Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indoctrination
#76

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 02:15 PM)SteveII Wrote: I agree with everything you wrote. To clarify my claim somewhat, when a parent simply affirms the truth of the existence of God,

Teaching something they cannot know to be true as true, and teaching it uncritically is the very definition of indoctrination.



Quote:my argument is that that fact alone is not indoctrination.

It's the very definition of indoctrination

Quote:They can do that without limiting a child's knowledge of competing ideas.

Then why not let a child decide if a god is real or not ?

Quote:I go even further and claim that a parent can even claim competing ideas are wrong as long as they are truthful in their facts--and that still would not be indoctrination in the sense that we all think of it.

What facts ?


Quote:This has practical implementation problems. While you can affirm the existence of God to a 5 year old, you cannot describe the merits of naturalism and why you think the position is insufficient in explanatory scope with that 5 year old. SO, failing to teach the position of naturalism to a 5 year old IS NOT indoctrination.

What would you teach about it if you could ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 2 users Like possibletarian's post:
  • Deesse23, brunumb
Reply
#77

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 03:54 AM)Astreja Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 09:14 PM)SteveII Wrote: But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence--which is not a positive argument.

It doesn't have to be a good argument.  It just has to be a better argument than an argument for gods.  I can see the physical world, and I have a good lay understanding of the major branches of science.  I don't see anything that would predispose me to think that there's a god lurking somewhere behind the scenes, so absent such evidence I have no compelling reason to assume that there's a god there.

But you don't have an argument to be "better". I'm not trying to be difficult, just accurate. Your position is reasonable. You have not seen or heard any compelling evidence that God exists. Fine. But here is the point and why this matters:

1. There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness). At the least, they don't prove anything--but they are logically valid, have no defeaters, and therefore show that it is possible that God exists.
2. There are no positive arguments to think naturalism is true. Absence of evidence is not a positive argument because the conclusion logically could never be "there is no God".

WHY it matters. Without positive arguments to show that naturalism is true, there is no actual justification the atheist has to claim that the theist is wrong and it really, by definition is an opinion that the theist is wrong. BUT, every other post in this subforum does not just claim a simple opinion. They claim the theist is not only wrong, but stupid, uneducated, and much worse.

WHY it matters, next level. Smarter atheists are more careful but they still can fall into a particular trap. In many of their arguments they 'beg the question'. That is, they make an argument that relies on the assumption that the theist is wrong. This is a fallacy and whatever argument is being made cannot support the conclusion they think it does.

I'm sorry if I got into something you probably didn't intend on discussing.
Reply
#78

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: WHY it matters. Without positive arguments to show that naturalism is true, there is no actual justification the atheist has to claim that the theist is wrong and it really, by definition is an opinion that the theist is wrong.   BUT, every other post in this subforum does not just claim a simple opinion. They claim the theist is not only  wrong, but stupid, uneducated, and much worse.

We don't have to claim your are wrong, we simply have to ask for credible evidence and proof, without which the statement 'god exists' is empty.  They admit they don't have any real proof (or most do) yet still believe, and the reasons (mostly assertions based on a prior belief)  they claim accumulate into some kind of rational argument really don't.


Quote:WHY it matters, next level.  Smarter atheists are more careful but they still can fall into a particular trap. In many of their arguments they 'beg the question'. That is, they make an argument that relies on the assumption that the theist is wrong. This is a fallacy and whatever argument is being made cannot support the conclusion they think it does.

The thing is i could convince probably everyone on this planet that the smallest grain of sand and the tallest mountain existed without any real doubt, but you have as yet to provide equivalent evidence for the 'ultimate reality' an allegedly  all powerful, all knowing god that created us in his image that actually wants us to know him, not only that it's claimed he stands at the door and knocks.  See our problem with your claims ?  

The very very least he could do is convince us he exists !
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#79

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 03:35 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 02:15 PM)SteveII Wrote: I agree with everything you wrote. To clarify my claim somewhat, when a parent simply affirms the truth of the existence of God,

Teaching something they cannot know to be true as true, and teaching it uncritically is the very definition of indoctrination.

Where did I say "uncritically"?

Quote:
Quote:my argument is that that fact alone is not indoctrination.

It's the very definition of indoctrination

No, it's not. You need "uncritically" to be a present. You supplied that, I didn't.

Quote:
Quote:They can do that without limiting a child's knowledge of competing ideas.

Then why not let a child decide if a god is real or not ?

