'Splain this one Atheists...

[pErvinalia]

I've got two copies of it. I've got so many books, sometimes I can't remember if I previously read my own copy or a copy borrowed from the library (or literally read a library copy while I was supposed to be working as a library assistant in the library.. ). So when I'm shopping for second hand books I sometimes wind up picking up second copies of things I already own. I haven't managed to get three copies of anything yet, thankfully.

[Seth]

Stop lying. You've never produce one shred of evidence to back this bullshit up.

Oh well. My opinion is my opinion, and I'm just emulating you.

[Seth]

Seth, you have hugely missed the point in terms of limb regeneration. To assert that it could actually happen in nature in the face of a total absence of limb re-growth in any mammal whatsoever is ludicrous. I can confidently assert that there are no mammalian hexapods, because none have ever been observed, despite an intense scrutiny of the world's animals for thousands of years, both by hunters, and scientists of all stripes.

All swans are white.

That said, I find the invocation of a god thingie for things that cannot be explained nonsensical (in the literal meaning of the word) and pointless. To me the use of a god of the gaps is a non-explanation - just another way of saying "We don't know".

As for the question "Does a god exist?" itself, .... we likewise can only say "We don't know".

And that's what I've been saying to you for years now. Why is it so hard for so many people to comprehend this simple fact?

Firstly, I trust that your use of the word "you" is meant to refer to atheists in general. Speaking for myself, thanks to one of my philosophy lecturers, Alan Chalmers, who wrote this rather good and best-selling book on the topic of epistemology, In my journey from being a practising Roman Catholic to becoming an atheist via deism I have never entertained the notion that the non-existence of a god thingie can be positively disproved.

Secondly, you seem to be determined to ignore the fact that the majority of atheists do not claim that the non-existence of a god thingie can be positively disproved.

That's not what I'm addressing. What I'm addressing is the widespread and indeed ubiquitous Atheist argument that begins "God does not exist because..." Or more properly, it's usually "Because of A, which I find offensive or illogical, God does not exist." Another iteration is the indirect denial of the existence of God created by "If the biblical God did B, then he sucks" which is merely an obfuscation of the actual belief that underlies the statement, which is that God doesn't exist. It's an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy wherein the Atheist appropriates the claims of theists about the existence, nature or actions of God and uses those claims as the basis for making truth claims about the existence of God. This is a fallacy because the descriptions or opinions of theists about the existence, nature or actions of God are just that, opinions, and therefore they do not define God or God's existence.

It's a cart-before-the-horse logic failure. Atheists say "Theists claim God has attributes A, B and C. Attributes A, B and C are morally offensive or supernatural in nature. Therefore God cannot or does not exist."

The fallacy is obvious. The claims of theists about attributes A, B and C of God are opinions based on their knowledge and understanding, which may be, and probably is, faulty and/or incomplete. As a result of this fact, God may or may not actually have attributes A, B or C. But neither the assertion that God has attributes A, B and C nor the fact that God may not have attributes A, B or C says anything rational about the existence or non-existence of God. Nor, or course, does an assertion that God has attributes A, B and C by theists cause God to have attributes A, B or C. To even imply that this is the case, as the Atheist's Fallacy does, is to make God the creation of man as defined by man, which is what Atheists indirectly maintain when they form this sort of fallacious argument against the existence of God.

If God exists, then God is what God is and has whatever attributes God has which may or may not be known to human beings. The fact that theists might correctly or incorrectly observe, interpret and make claims about the nature of God and God's attributes does not impeach or affect the truth or falsity of the existence or non-existence of God. Such opinions are mere artifacts of human thought that neither define nor constrain God.

As I've said many times, the ONLY rational statement any Atheist can make about the existence, non-existence or nature of God is "I don't know." Any conclusions or arguments that go beyond this limit of rational thought are nothing more than iterations of personal bias and irrationality based on the individual's own religious beliefs about the nature and existence of God.

For example, I started a thread on this very question with an attached poll. You can find it by clicking on this link. While the number of forum members who declared themselves to be atheists ticked the "I know there is no God" option surprised me, 70% of all atheists who voted clicked on "I'm not 100% certain" Your response? Oh, they fucking lie. Somehow I don't feel excluded from your insult. Thanks for that, arsewipe.

What they say on a loaded question poll and what they actually practice and argue are two different things. Even an Atheist zealot is capable of understanding the inherent hypocrisy of their standard anti-theist arguments, so when asked to temporize and pettifog in a poll such as this, of course they are not going to say they are 100 percent certain. The problem is that, in my very, very long experience with Atheists and their arguments, this is clearly a lie used to save face when that certainty is challenged by someone like me. The response to the question "Are you 100 percent certain God does not exist" is, of course and predictably, "Well, not 100 percent, I'd change my mind if Jesus appeared here before me and proved his existence and godhood." But this is an obfuscation and nothing more. Internally, and among themselves Atheists are absolutely certain that God does not exist and say as much all the time, unless they are called to account for this irrational certainty, in which case they try to evade and wiggle out of the debate with the above argument, as if admitting some tiny degree of uncertainty compensates for all the blatant unreason and outright hatred they routinely express against theists and theism.

