Religious guilt tripping.

Post Reply New Topic

You seem to like quoting me when I said:

You don't seem to understand that I was talking specifically about the question of how the universe came to be. This wasn't a statement about all knowledge. Clearly we can and do know a significant amount about science and history.

If you are not interested in proving anything and are just going to insist that you know that you know, then there is no point to having a discussion.



Nope. I was responding to the following question:



Science starts from a position of neutrality. It does not presuppose that God does exist or that God doesn't exist. If someone were to make the claim that they can prove that no god exists, then in that case they would bear a burden of proof. Atheists do not claim to know or be able to prove that no god exists; our position is that we are not convinced until the burden of proof for the existence of a god has been met. We aren't stubbornly refusing to accept that the burden of proof has been met, because it hasn't. Theists often think they have met this burden when the reality is that their arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. You insist that the burden of proof has been met. But when asked to show your evidence, you hide behind "I'm not trying to prove anything" and "you're never satisfied with any amount of evidence." This is just you being a sore loser.

Again, if you think you can meet the burden of proof, please present your evidence. If you're not interested in proving anything, then there's no discussion to be had.

We don't have faith that gravity exists. We know gravity exists because we have evidence of its existence. This is one of the absolutely easiest things to test. All you need to do if lift up and object and then let go of it in mid air; it will fall to the ground. You can repeat this experiment as many times as you like and you will always get consistent results. You can repeat the experiment with different objects and get consistent results. You can repeat the experiment at any location on the Earth's surface and get consistent results. We have evidence of gravity. We don't have any evidence for the existence of God.

You can't make an argument that presupposes what you're trying to prove. You're basically saying God exists because God exists therefore God exists. This is a logical fallacy know as Begging the Question. You can read more about it here: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,called%20arguing%20in%20a%20circle.

It's clear that you don't have a clue how logic works.



It happens when, and more importantly, if sufficient evidence is presented. To the best of my knowledge, that has never happened.

We know that multicellular life didn't appear until roughly 3.5 billion year after the Earth was formed. And the first humans didn't appear for another billion years after that. That contradicts the accounts of Genesis.

We know that Noah's flood didn't happen for a number of reasons. First of all, a global flood would have left behind an overwhelming body of physical evidence; none of which exists. Multiple civilization that existed when the flood is supposed to have happened were unaffected by it. Furthermore, it couldn't have happened logically. Animals living in remote locations across the planet, many of which are separated by entire oceans, somehow managed to travel to a location in the Middle East to board the ark?! It was impossible for the ark to be large enough to fit specimens of every species of land animal on Earth. The carnivores on the ark couldn't have survived unless they ate all the prey animals; but if they did that then the prey animals would be extinct. The logistics of the ark are impossible.

Historians were not committed to a belief that the Biblical record is false. They did not assume that the Bible is false and then look for evidence that supports that. They started from a position of neutrality and allowed the evidence to guide them. The conclusion they reached was not of their choosing. Likewise for myself. The possibility that other ancient religions splintered from the Hebrew religion was considered, but the evidence did not support it. We know that these beliefs existed in other religions first because we've found documentation of them in those other religions that predates their appearance in the Bible. I hate to break this to you, but it isn't anyone's fault that the evidence doesn't support your beliefs. Historians didn't set out with an agenda to discredit the Bible. The facts are just what they are.

Davinci Code and Angels and Demons were never intended to be presented as anything other than works of fiction. You don't appear to understand that.

Dorkseid: Let me save you a little time and energy. I noticed you only joined this website last year. WP has a much longer history with much more, um, INTENSE anti-theists than you. They could be outright abusive towards theists, and they caused enough trouble that mods began enforcing rules which in turn resulted in a lot of butthurt and their subsequent exit. For me, it has meant that WP is a much less interesting place than it used to be.

But I’ve done this here for a long time, and some well-meaning WPers tried to give me advice that I more/less ignored. That advice amounted to basically what I’m telling you now—that those users have been around the same block, that they’ve had all these arguments before, and there’s what I’m saying is nothing new. Nothing I can say will change anything.

What followed was a steady evolution in my thinking, meaning by now I can understand the point they were trying to make. How that is relevant to our most recent exchange is, as you correctly observed, certain things are not up for discussion. With regard to history and the nature of scientific inquiry in actual practice you are dead wrong. I’m not interested in a discussion on evidence because you already have all the evidence anyone ever needs, and every time you come back with some other argument, you merely prove my point that you don’t want the burden of proof to be met.