Sure, at the appropriate age when your child is equipped to weight the evidence and reasons for and against God, you can let them decide. Judging by the participants here, that seems to be a moving target though. It is foolish to demand a 5 year old should decide if God exists and it does not meet the definition of indoctrination because there was no possible way the concept could be understood critically so therefore there cannot be an intention to teach it uncritically.

Quote:
Quote:I go even further and claim that a parent can even claim competing ideas are wrong as long as they are truthful in their facts--and that still would not be indoctrination in the sense that we all think of it.

What facts ?

That some people think there is no God and here are reasons they think so. When I say 'facts', I don't mean there are any facts that support naturalism--just that it is a fact that people believe these things.

Quote:
Quote:This has practical implementation problems. While you can affirm the existence of God to a 5 year old, you cannot describe the merits of naturalism and why you think the position is insufficient in explanatory scope with that 5 year old. SO, failing to teach the position of naturalism to a 5 year old IS NOT indoctrination.

What would you teach about it if you could ?

Answered above.
Reply
#80

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 04:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: Where did I say "uncritically"?

Then what is 'the truth of the existence of god'' if not an uncritical assertion ?

Quote:No, it's not. You need "uncritically" to be a present. You supplied that, I didn't.

No we don't not at all, we just need your claim that you are teaching what you cannot prove as a 'truth' to the child.

Quote:Sure, at the appropriate age when your child is equipped to weight the evidence and reasons for and against God, you can let them decide. Judging by the participants here, that seems to be a moving target though. It is foolish to demand a 5 year old should decide if God exists and it does not meet the definition of indoctrination because there was no possible way the concept could be understood critically so therefore there cannot be an intention to teach it uncritically.

Why not simply leave it till they are old enough, or let them find god themselves ?

Quote:That some people think there is no God and here are reasons they think so. When I say 'facts', I don't mean there are any facts that support naturalism--just that it is a fact that people believe these things.

You don't even need to teach them that some people do not believe in gods, they find out soon enough.

As far as naturalism goes very few people actually teach it, they just teach about the world we can prove exists they simply don't add unwarranted explanations like the supernatural, if there is something they don't know, they say exactly that.

I'm going to add to this, There by necessity is a certain amount of indoctrination going on with religions of all kinds. For instance it is not practical to never talk about your faith, or pretend you don't pray (and why would you pretend you don't anyway) . then you have to take your kids to church for instance, and they are likely to meet lots of people who do believe in a god, home groups, outings etc. 

They are bound to ask questions about your faith, which I believe it is fair to answer honestly what you believe, I did this with my own daughter when I was a Christian and she was young, because of my own upbringing I had decided never to teach her that what i believed was any more than a faith or belief, which could be challenged.  I explained that faith was simply not enough to assert anything as true and that she needed to ask the right questions.

She did, often and is a atheist i couldn't be prouder, she still loves and keeps in touch with her church 'Aunts and Uncles' (and they with her) I maintain some good friendships from my time at church also, going out for a coffee and  a chat often, while i expect them to talk about church (as in what they have been doing) they rarely bring up faith as subject and we get along fine.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 3 users Like possibletarian's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard, Glossophile
Reply
#81

Indoctrination
Just how many wildly unsupported claims can this fucktard make?

Steve Wrote:There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness).


There are NO arguments to be made supporting the "existence" of any supernatural entities. There
never has, and there never will be. The so-called supernatural world is simply one of fantasy fiction.
And as for "experiential"? There's never been one recorded, empirical example of the observation or
experience of God, or any other of the so-called gods.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Deesse23, possibletarian, brunumb
Reply
#82

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness). At the least, they don't prove anything--but they are logically valid, have no defeaters, and therefore show that it is possible that God exists.

Or multiple gods, or an insentient phenomenon or phenomena of some sort.

Quote:2. There are no positive arguments to think naturalism is true. Absence of evidence is not a positive argument because the conclusion logically could never be "there is no God".

Naturalism plays nice with science, so it's valuable in that respect.  Agree that the conclusion "There is no God" is a non sequitur; however, the agnostic atheist position "I haven't seen any evidence for gods" can stand on its own merit without being tied to naturalism.

Quote:WHY it matters. Without positive arguments to show that naturalism is true, there is no actual justification the atheist has to claim that the theist is wrong and it really, by definition is an opinion that the theist is wrong.   BUT, every other post in this subforum does not just claim a simple opinion. They claim the theist is not only  wrong, but stupid, uneducated, and much worse.

