary--if not confounding--for logical or moral systems.

[Will Torbald]

Rationalism is not enough to have knowledge of the world. It cannot prove the existence of a deity when you make an argument for the world any more than anything else it can't prove.

 

 

So what reason do you believe that God is impossible?

 

Because it is impossible to exist before time.