You may be an exception to the rule, I don't know, but what I do know is that I've never encountered and Atheist who has been rational, logical and consistent in his or her beliefs about God and theistic claims. When it suits their fancy to claim objectivity and openness to scientific evidence they will do so, but the reality is they are simply lying about their true beliefs because they know their beliefs are of a religious nature and are not supportable according to their own dogmatic demand for scientific examination and proofs.

Moreover, this ubiquitous attitude and belief system utterly banishes any putative argument that they are "atheists" with "no belief." It's perfectly clear that they are Atheists who have very firm religious beliefs on the subject of God, no matter how much they may try to deny it.

And it's moral cowardice to try to evade the obvious implications of any degree of uncertainty about the existence of God. If one is uncertain at all, then one ought to face that uncertainty head on and deal with it in a rational manner, which in this case means simply accepting the fact that you don't know whether God exists or not and stating that as your default position when the matter comes up.

I see precious little evidence that any Atheist I've ever encountered even begins to admit the truth and take a rational and intellectual stand and admit that they don't know. It's much more fun to bash theists and trumpet one's own belief system and certainty, isn't it? And while baiting and insulting theists is good fun for Atheists, doing so is in no way a rational, logical or faintly intellectual pursuit. It's pure, unadulterated religious bigotry and intolerance that is arguably more morally reprehensible than theistic religious bigotry and intolerance because it is based in knowing and deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

[mistermack]

My default position is that I don't know if a god exists or not. Or lots of gods. Or fairies. Or goblins. Or pink unicorns or celestial teapots.
Is that so hard to grasp? Don't keep miss-stating the position of millions of atheists. It's obvious trolling via the straw-man method.

[mistermack]

[Hermit]

My default position is that I don't know if a god exists or not. Or lots of gods. Or fairies. Or goblins. Or pink unicorns or celestial teapots.
Is that so hard to grasp? Don't keep miss-stating the position of millions of atheists. It's obvious trolling via the straw-man method.

Look, mate, there are several ways of dealing with inconvenient statistics. The best one is to point out that correlation is not causation. Unfortunately this approach cannot be applied to every statistic. Like when causation is not involved, such as this one. Next you claim that statistics have been fudged. Good for climate alarmists, but not people just voicing their own opinion, but luckily there is a closely related variant to this: Respondents are lying, pal. They are a bunch of liars. That's what capital a atheists do, man. Never mind that atheists who do believe they can positively know that God does not exist have no motivation to hide what they sincerely and honestly believe to be the truth, seeing the poll is anonymous, and even if it wasn't, the inquisition is not quite as scary as it used to be, but we are running out of options to deny statistics now, man, so this one will just have to do.

[Seth]

My default position is that I don't know if a god exists or not. Or lots of gods. Or fairies. Or goblins. Or pink unicorns or celestial teapots.
Is that so hard to grasp? Don't keep miss-stating the position of millions of atheists. It's obvious trolling via the straw-man method.

Look, mate, there are several ways of dealing with inconvenient statistics. The best one is to point out that correlation is not causation. Unfortunately this approach cannot be applied to every statistic. Like when causation is not involved, such as this one. Next you claim that statistics have been fudged. Good for climate alarmists, but not people just voicing their own opinion, but luckily there is a closely related variant to this: Respondents are lying, pal. They are a bunch of liars. That's what capital a atheists do, man. Never mind that atheists who do believe they can positively know that God does not exist have no motivation to hide what they sincerely and honestly believe to be the truth, seeing the poll is anonymous, and even if it wasn't, the inquisition is not quite as scary as it used to be, but we are running out of options to deny statistics now, man, so this one will just have to do.

No one EXPECTS the Inquisition!

[Brian Peacock]

It's a cart-before-the-horse logic failure. Atheists say "Theists claim God has attributes A, B and C. Attributes A, B and C are morally offensive or supernatural in nature. Therefore God cannot or does not exist."

The fallacy is obvious. The claims of theists about attributes A, B and C of God are opinions based on their knowledge and understanding, which may be, and probably is, faulty and/or incomplete. As a result of this fact, God may or may not actually have attributes A, B or C. But neither the assertion that God has attributes A, B and C nor the fact that God may not have attributes A, B or C says anything rational about the existence or non-existence of God. Nor, or course, does an assertion that God has attributes A, B and C by theists cause God to have attributes A, B or C. To even imply that this is the case, as the Atheist's Fallacy does, is to make God the creation of man as defined by man, which is what Atheists indirectly maintain when they form this sort of fallacious argument against the existence of God.