If nothing else, opinions are subjectively valid and inform our behaviours.  An unconvinced individual tends to say "I don't find _______ convincing."  Sometimes that comes across as an attack on the other person; sometimes it devolves into an attack, especially if one or the other party asserts that they have the truth and their interlocutor is just choosing to ignore it.  

Quote:WHY it matters, next level.  Smarter atheists are more careful but they still can fall into a particular trap. In many of their arguments they 'beg the question'. That is, they make an argument that relies on the assumption that the theist is wrong. This is a fallacy and whatever argument is being made cannot support the conclusion they think it does.

Not quite seeing this.  Could you give a short example?
The following 2 users Like Astreja's post:
  • epronovost, possibletarian
Reply
#83

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 05:07 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 04:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: Where did I say "uncritically"?

Then what is 'the truth of the existence of god'' if not an uncritical assertion ?

Quote:No, it's not. You need "uncritically" to be a present. You supplied that, I didn't.

No we don't not at all, we just need your claim that you are teaching what you cannot prove as a 'truth' to the child.

Quote:Sure, at the appropriate age when your child is equipped to weight the evidence and reasons for and against God, you can let them decide. Judging by the participants here, that seems to be a moving target though. It is foolish to demand a 5 year old should decide if God exists and it does not meet the definition of indoctrination because there was no possible way the concept could be understood critically so therefore there cannot be an intention to teach it uncritically.

Why not simply leave it till they are old enough, or let them find god themselves ?

Quote:That some people think there is no God and here are reasons they think so. When I say 'facts', I don't mean there are any facts that support naturalism--just that it is a fact that people believe these things.

You don't even need to teach them that some people do not believe in gods, they find out soon enough.

As far as naturalism goes very few people actually teach it, they just teach about the world we can prove exists they simply don't add unwarranted explanations like the supernatural, if there is something they don't know, they say exactly that.

I'm going to add to this, There by necessity is a certain amount of indoctrination going on with religions of all kinds. For instance it is not practical to never talk about your faith, or pretend you don't pray (and why would you pretend you don't anyway) . then you have to take your kids to church for instance, and they are likely to meet lots of people who do believe in a god, home groups, outings etc. 

They are bound to ask questions about your faith, which I believe it is fair to answer honestly what you believe, I did this with my own daughter when I was a Christian and she was young, because of my own upbringing I had decided never to teach her that what i believed was any more than a faith or belief, which could be challenged.  I explained that faith was simply not enough to assert anything as true and that she needed to ask the right questions.

She did, often and is a atheist i couldn't be prouder, she still loves and keeps in touch with her church 'Aunts and Uncles' (and they with her) I maintain some good friendships from my time at church also, going out for a coffee and  a chat often, while i expect them to talk about church (as in what they have been doing) they rarely bring up faith as subject and we get along fine.

I appreciate your longer explanation.

However, you are still defining 'indoctrination' as teaching thing you can't prove. That is NOT the definition.

in·doc·tri·na·tion
/inˌdäktrəˈnāSHən/
noun
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

or if you prefer, from the Wikipedia article I quoted in the OP: " Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

In both definitions, intention is required. "Teaching...to accept" "...is expected...". You cannot indoctrinate someone accidentally.

Regarding "proof", neither of the definitions require that the information transferred be facts. The first mentioned "a set of beliefs" and the second "doctrines". The obvious example is when we teach our children morality/values. Do you want to characterize that as indoctrination? You can certainly go with the older concept of indoctrination that I posted in the OP but then that removes the "wrongness" you want to assign to it. You are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Reply
#84

Indoctrination
Steve Wrote:There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness).


There are "arguments". They are not even slightly convincing. They were invented by religionists to tell themselves their delusions are rational.
On the one hand you people claim to know all sorts of things about your particular deity, and on the other your scripture tells you it is "unfathomable".
LOL

What we observe in this universe is precisely what one would expect to observe, if there were no gods.
You presume FAR too much when you write "for God" ... *as if* (of course you are a presuppositionalist, which means you are totally incapable of approaching the subject in an objective manner) ... despite the fact that BY YOUR OWN definition on this forum, your god does not exist, and you presume that your particular deity, (which exists nowhere except in your head), which has nothing special to recommend it, is *the* god" about whom we must be concerned.