What you don’t get about me is I already understand that, that as far as engaging with atheists and anti-theists, you are nothing special. It is sufficient for me that I know what I know, that I know WHO I know, and I have no interest in trying to convince someone who has no desire to be convinced. You can make any excuse you want for it, but it boils down to the old, familiar pattern that one does not wish certain things to be true and will hide under the blanket of skepticism—and there’s only just so much thumbsucking I’m willing to put up with.

The most annoying part is the accusation of circular reasoning. That was a pretty big blunder on your part as it demonstrates your unwillingness to see the point I was making. Axioms are used to prove other things. They are not used to prove themselves. You cannot have a meaningful discussion about the Bible without presupposing the Bible is true. You cannot have a religion based on the Bible without presupposing the Bible is true. You are failing to acknowledge your own presuppositions. For instance, you are merely taking the word of so-called historians over the word of those who actually did live within the time frame in question. You are presupposing that the Bible is false or unreliable. You weren’t there, so you don’t know with certainty what supposed evidence really means. You’re just drawing conclusions from some appeal to authority. Moreover, you’re picking from sources that support your own presuppositions. You aren’t going to show that I’m wrong about something if all you do is jack my MO.

You can argue that however you like and deny it as you wish, but what I’m getting at is I’ve seen the same, exact, predictable pattern. The atheists I’ve engaged here years and years ago were at least smart enough not to hand wave anything as circular reasoning. Using the scientific method is circular reasoning. The dirty little secret of human reasoning is ALL human reasoning is inherently circular. If you want to honestly know more about Christ, that’s a discussion worth having. Otherwise, there’s little point in continuing in this direction.

I am not appealing to authority. I'm not taking the word of historians. Historians don't just say it's so because I say it is; they present their evidence for the conclusions they reach. I know they are reliable because they underwent peer review.

The Bible is not the account of people who were there. It is well known that the Gospels were written many years after the time of Jesus, with the earliest being written no earlier than 40 years after the time of Jesus' death and supposed resurrection. It is also well know that the Gospels were not written by the disciples they are respectively attributed to. Moses is supposedly the author of Deuteronomy, but that's impossible since Deuteronomy recounts his death. And even you cannot claim that Moses was alive and present to witness the events of Genesis.

You actually got me curious here (no sarcasm): According to your view, what types of evidence would it be that unbelievers already have but fail to accept?

To clarify: I'm not asking you to try to convince me of what you believe to be true, and I'm not asking you to convince me that you're right to believe it either.

Sorry if you've already explained it in your other posts btw. It's too much for me to read right now.

He's not going to answer your question.

He's just going to keep circling back around to it being a waste of time because the mean old atheist won't accept it.

But you don’t know that peer review can be trusted. For all you know, peer review journals are just mutual admiration societies. Hoaxes have even met the standard for publication and were never caught until the person who submitted the paper spoke up. You still don’t have anything more than an appeal to authority. All you can do is ASSUME that scholars are being honest. You have no actual assurance that they are.

And even what you mentioned about the Gospels and the time of their writing is based on assumptions of when they were written. You don’t know when they were written any more than those who want to discredit them.

Well that's too bad. I am genuinely curious.

As a practicing Christian and former seminarian, who participates in an active church group and reads the bible every day, my father doesn't seem to believe that there's any incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God that I'm missing. As far as I know, he would explicitly say that there isn't, and that that is nearly the whole point. He's probably just a little disappointed that I don't look for that particular personal experience of it myself anymore. I'm glad that he sees no reason to try and convince me. We still talk about philosophy with each other.

I find it extremely confusing that someone would reach the conclusion that atheists (or more specifically "agnostics", if we are to be more pedantic about nomenclature) are fundamentally failing to acknowledge something incontrovertible.

@AngelRho

Here's my challenge: I won't invoke historical scholarship, evolution, or geology. I'm going to ask you questions that involve only knowledge that is commonly accepted and understood by laypeople.

Many animals live in places that are separated by oceans. Koalas and kangaroos live in Australia. Llamas and alpacas live in South America. These animals would need to cross entire oceans to get to the Middle East to board the ark. Do you have an objection to any of these premises?

How did these animals get to the ark?

Lions and tigers are carnivores. It is impossible for them to survive without eating other animals. Do you have an objection to this premise?