If God exists, then God is what God is and has whatever attributes God has which may or may not be known to human beings. The fact that theists might correctly or incorrectly observe, interpret and make claims about the nature of God and God's attributes does not impeach or affect the truth or falsity of the existence or non-existence of God. Such opinions are mere artifacts of human thought that neither define nor constrain God.

This is not an argument for anything - any thing. "We cannot know that something we can imagine existing exists or does not exist, nor do we have evidence for it's existence - therefore we cannot say anything meaningful about it, other than the fact we can imagine it, or something like it, existing." If theists took this position re God then they'd be agnostics. Theism doesn't claim or assert a mere imaginable possibility of existence, but an actuality of existence.

But moreover, theisms are not putting forward claims on behalf of some trivial thing, but a decidedly non-trivial thing, and it not easy to glibly qualify declarations about what God is, isn't, might or might not be with a simple 'If God exists...' Any statements which follow such an interrogative qualifier invariably fall prey to incipient tautology.

In fact, that tautolgy is there in black and white above - If God exists God is whatever God is. Well woo-hoo for that.

The point, with theism and its reactionary sibling atheism, is that we are not dealing with some deep and unintuitive notion about the possibility of something existing without defined or definable attributes, we're dealing with something with well defined properties and attributes which is claimed to exists. The actual truth status of those claims are not important, what is important is that a particullar party declares they are true and therefore we should all take due note and notice.

So you can cast atheists disbelief with the claims and assertions of theists as a mere difference of opinion about discourse in an epistemic vacuum if you wish, but that does not touch on anything to do with the issue over which theists and atheists disagree, namely the claims and assertions of theists: Theists say this, that, and/or the other non-trivial entity exists, and therefore this, that, and/or the other action is necessarily required, and atheists and atheists say, "No."

By your lights an atheist has no good reason to say no to anything to do with religion, because they can't know what they're saying no to, but if, by the same token, one has no good reason to say yes then what does one have left? Pascal's wager, or just getting on with one's life without reference to that which so many people seem absolutely convinced of and sure about?

You've spent many years taking a pop at atheists and atheism for falling short, for logical failures, for irrationality, for peddling fallacies, for adopting the 'wrong' personal or political stance in relations to God claims - much of it, by your own admissions, simply for the sport of it. But what do you think is the 'correct' personal and political response to the claims and assertions of theism and its chums? How should the truly, properly, Seth-endorsed logical, rational personal approach the issue and live their life? Should they take Pascal's wager, and if so, which one or how many, or should they just get on with their life without reference to that thing so many people seems so convinced of and sure about?

As I've said many times, the ONLY rational statement any Atheist can make about the existence, non-existence or nature of God is "I don't know." Any conclusions or arguments that go beyond this limit of rational thought are nothing more than iterations of personal bias and irrationality based on the individual's own religious beliefs about the nature and existence of God.

Well, that does rather depend on who and what God you're talking about?

I make no claims for God one way or the other; you tell me what kind of God we're talking about and I'll tell you what I think about it. Traditionally I've found the "I don't believe you" position the only reasonable one to take in the face of claims for God's existence, but I'm all ears for a compelling argument and wide open to some substantive data or evidence.

Still, questions about the actual-factual existence of God can be wholly and completely addressed and answered in terms of the evidence supporting the proposition. Got any? Or is just imagination enough?

It is illogical to assume that a thing exists without any good reasons to think that something exists - got any good reasons to think God exists?

And if it is illogical to assume the existence of a thing for which there is no evidence it is doubly so to presume that evidence needs to be put forward to factually disprove the existence of the thing for which there is no evidence. To maintain that whatever is imaginable is also actual until or unless it is, or can be, demonstrated to not be the case, is bonkers, and merely paints the issue all seven shades of shit, and then some.

The demonstrability of the existence of God is not the issue.
The failure to demonstrate the existence of God is the issue.

[Seth]

It's a cart-before-the-horse logic failure. Atheists say "Theists claim God has attributes A, B and C. Attributes A, B and C are morally offensive or supernatural in nature. Therefore God cannot or does not exist."

The fallacy is obvious. The claims of theists about attributes A, B and C of God are opinions based on their knowledge and understanding, which may be, and probably is, faulty and/or incomplete. As a result of this fact, God may or may not actually have attributes A, B or C. But neither the assertion that God has attributes A, B and C nor the fact that God may not have attributes A, B or C says anything rational about the existence or non-existence of God. Nor, or course, does an assertion that God has attributes A, B and C by theists cause God to have attributes A, B or C. To even imply that this is the case, as the Atheist's Fallacy does, is to make God the creation of man as defined by man, which is what Atheists indirectly maintain when they form this sort of fallacious argument against the existence of God.