Jesus (as portrayed in the gospels) is an apocalyptic Jew. He did not preach using "arguments".
The Jesus which Christianity has invented as having some sort of equivalence to Yahweh is totally out of step with Hebrew (Biblical) culture.
When Jesus was asked by the young man in Matthew what he needed to do to gain eternal life, the reply was "keep the commandments".
He did not say, "Just you wait. I'ma gonna be dyin' fer your sins". Christianity was invented from nothing. It does not flow from the origins it claims.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ, brunumb
Reply
#85

Indoctrination
LOL... poor old Steve has been reduced to arguing his point using semantics.  Dictionary definitions
are usually confirmation that someone's been backed into a corner with nowhere to go.

Steve Wrote:You cannot indoctrinate someone accidentally.

This claim is absurd.  Of course you can.  One only has to think of the 4-year-old child that accompanies
his zealous parents to their church every Sunday for several years.  The poor kid is gonna be effectively
indoctrinated by default, and he or she certainly has no say in this.  The kid's gonna start out life believing
that gods and angels and devils really exist in some unseen magical place, that some animals can talk, and
that a man really walked on water, and came back to life after being killed.

And boy oh boy... that's  indoctrination with a capital "I".
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Glossophile
Reply
#86

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 05:45 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness). At the least, they don't prove anything--but they are logically valid, have no defeaters, and therefore show that it is possible that God exists.

Or multiple gods, or an insentient phenomenon or phenomena of some sort.

Quote:2. There are no positive arguments to think naturalism is true. Absence of evidence is not a positive argument because the conclusion logically could never be "there is no God".

Naturalism plays nice with science, so it's valuable in that respect.  Agree that the conclusion "There is no God" is a non sequitur; however, the agnostic atheist position "I haven't seen any evidence for gods" can stand on its own merit without being tied to naturalism.

Quote:WHY it matters. Without positive arguments to show that naturalism is true, there is no actual justification the atheist has to claim that the theist is wrong and it really, by definition is an opinion that the theist is wrong.   BUT, every other post in this subforum does not just claim a simple opinion. They claim the theist is not only  wrong, but stupid, uneducated, and much worse.

If nothing else, opinions are subjectively valid and inform our behaviours.  An unconvinced individual tends to say "I don't find _______ convincing."  Sometimes that comes across as an attack on the other person; sometimes it devolves into an attack, especially if one or the other party asserts that they have the truth and their interlocutor is just choosing to ignore it.  

Quote:WHY it matters, next level.  Smarter atheists are more careful but they still can fall into a particular trap. In many of their arguments they 'beg the question'. That is, they make an argument that relies on the assumption that the theist is wrong. This is a fallacy and whatever argument is being made cannot support the conclusion they think it does.

Not quite seeing this.  Could you give a short example?

Again, I have no problem with your positions. They are reasoned and reasonable inferences from your experience. Why do I phrase it that way? Because others may have different experiences that affect the 'reasonable-ness' of a position. To illustrate, take an extreme example: Say you were around in first century Palestine and you happened across and witnessed Jesus making the paralyzed-from-birth man walk as the account from Mark 2:1-12 describes. Say you were the happy-go-lucky atheist you are now when you witnessed this--and you went and made sure this man was really paralyzed from birth and were convinced that it was. If you are still tempted to insist on a naturalistic explanation, you would remember the context and see that such an explanation is vastly improbable. It's reasonable to think there might be a supernatural world (notice the modest claim).

Now this was an extreme example to illustrate a point. Your experiences can determine what is a reasonable inference. Christians who pursue the NT version of being a Christian (as opposed to nominal Christians) experience God in their lives. They are not Christians because the universe needs a first cause. But many atheist deny this experience as real--but if it was experienced, you are perfectly justified in thinking God exists. What about if you saw other's lives that you knew and trusted and they described the same thing? The reasonable-ness increases. The technical term: you have warrant for your belief that God is real. Not proof, warrant.

EXAMPLES of typical atheist question-begging (circular reasoning):

It was easier to find someone else who had written them out. But if you have been here more than a month, you have seen a version (shorter or longer) of every one of these in this subforum. Usually the first premise is not stated, but obviously necessary to the attempt at a logical argument.

1 There is no God. (hidden but necessary to the logic)
2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.
3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.
4 The Bible contains reports of miracles.
5 Therefore, the Bible contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
6 Therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
8 Therefore, there is no God.