How did carnivores like lions and tigers survive the flood? If they did not eat any of the other animals, they would be extinct. If they did eat other animals on the ark, those animals would be extinct.

There are hundreds of thousands of animal species that dwell on land. There are over 6,000 species of land dwelling mammals alone. Many of these animals, like bears, elephants, gorillas, and crocodiles are very large. Do you have an objection to these premises?

How was it possible to fit at least two of each species, along with the food necessary to feed them all, onto the ark?

Plants that live on land, like trees and grasses, need sun and air to survive. Do you object to this premise?

How did plants survive the flood?

You're still missing the point. I've done these kinds of debates enough to be bored by them. You're using your own refusal to understand as a way to deny something Christians understand as truth. You already have all the evidence, so there's no excuse for disbelief.

Good! Then it should be easy for you to respond.



What am I refusing to understand about basic world geography and biodiversity?

It's clear that you're incapable of answering my challenge.

It's not a challenge that deserves to be answered. In order to seriously consider your questions, I have to accept the premise that there is cause for doubt with regard to the facts of the Bible. I have no such doubts, and thus I have no reason to accept that premise.

Last edited by AngelRho on 20 Feb 2021, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's not a "type" of evidence exactly. God has revealed Himself to everyone, and God's attributes have always been clearly perceived.

I think a lot of the problem is that sin has an effect on the human mind such that rational thought isn't possible, or at least not on any level that any person can make any certain claims to knowledge. Evidence claims will never work because the human mind by itself is incapable of understanding to what it is that the evidence is pointing. You cannot be certain that your senses or the statements of other human beings are reliable, in other words. If knowledge is impossible because the human mind is unreliable due to the deleterious effects of sinful human nature, then claims that there is no God or that Jesus is not God's Son or the Bible is wrong are absurd claims because the person making such claims cannot honestly claim to know any of those things with certainty. That person cannot make ANY claims with any degree of certainty. If truth claims are impossible for non-Christians to make, the Christian has no reason to take anti-Christian claims seriously.

I think you misinterpret what the word "evidence" means. If it's not in any way evident, then it's not evidence. And if it's only evident to you, with no way for you to make it evident to others, then it's still not evidence.


Talking in terms of strict logical extremes, yes, that statement is correct. If you interpret "sins" there as "general human limitations", then that's Socratic thinking. What is not Socratic thinking is the assumption that there's anything special about the words/concepts "God", "Jesus" or "Bible" in that statement. In logical terms, absolutely nothing changes if you replace them by "Flying Spaghetti Monster", "Cheese Ravioli" and "My Foot".

In real life though, there's a simple but very useful and powerful principle to address the fundamental issue of not knowing anything: Occam's Razor. Between any two or more explanations that allow for the same ultimate effect that you're trying to explain, choose the one that demands the fewest assumptions.


If you believe whatever you believe, and you don't want to stop believing it, and you're not forcing me to do or believe anything myself because of it, then... Yeah, pretty much. But it's at best foolish to assume or profess that your belief is in any way based on logic or evidence.

In earlier posts, whenever you felt that you could counter one of my points, you didn't hesitate to do so.

For instance, when I said:

Your response was:



And when I said:



You responded:



It is only when I present an argument you cannot counter that your retort suddenly becomes:



My challenge demonstrates that it is you who have indisputable evidence that at least one of the key claims made by the Bible cannot possibly be true. And it is you who are stubbornly refusing to accept that evidence.



I obviously cannot speak for anyone other than myself. But since 'everyone' does include myself, the fact that no god has ever revealed himself to me is sufficient to demonstrate the folly of your claim.

But we're not talking about what's only evident to me. It's about what's evident for everyone. Is it logically possible for something to be self-evident and people still deny its presence? What's stopping someone from, say, asserting that the real world is an illusion and our experiences are simply part of a simulation? Or...how can you be certain we're not all brains in a vat? Or that we're not stuck in the Matrix?

The important question has to do with the nature of knowledge. In order to make claims regarding the apparently knowable universe, you first have to make the unproven assumption that there's a universe "out there" to make claims about. If, say, the universe is ultimately unknowable, there's no more reason to believe there's not a God as to believe there is.


Indeed. The God of the Bible happens to be the simplest explanation.