If God exists, then God is what God is and has whatever attributes God has which may or may not be known to human beings. The fact that theists might correctly or incorrectly observe, interpret and make claims about the nature of God and God's attributes does not impeach or affect the truth or falsity of the existence or non-existence of God. Such opinions are mere artifacts of human thought that neither define nor constrain God.

This is not an argument for anything - any thing.

It's an argument for rationality and logical thought.

"We cannot know that something we can imagine existing exists or does not exist, nor do we have evidence for it's existence - therefore we cannot say anything meaningful about it, other than the fact we can imagine it, or something like it, existing."

That's well-stated and true.

If theists took this position re God then they'd be agnostics.

Yes, they would. But they don't, so what? Am I claiming that theists are thinking rationally?

Theism doesn't claim or assert a mere imaginable possibility of existence, but an actuality of existence.

Yes, it does. So what? It could be wrong, right?

But moreover, theisms are not putting forward claims on behalf of some trivial thing, but a decidedly non-trivial thing, and it not easy to glibly qualify declarations about what God is, isn't, might or might not be with a simple 'If God exists...' Any statements which follow such an interrogative qualifier invariably fall prey to incipient tautology.

In fact, that tautolgy is there in black and white above - If God exists God is whatever God is. Well woo-hoo for that.

Tautology is the point of the statement. The tautological nature of the statement demonstrates the Atheist's Fallacy and its logical failure.

The point, with theism and its reactionary sibling atheism, is that we are not dealing with some deep and unintuitive notion about the possibility of something existing without defined or definable attributes, we're dealing with something with well defined properties and attributes which is claimed to exists. The actual truth status of those claims are not important, what is important is that a particullar party declares they are true and therefore we should all take due note and notice.

So what? Do you do everything somebody tells you to do? Just because theists declares a claim is true doesn't mean you are required to respond to that claim, much less formulate logical failures purporting to rebut the claims. If you don't know what the truth value of the claim is, then the logical and rational response to the claim is "I don't know."

So you can cast atheists disbelief with the claims and assertions of theists as a mere difference of opinion about discourse in an epistemic vacuum if you wish, but that does not touch on anything to do with the issue over which theists and atheists disagree, namely the claims and assertions of theists: Theists say this, that, and/or the other non-trivial entity exists, and therefore this, that, and/or the other action is necessarily required, and atheists and atheists say, "No."

Would that Atheists just said "no." The problem is that rather than just saying "no" to a demand for action, they try to deconstruct the claim by tautologically using the proclaimed basis of the claim as evidence against itself. That's not a rational thing to do.

By your lights an atheist has no good reason to say no to anything to do with religion, because they can't know what they're saying no to, but if, by the same token, one has no good reason to say yes then what does one have left? Pascal's wager, or just getting on with one's life without reference to that which so many people seem absolutely convinced of and sure about?

One has reason and logic left. When one is unsure of something, one is generally acting rationally and logically by simply admitting that uncertainty. The problem with Atheist dogma occurs when rather than simply say "I don't know" the Atheist tries to refute the claims made by using the claims themselves as the basis of the logical argument. The flaw should be obvious; you can't found a logical argument on an illogical premise. And if you can't construct a logical argument (as a rationalist) then I'd have to say it's preferable to simply say "I don't know" rather than trumpeting one's ignorance and lack of intellectual acumen and logical reasoning ability to the very people you are trying to refute.

You can't refute an irrational argument by submitting another irrational argument, it just makes you look stupid, and that's exactly how Atheists appear to theists, and to anyone who is a rational thinker. That's bad press for those of us who are actually rational thinkers, which is why I refuse to be labeled an "atheist" (or Atheist).

You've spent many years taking a pop at atheists and atheism for falling short, for logical failures, for irrationality, for peddling fallacies, for adopting the 'wrong' personal or political stance in relations to God claims - much of it, by your own admissions, simply for the sport of it.

Yup. Well, not quite "simply for the sport of it." There actually is a deeper purpose involved.

But what do you think is the 'correct' personal and political response to the claims and assertions of theism and its chums? How should the truly, properly, Seth-endorsed logical, rational personal approach the issue and live their life? Should they take Pascal's wager, and if so, which one or how many, or should they just get on with their life without reference to that thing so many people seems so convinced of and sure about?

Here's one: "I respect your right to hold your opinions on matters of faith. If your beliefs give you comfort and solace and helps you to cope with the slings and arrows of life, and you practice your religion without harming others, then I celebrate your right to do so and will defend your exercise of that right, but as for me, well, I just don't know."

