Furion
Well-known member
Are you worldviewless?What worldview?
Are you worldviewless?What worldview?
Beliefs do not have the burden of proof.They'll declare what they believe about things, positively, and are willing to share burden of proof.
To match your rhetoric?But why would I assert that gods don't exist?
This was stated in context of declaring a worldview, which requires burden of proof, and if one sets it forth as a claim to knowledge, obviously belief will be involved. What are they going to say. "I'm a Humanist, but I don't believe it?" Divorcing it from its context is ridiculous and bolding things does not make you less wrong. It merely highlights your error.Beliefs do not have the burden of proof.
Assertions do.
That's fine. But think bigger picture. What is your positive, comprehensive worldview? What is your best approximation of what the world is like? The idea of gods is a subset of that. No one's saying you have to know every single thing or even that you can. But you're likely to be a Naturalist of some variety. No big deal.I am happy to declare that I believe that gods do not exist, and that I find the concept of religion to be an impediment to human progress. But why would I assert that gods don't exist?
You are conflating "believe" and "believe in".What are they going to say. "I'm a Humanist, but I don't believe it?"
I am, indeed, a (methodological) naturalist, for the simple reason that nothing has been shown to my satisfaction to require the assumption of the supernatural.That's fine. But think bigger picture. What is your positive, comprehensive worldview? What is your best approximation of what the world is like? The idea of gods is a subset of that. No one's saying you have to know every single thing or even that you can. But you're likely to be a Naturalist of some variety. No big deal.
There's no escape hatch, here, 8. You divorced from context and are obscuring in an attempt to divert attention. Just let it go. It's cool.You are conflating "believe" and "believe in".
I believe in quoting primary sources. So here are a couple of assertions about objective fact from the Humanist Manifesto, bolding theirs:Christianity - the worldview - is contingent upon the accuracy of assertions about objective fact, while humanism is not; it is based on an entirely subjective holding about the interests of humanity being paramount.
Most excellent. I suggest another reason this is helpful is that it weeds out those who will waste your time, and that works from your side of the fence also.I am, indeed, a (methodological) naturalist, for the simple reason that nothing has been shown to my satisfaction to require the assumption of the supernatural.
This is so spot on... A god that is attempted to be understood just causes things like bibles or Korans to be written and all the negative cultural and psychological fallout of humans interpreting that, and then, BAM!!!!! planes get flown into buildings. If you believe in god, cool,... just sit down, shut up, and enjoy it. Or at the very least, if you want to share it, share your actual anecdotal experience of it, not your speculative projections about what it means to anybody else's eternal anything.A god that is verifiable or falsifiable isn't worthy of the term. It is a peculiar contradiction for an atheist to somehow be in possession of a criteria or standard by which to discern their gods, and these are exclusively their gods.
How about simple logic? Perhaps if we consult the definition of commonly accepted words, we might note that transcendence allows for divinity that exceeds or surpasses the quaint definitions which humanity seeks to comprehend deity. In the final analysis, do we really want gods that are easily defined and understood, or do we want a god who inspires incomprehensible awe?
1. "Religious humanists".FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
"Believes."SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
So what? You're wrong. The more you try to pick at meaningless things, the more it demonstrates it:1. "Religious humanists".
2. "Regard".
That's why I pointed out the word believes first. Everyone but you is using it in the sense I did. Remember, when you can't spot the worst poker player at the table, it's you.1. SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
"Believes."
What about when asking that God be presented for inspection? It's one thing to ask for some sort of evidence or sign that God exists, but something else to ask that one produce their gods for inspection and analysis, no?What's not is only knowing how to shout repeatedly things like "there's no evidence for God!" Not only is this a formally irrational claim, false, and a sophomoric view of the nature of evidence, it's a tell.
I've been doing this a long time and have deep connections in the atheist community. This is a tell for low-church atheism with a consistent high level of confidence.
1. "I believe that Avengers Endgame is the best film ever made."That's why I pointed out the word believes first. Everyone but you is using it in the sense I did. Remember, when you can't spot the worst poker player at the table, it's you.
Glad you asked, Shnarkle, as you're one of the more interesting folks around here. I don't mind any of the above from intellectually honest folk. I was just referencing those who apparently have learned to say nothing else and have not understood the nature of evidence.What about when asking that God be presented for inspection? It's one thing to ask for some sort of evidence or sign that God exists, but something else to ask that one produce their gods for inspection and analysis, no?
I'm curious - do you think we're justified in believing that the god of the Bible does not exist?Glad you asked, Shnarkle, as you're one of the more interesting folks around here. I don't mind any of the above from intellectually honest folk. I was just referencing those who apparently have learned to say nothing else and have not understood the nature of evidence.
For your part, and I could be very wrong going on limited data, you've appeared to me as some variety of non-cognitivist, who thinks that evidence for God is a meaningless question because we cannot even describe him such that we would even know what kind of evidence would work. Somewhere in that neighborhood close?
I be happy to test out of Freshman philosophy if you insist on it. But first, let's settle the larger question. Here's the comment you responded to:1. "I believe that Avengers Endgame is the best film ever made."
2. "I believe that Jesus rose from the dead."
Do you acknowledge the difference between these two beliefs?
Depends on the theory of justification in play, but I know plenty of atheists who are. Not enough data for you yet, but I'm hopeful.I'm curious - do you think we're justified in believing that the god of the Bible does not exist?
You imputed beliefs with a burden of proof that they do not possess.Nothing about belief, et al. Simply a general worldview comment, to which you subsequently introduced the distinction between assertion and belief while missing the point about positive worldview.
How about "I find it both insufficiently evidenced and ridiculous"?Depends on the theory of justification in play
The whole point of my comment was about manning up with a positive worldview. How you can get no burden of proof out of that is risible. Here's the salient phrase from my comment: sets forth a positive worldview and defends it.You imputed beliefs with a burden of proof that they do not possess.
I merely pointed out how that is incorrect.
That's not a standard theory of justification. If you're going feign familiarity with epistemology then act like it. Or we can go back to speaking in general terms. Your choice.How about "I find it both insufficiently evidenced and ridiculous"?
That's mine - the former gets lack of belief, and the latter pushes it into active belief to the contrary.
It's a meaningless question for those who ask, primarily because whatever ideas, meanings, descriptions, definitions, etc. they, on those extremely rare occasions; do come up with are facile at best.you've appeared to me as some variety of non-cognitivist, who thinks that evidence for God is a meaningless question because we cannot even describe him such that we would even know what kind of evidence would work. Somewhere in that neighborhood close?