Exactly. The question is one of what constitutes evidence, first of all, and then what is objectively and universally satisfactory to meet a burden of proof. In actual practice, burden of proof never really has much meaning, hence why I'm not answering any "challenges." It's never about logic or evidence, but more about the individual's preference bias.

I think what certain atheists struggle with wrt burden of proof and the Christian worldview is the exact role of logic and the burden of proof. All logical conclusions must necessarily start with certain assumptions. Yes, the fewer the better, but you cannot avoid them. I used to spend hours replying to stuff like this, and I don't do it anymore. For the strict empiricist, all knowledge claims must be perceived by the senses and they must be falsifiable. To be an empiricist doesn't not require one to be an atheist, but atheists I've had discussions with in the past ordinarily took a hard empiricist approach. The hard empiricist conclusion was invariably that God is not falsifiable, therefore God does not exist. The conclusion is drawn from requiring the universe to be only the observable universe. However, the fatal flaw in this line of reasoning is that the idea of observation is only an idea--it is abstract and not directly observable. Because the empiricist cannot prove observation by using observation, the conclusion that only the observable universe exists is a logical failure.

That alone does not disprove that only the observable universe exists. It merely demonstrates that the conclusion itself is unfalsifiable and fails to meet a strong empirical standard. It is not philosophically useful to question what part of the universe exists and which part doesn't. But it IS philosophically and scientifically useful (useful, not logical) to base conclusions ASSUMING certain conditions. Whether one CAN prove God exists, or whether one DOES have evidence of the supernatural, is mostly irrelevant. One cannot draw theological conclusions without the base assumption that there's even a God at all to believe in the first place. Neither world, by evidence or proof alone, whether it's the universe in which God does exist or it's the universe in which God doesn't exist, can be said to the one we're experience. Not logically. You simply choose to believe one or the other. Atheism, therefore, same as any worldview, is not based on logic. It carries with it base assumptions upon which other conclusions may be logically drawn--though if the premises are wrong, if the presuppositions are incorrect, then it doesn't matter who is LOGICALLY correct.

But if omniscience can transcend human logic, truth can be revealed and one may draw conclusions that are not simply logically correct, but also happen to be true.

Hmmm...here's a question I DON'T have an answer for: Does logic exist if a mind is omniscient? The role of logic in human thought is to direct thinking towards making logical conclusions, which are necessary for human existence. It is necessary precisely because we do NOT know everything and is thus necessary to exist in a universe that allows for many, many unknowns. If everything is already known, does that mean there are no conclusions to draw? If you already know everything, do you even need logic?

It's like we're not even both speaking English here. It's not evident to me. It's not evident to Dorkseid. It's not evident to millions of other people. How is it evident to everyone? Just saying it is doesn't make it so.


Well, sure. You deny that god isn't evident to everyone, for example.


How can I be certain? Well... I can't. It's as simple as that.


Well... yes. That is perfectly correct and logically consistent. I just don't understand why you would ever use assertions about the fundamental inability to prove anything absolutely as absolute proof of anything specific.

I'm starting to think the misunderstanding here is that you say that it's "evident that god exists", but you really mean "it's evident that you can't prove he doesn't exist". That's an entirely different thing.


In this instance, we just have to agree to disagree. There are arguments to be made in favor of either side, but neither of us here is actually looking or expecting to change anyone's mind about it, and ultimately all objective notions do rely on unprovable/unfalsifiable subjective agreement (that's essentially what Gödel's theorem is about).


I think it's a pretty big stretch to say it's never about logic or evidence. There are many types of subjective agreement that allow for meaningful communication on objective matters. Concrete buildings are built on top of mud. We don't actually experience a type of existence where "we don't know anything at all". If someone does actually experience the reality of not knowing anything, then that's insanity. Not because it's an illogical conclusion, but because it makes life impossible.


Well that... is just pure BS. "God is not falsifiable, therefore I find it much more likely that he's a human invention instead" (it's a little more complicated than that, but let's keep it at that for the sake of simplicity). This is logical. But... "God is not falsifiable, therefore he doesn't exist"?... That makes no sense whatsoever. I mean... consciousness is not falsifiable either. Does it "therefore" not exist? It's pretty obvious that that's not how it works. If you ask me, strict atheism (by which I mean: "believing that god specifically does not exist") is as much a faith as any religious dogma.


I don't think you need to choose though. It seems completely unnecessary to me. You can very well just stick to what you know and admit to what you don't.


Yes. If that's the case, of course.


Probably not.