As I've said many times, the ONLY rational statement any Atheist can make about the existence, non-existence or nature of God is "I don't know." Any conclusions or arguments that go beyond this limit of rational thought are nothing more than iterations of personal bias and irrationality based on the individual's own religious beliefs about the nature and existence of God.

Well, that does rather depend on who and what God you're talking about?

I make no claims for God one way or the other; you tell me what kind of God we're talking about and I'll tell you what I think about it. Traditionally I've found the "I don't believe you" position the only reasonable one to take in the face of claims for God's existence, but I'm all ears for a compelling argument and wide open to some substantive data or evidence.

"I don't believe you" is an acceptable rebuttal, if somewhat impolite. That's why I prefer some iteration of "I just don't know." As a social lubricant, not implying that the other person is lying is useful. It's not required of course, but I prefer to respect their beliefs without either supporting or denigrating them.

Still, questions about the actual-factual existence of God can be wholly and completely addressed and answered in terms of the evidence supporting the proposition. Got any? Or is just imagination enough?

It depends on what you accept as "evidence."

It is illogical to assume that a thing exists without any good reasons to think that something exists - got any good reasons to think God exists?

Not really. I have some unexplained phenomena I'm aware of, but it's not enough to convince me either way. That's why "I don't know" is my preferred position. It states my position clearly while indicating that I'm open to any evidence that does appear.

And if it is illogical to assume the existence of a thing for which there is no evidence it is doubly so to presume that evidence needs to be put forward to factually disprove the existence of the thing for which there is no evidence. To maintain that whatever is imaginable is also actual until or unless it is, or can be, demonstrated to not be the case, is bonkers, and merely paints the issue all seven shades of shit, and then some.

The demonstrability of the existence of God is not the issue.
The failure to demonstrate the existence of God is the issue.

[/quote]

Not quite. Theists might say that they have ample evidence that convinces them of the existence of God but that evidence might not meet YOUR standards of proof. This does not mean they are right, or that you are wrong, or that they are wrong and you are right. It's a matter of perception and belief. If you believe that CERN exists and is shooting sub-atomic particles at other sub-atomic particles without having physically seen the facility and examined its function to make sure it's not a giant movie prop, but instead you rely on third and fourth hand reports of what's going on there, is your belief about CERN any more or less rational than the belief of someone who claims to have had a personal experience with God that convinces him of the existence of God?

All of us take things on faith. Science may prove a claim about the physics of the universe, but unless you do the experiment to confirm it, you're putting confidence in the proposition that the people reporting the results are doing so correctly and honestly. But just because you cannot or do not personally confirm the validity of the claim doesn't mean that your belief is necessarily irrational. Theists may have information that you do not about the existence of God which makes their beliefs just as rational as your beliefs in CERN, even though they cannot or will not submit their claims to your metric of objective proof. Or they may not.

I don't know.

[surreptitious57]

I am an apatheist and so it matters not to me whether God exists or not. The reason I say this is because it is not possible to prove that proposition
one way or another. And that is because the methodology which is normally used to investigate phenomena would be totally useless with regard to
investigating God. And the reason for that is because he is by definition metaphysical and anything which has that property cannot be investigated
by science. The question of belief or non belief in such an entity then becomes an emotional one rather than a logical one. Although it is true that
hypothetical arguments can be made for existence or non existence. But these arguments are not automatically true as such even if they are valid

So I have no problem in saying I do not know if God exists. Which gives lie to the notion of Seth thinking that atheists shall never publicly admit to
it. I have seen other atheists state that their non belief is not a significant part of their world view and I agree with this. I am far more concerned
about human beings being treated with dignity and respect so not being subject to prejudice and discrimination than about whether God exists or
not. Now if his existence could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt then obviously I could no longer be an atheist but until such a time comes I
see no reason to not carry on being one even if it is just a small part of my world view as I have said. There are of course evangelical atheists just
as much as there are evangelical theists but I am not one of them for it matters not to me what any one thinks just as long as they do not seek to
impose their beliefs upon others. So if you are reading this Seth please disavow yourself of the notion that all atheists are evangelical with regard
to non belief as that is simply not true. I have stated this before but it seems not to have registered with you. So maybe hopefully this time it will

[rainbow]

I am an apatheist and so it matters not to me whether God exists or not.

...which would be all that needed to be said, but...

The reason I say this is because it is not possible to prove that proposition
one way or another.

...or it may not be possible to determine if it is possible.

And that is because the methodology which is normally used to investigate phenomena would be totally useless with regard to
investigating God.

The methodology of which you speak, does this include spinning around like a Dervish and going into a trance?

And the reason for that is because he is by definition metaphysical and anything which has that property cannot be investigated
by science.

Can a belief system only be informed by science?
If so, can you scientifically prove this?

The question of belief or non belief in such an entity then becomes an emotional one rather than a logical one.