1 God does not exist. (hidden but necessary to the logic)
2 Therefore, God does not personally reveal His existence to people.
3 When people think they are having experiences of God, this experience can be fully explained in terms of naturalistic causation, using scientific terms (particularly through neurological studies).
4 Therefore, people do not have experiences of God.
5 Therefore, testimonies of God’s existence do not prove that God exists.
6 Therefore, God does not exist.

1 Evangelical Christians are controlled by irrational forces. (hidden but necessary to the logic)
2 Therefore, they are no longer able to reason.
3 Therefore, their beliefs are not based on reason.
4 Therefore, we can reject their beliefs as false.
5 Therefore, their belief in the existence of heaven and hell is irrational.
6 Therefore, evangelical Christians are controlled by irrational beliefs.

https://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/th...-atheists/
Reply
#87

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 02:15 PM)SteveII Wrote: While you can affirm the existence of God to a 5 year old, you cannot describe the merits of naturalism and why you think the position is insufficient in explanatory scope with that 5 year old. SO, failing to teach the position of naturalism to a 5 year old IS NOT indoctrination.

It is, however, failing to provide one's child a drive to search for reasons why things are the way they are.

By the way, I didn't have to describe the merits of naturalism to my son at that age. Nor did I tell my son that religious faith is stupid or wrong. I simply told him I didn't believe, and when he asked why not, I gave him answers appropriate to his age and cognition.

(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness). At the least, they don't prove anything--but they are logically valid, have no defeaters, and therefore show that it is possible that God exists.

Actually, all five are logically flawed.

(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 2. There are no positive arguments to think naturalism is true. Absence of evidence is not a positive argument because the conclusion logically could never be "there is no God".

There is objective evidence that naturalism works; it's called applied science. Can naturalism have been invented by your god? Sure, I guess. But then you're simply adding another, unproven explanation to a system that doesn't need it.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#88

Indoctrination
deleted... because i was talking gobshyte
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#89

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:19 PM)possibletarian Wrote: 2) Experiences~
Many religions claim spiritual experiences ...

I don't think you understand. If the experiences were had by a believer in Christ, they are evidence. If those experiences were had by a believer in Odin, Krishna, Apollo, or [...] they are superstition.

To say nothing of those of us who have experienced the ineffable and don't believe in any higher power(s).
The following 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • possibletarian, Deesse23, brunumb, TheGentlemanBastard, Glossophile
Reply
#90

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:25 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 07:19 PM)possibletarian Wrote: 2) Experiences~
Many religions claim spiritual experiences ...

I don't think you understand. If the experiences were had by a believer in Christ, they are evidence. If those experiences were had by a believer in Odin, Krishna, Apollo, or [...] they are superstition.

To say nothing of those of us who have experienced the ineffable and don't believe in any higher power(s).

Aye we both know how that one goes.. it's only really of god if it's 'My' religion.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
The following 2 users Like possibletarian's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#91

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There is objective evidence that naturalism works; it's called applied science. Can naturalism have been invented by your god? Sure, I guess. But then you're simply adding another, unproven explanation to a system that doesn't need it.

Exactly.

Theologians have never innovated or invented a new technology or corrected an error in science. Your cell phone and your flat screen TV and indeed your indoor plumbing are evidence that naturalism works. Unanswered prayer is evidence that supernaturalism doesn't work.

That is not to say that science has all the answers, but that it has some answers and an excellent track record with the answers it has provided.

And it is to say that religion has bad answers and a shit track record with the answers it has provided.

I have tried religious answers to real world problems and found them not only wrong, but usually 180 degrees wrong.
The following 4 users Like mordant's post:
  • Deesse23, Thumpalumpacus, brunumb, Glossophile
Reply
#92

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 02:15 PM)SteveII Wrote: While you can affirm the existence of God to a 5 year old, you cannot describe the merits of naturalism and why you think the position is insufficient in explanatory scope with that 5 year old. SO, failing to teach the position of naturalism to a 5 year old IS NOT indoctrination.

It is, however, failing to provide one's child a drive to search for reasons why things are the way they are.

By the way, I didn't have to describe the merits of naturalism to my son at that age. Nor did I tell my son that religious faith is stupid or wrong. I simply told him I didn't believe, and when he asked why not, I gave him answers appropriate to his age and cognition.

How much drive does a 5 year old have "to search for reasons why things are the way they are?"

My point is that if I believe in the existence of God, it is not the same your non-belief (as atheists are so fond of characterizing). So it does not play out the same as something that does not really matter to a child (like if naturalism true or not).