P'raps, but does this allow one to attach a value judgement to logic over emotion?
If so, is that not of itself a value-judgement based on emotion?

Although it is true that
hypothetical arguments can be made for existence or non existence. But these arguments are not automatically true as such even if they are valid

That isn't automatically true.

So I have no problem in saying I do not know if God exists. Which gives lie to the notion of Seth thinking that atheists shall never publicly admit to
it.

No True Atheist would admit to it.

[Brian Peacock]

It's a cart-before-the-horse logic failure. Atheists say "Theists claim God has attributes A, B and C. Attributes A, B and C are morally offensive or supernatural in nature. Therefore God cannot or does not exist."

The fallacy is obvious. The claims of theists about attributes A, B and C of God are opinions based on their knowledge and understanding, which may be, and probably is, faulty and/or incomplete. As a result of this fact, God may or may not actually have attributes A, B or C. But neither the assertion that God has attributes A, B and C nor the fact that God may not have attributes A, B or C says anything rational about the existence or non-existence of God. Nor, or course, does an assertion that God has attributes A, B and C by theists cause God to have attributes A, B or C. To even imply that this is the case, as the Atheist's Fallacy does, is to make God the creation of man as defined by man, which is what Atheists indirectly maintain when they form this sort of fallacious argument against the existence of God.

If God exists, then God is what God is and has whatever attributes God has which may or may not be known to human beings. The fact that theists might correctly or incorrectly observe, interpret and make claims about the nature of God and God's attributes does not impeach or affect the truth or falsity of the existence or non-existence of God. Such opinions are mere artifacts of human thought that neither define nor constrain God.

This is not an argument for anything - any thing.

It's an argument for rationality and logical thought.

"We cannot know that something we can imagine existing exists or does not exist, nor do we have evidence for it's existence - therefore we cannot say anything meaningful about it, other than the fact we can imagine it, or something like it, existing."

That's well-stated and true.

If theists took this position re God then they'd be agnostics.

Yes, they would. But they don't, so what? Am I claiming that theists are thinking rationally?

Theism doesn't claim or assert a mere imaginable possibility of existence, but an actuality of existence.

Yes, it does. So what? It could be wrong, right?

But moreover, theisms are not putting forward claims on behalf of some trivial thing, but a decidedly non-trivial thing, and it not easy to glibly qualify declarations about what God is, isn't, might or might not be with a simple 'If God exists...' Any statements which follow such an interrogative qualifier invariably fall prey to incipient tautology.

In fact, that tautolgy is there in black and white above - If God exists God is whatever God is. Well woo-hoo for that.

Tautology is the point of the statement. The tautological nature of the statement demonstrates the Atheist's Fallacy and its logical failure.

You can type those words, but you have to do a little more work than that to make them mean anything.

What atheist (atheist mind you, not woolly minded agnostic or those who just haven't heard the good news) goes around saying, 'If God exists God is whatever God is'? Who is committing the actually fallacy here by qualifying a justification for their argument off the back of this fallacious nonsense?

Eh?

If any reference or mention of God automatically invokes your 'Atheist Fallacy' then presumably theists invoke the 'Atheist Fallacy' all the time? The fallacy isn't specific to atheists, nor is it a fallacy. It is simply illogical to declare knowledge of that for which there is no supporting grounds.

The point, with theism and its reactionary sibling atheism, is that we are not dealing with some deep and unintuitive notion about the possibility of something existing without defined or definable attributes, we're dealing with something with well defined properties and attributes which is claimed to exists. The actual truth status of those claims are not important, what is important is that a particullar party declares they are true and therefore we should all take due note and notice.

So what? Do you do everything somebody tells you to do? Just because theists declares a claim is true doesn't mean you are required to respond to that claim, much less formulate logical failures purporting to rebut the claims. If you don't know what the truth value of the claim is, then the logical and rational response to the claim is "I don't know."

So you can cast atheists disbelief with the claims and assertions of theists as a mere difference of opinion about discourse in an epistemic vacuum if you wish, but that does not touch on anything to do with the issue over which theists and atheists disagree, namely the claims and assertions of theists: Theists say this, that, and/or the other non-trivial entity exists, and therefore this, that, and/or the other action is necessarily required, and atheists and atheists say, "No."

Would that Atheists just said "no." The problem is that rather than just saying "no" to a demand for action, they try to deconstruct the claim by tautologically using the proclaimed basis of the claim as evidence against itself. That's not a rational thing to do.

By your lights an atheist has no good reason to say no to anything to do with religion, because they can't know what they're saying no to, but if, by the same token, one has no good reason to say yes then what does one have left? Pascal's wager, or just getting on with one's life without reference to that which so many people seem absolutely convinced of and sure about?

One has reason and logic left. When one is unsure of something, one is generally acting rationally and logically by simply admitting that uncertainty. The problem with Atheist dogma occurs when rather than simply say "I don't know" the Atheist tries to refute the claims made by using the claims themselves as the basis of the logical argument. The flaw should be obvious; you can't found a logical argument on an illogical premise. And if you can't construct a logical argument (as a rationalist) then I'd have to say it's preferable to simply say "I don't know" rather than trumpeting one's ignorance and lack of intellectual acumen and logical reasoning ability to the very people you are trying to refute.

You can't refute an irrational argument by submitting another irrational argument, it just makes you look stupid, and that's exactly how Atheists appear to theists, and to anyone who is a rational thinker. That's bad press for those of us who are actually rational thinkers, which is why I refuse to be labeled an "atheist" (or Atheist).

You've spent many years taking a pop at atheists and atheism for falling short, for logical failures, for irrationality, for peddling fallacies, for adopting the 'wrong' personal or political stance in relations to God claims - much of it, by your own admissions, simply for the sport of it.

Yup. Well, not quite "simply for the sport of it." There actually is a deeper purpose involved.

But what do you think is the 'correct' personal and political response to the claims and assertions of theism and its chums? How should the truly, properly, Seth-endorsed logical, rational personal approach the issue and live their life? Should they take Pascal's wager, and if so, which one or how many, or should they just get on with their life without reference to that thing so many people seems so convinced of and sure about?

Here's one: "I respect your right to hold your opinions on matters of faith. If your beliefs give you comfort and solace and helps you to cope with the slings and arrows of life, and you practice your religion without harming others, then I celebrate your right to do so and will defend your exercise of that right, but as for me, well, I just don't know."

And what's wrong with sticking "I'm an atheist but..." on the beginning of that, and leaving off the "I just don't know" from the end? If you've not simply been doing this for the sport then perhaps you're only trying to enforce a subjective distinction on appropriate manners?

As I've said many times, the ONLY rational statement any Atheist can make about the existence, non-existence or nature of God is "I don't know." Any conclusions or arguments that go beyond this limit of rational thought are nothing more than iterations of personal bias and irrationality based on the individual's own religious beliefs about the nature and existence of God.

Well, that does rather depend on who and what God you're talking about?

I make no claims for God one way or the other; you tell me what kind of God we're talking about and I'll tell you what I think about it. Traditionally I've found the "I don't believe you" position the only reasonable one to take in the face of claims for God's existence, but I'm all ears for a compelling argument and wide open to some substantive data or evidence.

"I don't believe you" is an acceptable rebuttal, if somewhat impolite. That's why I prefer some iteration of "I just don't know." As a social lubricant, not implying that the other person is lying is useful. It's not required of course, but I prefer to respect their beliefs without either supporting or denigrating them.

This speaks more to the sensitivities of the disbelieved than the moral or social competences of the disbeliever. Who but a dogmatist or ideologue would consider disbelief as denigrating charge of lying?

Still, questions about the actual-factual existence of God can be wholly and completely addressed and answered in terms of the evidence supporting the proposition. Got any? Or is just imagination enough?

It depends on what you accept as "evidence."

No it doesn't, it depends on what ever evidence you bring to the table. Only then do we get to discuss whether it's relevant or supportive. But of course, you consider that purely a matter of personal opinion, which is a hard one to get over because it basically removes the ground for any and all arguments. Nonetheless, socially and epistemologically we should probably work to the principle that objective claims require objective support and subjective claims can be argued over but basically boil down taste.

]It is illogical to assume that a thing exists without any good reasons to think that something exists - got any good reasons to think God exists?

Not really. I have some unexplained phenomena I'm aware of, but it's not enough to convince me either way. That's why "I don't know" is my preferred position. It states my position clearly while indicating that I'm open to any evidence that does appear.

I don't know if God exists, but does that mean I should live my life as if it does? And if so, what does that entail, and if not what does that entail?

And if it is illogical to assume the existence of a thing for which there is no evidence it is doubly so to presume that evidence needs to be put forward to factually disprove the existence of the thing for which there is no evidence. To maintain that whatever is imaginable is also actual until or unless it is, or can be, demonstrated to not be the case, is bonkers, and merely paints the issue all seven shades of shit, and then some.

The demonstrability of the existence of God is not the issue.
The failure to demonstrate the existence of God is the issue.

Not quite.

Quite. An absolutely. If God's existence were demonstrated we simply would not be having this argument.

Theists might say that they have ample evidence that convinces them of the existence of God but that evidence might not meet YOUR standards of proof. This does not mean they are right, or that you are wrong, or that they are wrong and you are right. It's a matter of perception and belief. If you believe that CERN exists and is shooting sub-atomic particles at other sub-atomic particles without having physically seen the facility and examined its function to make sure it's not a giant movie prop, but instead you rely on third and fourth hand reports of what's going on there, is your belief about CERN any more or less rational than the belief of someone who claims to have had a personal experience with God that convinces him of the existence of God?