Quote:
(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 1. There are arguments for God's existence in at least 5 different categories (natural, historical, moral, experiential, and consciousness). At the least, they don't prove anything--but they are logically valid, have no defeaters, and therefore show that it is possible that God exists.

Actually, all five are logically flawed.

Careful with your words. All of the arguments are properly formed so are logically valid. That is not debated. I intend on responding to AlanV's atheist handbook soon. You can comment then.

Quote:
(03-10-2020, 03:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: 2. There are no positive arguments to think naturalism is true. Absence of evidence is not a positive argument because the conclusion logically could never be "there is no God".

There is objective evidence that naturalism works; it's called applied science. Can naturalism have been invented by your god? Sure, I guess. But then you're simply adding another, unproven explanation to a system that doesn't need it.

You misunderstand the word.

nat·u·ral·ism
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
2.the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

to illustrate the difference: everyone believes in that natural world and science. Most people do not believe in naturalism.
Reply
#93

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)mordant Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 07:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There is objective evidence that naturalism works; it's called applied science. Can naturalism have been invented by your god? Sure, I guess. But then you're simply adding another, unproven explanation to a system that doesn't need it.

Exactly.

Theologians have never innovated or invented a new technology or corrected an error in science. Your cell phone and your flat screen TV and indeed your indoor plumbing are evidence that naturalism works. Unanswered prayer is evidence that supernaturalism doesn't work.

That is not to say that science has all the answers, but that it has some answers and an excellent track record with the answers it has provided.

And it is to say that religion has bad answers and a shit track record with the answers it has provided.

I have tried religious answers to real world problems and found them not only wrong, but usually 180 degrees wrong.

How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

When you say "...are evidence that naturalism works", that shows you are using the word wrong. Naturalism is a philosophical position on whether the supernatural exists. The natural world is not evidence that there is no supernatural world. That is a non sequitur.

Religion does not provide scientific answers, so I don't know what you are referring to. I don't know what real world problems you were trying to solve so I can't really comment there either.
Reply
#94

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: Everyone believes in that natural world and science. Most people do not believe in naturalism.

Thanks for the perfect example of the ad populum fallacy. Whistling

BTW, since you lave absolutely no credibility here, how do you know that ?
You have polling research ?
(I thought not). Dismissed.
Reply
#95

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: How much drive does a 5 year old have "to search for reasons why things are the way they are?"

You're obviously not a parent. "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "Daddy, what is the Moon?" "Daddy, where do babies come from?"

Children have questions for everything, including many things for which we have no answers. That doesn't mean that "Son, God works in mysterious ways" is a useful answer.

Anyone who's raised a child knows these questions I've mentioned. Us parents have heard them.

(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: My point is that if I believe in the existence of God, it is not the same your non-belief (as atheists are so fond of characterizing). So it does not play out the same as something that does not really matter to a child (like if naturalism true or not).

You're right, your belief is not the same as my non-belief -- because your belief is founded upon unknowables which you cannot explain. I, on the other hand, can say, to the questions above, "Rayleigh scattering", or "a body of dirt like the Earth", or "the fertilization of an egg by a sperm cell". In other words, I can give naturalistic answer that holds together in an explanatory manner without appeal to some inchoate and unproven belief. Or if I don't know, I can be honest and say as much, and we can go look it up. It's a great way to teach a child about the world. It's much more accurate than grabbing the Bible and reading your child Genesis.

Know why? Because it doesn't appeal to anything but the facts. And when we don't have facts at our command, saying "I don't know" is also an important lesson: it teaches your child humility and also how to go about discovering and learning things.

I've yet to see those benefits from religion.

(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: Careful with your words. All of the arguments are properly formed so are logically valid. That is not debated. I intend on responding to AlanV's atheist handbook soon. You can comment then.

False premises result in faulty logic. Example:

A: All lollipops are unicorns
B: John is a lollipop
C: John is a unicorn

The logic is fine, but it has one false premise and one false statement in it, rendering it entirely useless.

Anselm's "proofs" suffer the same flaw -- for instance, defining "existence" as a "perfection".

So no, it's shitty logic, not because it doesn't follow the forms, but because the premises are crap. GIGO.

(03-10-2020, 07:43 PM)SteveII Wrote: You misunderstand the word.

nat·u·ral·ism
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
2.the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

to illustrate the difference: everyone believes in that natural world and science. Most people do not believe in naturalism.