All of us take things on faith. Science may prove a claim about the physics of the universe, but unless you do the experiment to confirm it, you're putting confidence in the proposition that the people reporting the results are doing so correctly and honestly. But just because you cannot or do not personally confirm the validity of the claim doesn't mean that your belief is necessarily irrational. Theists may have information that you do not about the existence of God which makes their beliefs just as rational as your beliefs in CERN, even though they cannot or will not submit their claims to your metric of objective proof. Or they may not.

I don't know.

This isn't about my personal 'metric of objective proof', this is about rational argument, and the standards thereof, but if you wish to 'personalise' the discussion in this way then how about...

Objective claims require objective support.

Ok, I don't know if the pasty-faced and ill-socialised geeks at CERN are making it up, but the science community as a whole, along with the science media, the popular media, and very many interested amateurs are complicit in a water-tight hoax if they are. I may not have the knowledge required to interpret CERN-data myself, or the means to check and correlate it against other relevant research, but at least CERN produces open source data that people who do know that shit can check and verify. This is called peer review - it's a public process. You know all this, and raising it is a red-herring when you compare objective evidence for objective claims to subjective evidence for objective claims, and/or cast that as a personal differences of opinion over faith-based beliefs.

OK, we get the point - boy how we get it - you don't think people should be allowed to get away with declaring disbelief in something they don't know doesn't exists. But how should one live their life in the face of theist claims and assertions? You think it's impolite of atheists to tell the faithful that they don't believe them, that atheists should limit themselves to 'I really don't know.' Fine. But what happens when the theist is rather insistent that you accept their point? What happens when they declare an interest in how your child's school is run and what it taught there, or what medical procedure people should and shouldn't have access to, who you can and cannot fall in love with and how you should or shouldn't express yourself with others, or how local government spending should be allocated, or what the tax-code should be, or who should the nation go to war with - and do so with justifications from their special books and earnest declarations on its 'true meaning' from this-or-that specially authorised person or body? Is it still impolite to tell the faithful that we don't believe them, that we just don't know so we can't rationally support an opinion one way or the other?

Having discussed this issue with you for many years now, you seemed to have boiled you thesis down until its become an impenetrable carapace impervious to all counter arguments.. But to what end? It seems to me that the point of it all is to support the claim that atheism is a logical, rational, and personal failure which automatically forecloses any argument any atheist may ever put forward for not accepting or believing the claims and assertions of theism and it's chums. You just want to be right, and be seen to be right, and have others accept that you're right. Fair enough. And yet, when faced with the question of the existence of God, you declare the knowledge of not knowing -- you know you don't know if God exists.

Thomas Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' as a rejoiner to those who claimed knowledge about the existence and nature of God. In the face of claims about the existence of God (and let's not discount those who make such claims here) saying 'I don't know' admits to a disbelief in the claim - for if one believed the claim one would be counted among the claimants. In the face of claims about the existence of God (and again let's not discount those who make such claims here) an agnostic is defacto atheist.

You'll hate that, because you appear to reserve a special loathing for atheists as a group, but nonetheless you are one of us - you cannot commit to the claims and assertions of theism and its chums but you cannot bring yourself to admit that straightforwardly and openly.

Many of us when pinned down on these matters resort to qualifying our position as agnostic-atheism. We do this not as stance in itself, but as a qualifier to insistent requests for clarification. Agnostic with regards to god-claims, atheist with regards to religious authority. Your position fits this categorisation perfectly , and yet you have developed a whole system of argument predicated on demonstrating the supposed errancy of not accepting the claims and assertios of theism and its chums.

At the end of the day, that which you revile is that which you are, and your eagerness for censure and condemnation probably has more to do with the fact that locally the term 'atheism' is a rather toxic word on to which all sorts of other baggage about moral laxity, ill-virtue, and intolerance have been hoisted. You keep applying your social lubricant where you have to, and you definitely should do that btw, but at the end of the day your screed against anyone calling themselves an atheist only serves to reinforce the arguments of those who say that atheism and atheists are immoral and uppity and automatically deserve less respect than those whose ideas and actions have been celestially endorsed and authorised.

[surreptitious57]

does this allow one to attach a value judgement to logic over emotion

I much prefer my world view to be informed by logic rather than emotion because logic is objective by definition
and can not be faulted. Emotion on the other hand is subjective by definition and most definitely can be faulted
But having said that I am human and so am an emotional being as much as a logical one. However where there is
conflict between the two logic over rides emotion every time. This may not be true for everyone but it is for me

[Hermit]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

[Animavore]

And so the merry-go-round continues.