You'll need to show me some phenomena that is both a) well-evidenced and b) definitely not susceptible to a naturalistic explanation.

Note that a) excludes your personal experiences, and b) would require you to explain how the supernatural can interact with the natural such that we material humans can perceive it.

So I understand the wording; I simply disagree with your specious conclusions.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard, Deesse23, Glossophile
Reply
#96

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 08:07 PM)SteveII Wrote: How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

So when a starving mother cries out to the heavens for food for her children and they die of starvation that's an answered prayer, the answer was simply no ?

Are all prayers answered ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#97

Indoctrination
And still this intellectual cripple rambles ever onwards...

Steve Wrote:My point is that if I believe in the existence of God, it is not the same your non-belief (as atheists are so fond of characterizing).

He simply can't comprehend that some atheists—like me—are more correctly defined as ignostics.   He
seems to think all atheists deny the existence of God or gods.  I for one don't.  If I was  to deny their
existence, from a purely theoretical viewpoint, then I'd also be indirectly confirming the possibility that
they could  exist.          My stance is rather more non-specific—that no paranormal or supernatural
phenomena has ever been proved to exist.

Steve Wrote:How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

Prayers rare never answered; never have been and never will be.  A prayer is simply wishful thinking by
someone who's deluded into believing that God or gods actually exist in the real world, and hold some
sort of power over worldly events.  Prayers can of course be psychologically reassuring to some people
in times of stress or danger, but ultimately they're worthless in any real sense.

At any rate, of course we come back always to this;  theists make the claim that prayers work, therefore
it's their task to provide the supporting evidence as the proponents of such a claim.  It's not the task of
their opponents to prove that prayers do not work.      Simple logic.

And there's an easy test confirming this;  somebody ask Steve to prove that leprechauns don't exist.  He'll
probably choose to ignore this challenge, but at any rate he won't be able to offer any viable proof.  At the
same time though, he's asking us to prove gods don't exist.

(He's got me on his 'ignore' list as I posed too many
pointed but very simple questions he couldn't cope with LOL.)
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard, Deesse23
Reply
#98

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 09:05 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 08:07 PM)SteveII Wrote: How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

So when a starving mother cries out to the heavens for food for her children and they die of starvation that's an answered prayer, the answer was simply no...

The other possibility is that Steve's god is an absolute cunt.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#99

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 09:17 PM)SYZ Wrote: And still this intellectual cripple rambles ever onwards...

Steve Wrote:My point is that if I believe in the existence of God, it is not the same your non-belief (as atheists are so fond of characterizing).

He simply can't comprehend that some atheists—like me—are more correctly defined as ignostics.   He
seems to think all atheists deny the existence of God or gods.  I for one don't.  If I was  to deny their
existence, from a purely theoretical viewpoint, then I'd also be indirectly confirming the possibility that
they could  exist.          My stance is rather more non-specific—that no paranormal or supernatural
phenomena has ever been proved to exist.

Steve Wrote:How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

Prayers rare never answered; never have been and never will be.  A prayer is simply wishful thinking by
someone who's deluded into believing that God or gods actually exist in the real world, and hold some
sort of power over worldly events.  Prayers can of course be psychologically reassuring to some people
in times of stress or danger, but ultimately they're worthless in any real sense.

At any rate, of course we come back always to this;  theists make the claim that prayers work, therefore
it's their task to provide the supporting evidence as the proponents of such a claim.  It's not the task of
their opponents to prove that prayers do not work.      Simple logic.

And there's an easy test confirming this;  somebody ask Steve to prove that leprechauns don't exist.  He'll
probably choose to ignore this challenge, but at any rate he won't be able to offer any viable proof.  At the
same time though, he's asking us to prove gods don't exist.

(He's got me on his 'ignore' list as I posed too many
pointed but very simple questions he couldn't cope with LOL.)

Oh we are aware that theists speak with forked tongue Wink
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply

Indoctrination
(03-10-2020, 09:18 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 09:05 PM)possibletarian Wrote:
(03-10-2020, 08:07 PM)SteveII Wrote: How can you possibly know that prayers are unanswered? It is truly not possible.

So when a starving mother cries out to the heavens for food for her children and they die of starvation that's an answered prayer, the answer was simply no...

The other possibility is that Steve's god is an absolute cunt.

[Image: JfhOEVO.jpg]

"... but he loves you -- and he needs MONEY!"
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ, Phaedrus, TheGentlemanBastard, Deesse23
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)