ant wrote:An agnostic atheist is even worse than an atheist.

Ant has come to the end of the road again. The brick wall of confusion about logic and burden of proof.

Does ant believe EVERY claim about God(s) that he cannot disprove? Or does he reason like every other person in the world and not believe things for which there is no good evidence.

We could use ancient religious claims, but then ant will pretend to be offended. Do you believe in the virgin birth? The resurrection of Jesus? Do you believe Allah sent Muhammed as the last Prophet? Do you believe in Hindu reincarnation?

Expect this thread to be abandoned soon.

An agnostic atheist is even worse than an atheist.

Worse in what way?

Less truthful? No, that's not the case. The more truthful position is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.

Less able to be attacked by theists such as yourself? Perhaps, and I suspect that's what rubs you the wrong way.

What you see as a strategy to avoid being wrong is exactly that. A strategy to avoid being wrong. (gasp!) Claiming a stance of certainty would be wrong(how dare we avoid being wrong!). There is humility in the agnostic position, and arrogance in taking a stance of certitude.

At the foundation of every post you make is disdain for the certain stance that atheism represents. How can someone justify a positive claim about the nonexistence of an entity such as god?(we understand this, ant) Your position crumbles when it's pointed out that at the heart of most atheists is agnosticism. If the position is taken because it is more truthful, what justification do you have to label it cowardly? If it is cowardly, then the brave position is the false position, rendering null the value of bravery as a virtue. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Interbane wrote:Of course you trust in God, but that doesn't mean it is God that answers your prayers. In order to determine if your prayers are a product of god or a product of coincidence, what would you do?

Hi Interbane, Unfortunately I'm a dunce when it comes to trying to upload files to my posts.I feel a bit hampered arguing in the abstract.In chapter 16 of Taylor's account titled;Timely supplies; he gives a few instances of answers to prayer in relation to problems and needs.As I've said, he is not giving an exhaustive account of such incidents.The account takes it out of the abstract.If we take a sample example given it should give an idea of just what we are talking about.

He recounts that a missionary there contracted virulent smallpox and Taylor who was a doctor, nursed him til he died. This obliged him to discard his clothes in case of infection.He had no money to purchase clothes so prayed to God about his predicament.At this juncture he says,there was a sudden arrival of a long lost trunk of clothes from Swatow where he had been previously.
So this happens precisely following his praying to God about not having or being able to purchase clothes. Coincidence?
You can explain it this way.But it's just one of many similar incidents.You can argue they are all coincidences.The biggest coincidence is that they happen precisely when he is praying for specific needs and problems, they have no way of meeting themselves.
He sets out to undertake going to China as a missionary depending on God to provide,and takes over the hospital and it's running costs in the same way.In fact when he was young an older minister basically told him his approach was a form of madness.
What I'm saying is that prayer is targeted and specific. Funds run out and they have no means themselves, of acquiring the necessary funds to feed the patients for instance. They pray to God.Almost invariably it is precisely at this moment when there is nothing left,no food or funds that funds or supplies arrive unexpectedly,humanly speaking.
So I think it is the multiplicity of such incidents that makes chance an unlikely provider.
Now you are saying that based on mathematical possibilities such an extraordinary series of coincidences is possible and you seem to want to explain it in this way.It seems much more reasonable to me to understand it as in fact Taylor does.There is a crisis,they pray and in remarkable ways are provided for just when everything has run out,and its an answer to prayer by God.
You raised other issues such as football teams praying for victory and of course one loses and one wins.It would require a study to go into this whole area in detail.And maybe I will try to address the kinds of objections you raise.
What is key is that it is a relationship between God the creator and man the created. You see this in Taylor's account.From a Christian standpoint our understanding is based on what we believe is revealed about God and man and what Jesus says for instance about prayer. So for instance "faith" itself cannot twist God's arm to do something contrary to his will and purpose as revealed in scripture.
But I see no need personally to conclude, that if I pray specifically about something and that need is met, that I should ascribe it to coincidence.
Just in brief on your "incredulity" point.My view is that Theism is much more credible and reasonable as explanator, in the way Lennox who is not anti science but pro science outlines.The materialist worldview shuts out this explanation a priori and requires thinking that philosophically make no sense to me.

ant wrote:

but in the end your faith in materialism requires you to believe such things as I've mentioned.

Here are some of the "scientific" hypotheses (which by the way are not testable and have zero empirical evidence attached to them) atheism bestows epistemic faith upon. They are part atheism's beliefs:


1) "Many Worlds" hypothesis

2) Darwinism as a Universal mechansim

3) Cosmological Steady State Theory

4) A Universe from Nothing.

5) A Universe from something and nothing

6) Belief on the reliability of unprovable axioms (one of Robert T's favorits)

7) Epiphenomenalism (consciousness is an illusion)

eight) Rational beliefs and their reliability arising from chaotic, blind processes (atheists like Interbane and johnson have overcome nature on this one. now it's up to them to correct theism's irrational beliefs! because science is at odds with them! - yesiree, atheism's biggest ally is science!! )

9) The belief that absolute Truth does not exist (there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no truth - signed: by your friendly neighborhood atheist)

10) The belief that objective purposelessness is intrinsic in nature (one of Johnson's beliefs)

11) The positive claim that there is no God* ( * however, most atheists back off most ANY positive claim when pressed.)

12) Everything will eventually be completely explained by materialism (A total statement of faith)

Here's yet another list of things that atheists are supposed to believe based on Ant's own twisted thinking. Consciousness is an illusion? Where on earth do you get this stuff?

Ant so very badly wants to believe atheists are fundamentalists and have religious tenets. But since he can't find any real atheists who think the way he wants them to, he has to make up their beliefs for them.

Timely supplies; he gives a few instances of answers to prayer in relation to problems and needs.As I've said, he is not giving an exhaustive account of such incidents.The account takes it out of the abstract.

Thanks for having the tenacity to reply Flann. I think we need a new topic, however.

Even a first hand testimony of what happened is an abstraction of the actual events. It would require corroboration. This is true not because I'm trying to be stubborn, but because anecdotes are untrustworthy unless corroborated. Any trial judge would tell you the same. A video testimony from prior to fulfillment of a miracle, plus video of the miracle itself, would convince a jury. A single anecdote would not. I know that renders Hudson's story untrustworthy. Fear not, if miracles truly do happen, in this day and age a novel James Hudson story will come into existence with video footage rather than testimony.

This still dodges the mathematical inevitability of rare coincidence. The rarity of coincidence is in part due to the specificity. He asked then something was provided. The specificity increases the rarity of the coincidence, but does not alter it categorically. Did you read the links I provided?

But I see no need personally to conclude, that if I pray specifically about something and that need is met, that I should ascribe it to coincidence.

Of course, your beliefs are your own. You can ascribe the coincidence(regardless of specificity and rarity) to any god of your choosing, or to aliens, or to super-sentience from another dimension. You could ascribe it to a prank by mischievous technologists or unknown drug intake on your part. But for all the possible things you could ascribe coincidence to, the truth is more mundane.

It would require a study to go into this whole area in detail.

Yes. If you were to study whether or not prayer is fulfilled, what sort of study would that entail? Would god be disdainful at being tested and not answer the prayers under observation?

.

Conciousness is not an illusion, it is an emergent phenomenon.

Ahh yes. The ol' unexplained esplainer!

Good point, Interbane!

Edited
(I cant wait to get my lesson on how a snowflake is like consciousness)

Its pretty easy to understand that when complex systems interact you are bound to get something like consciousness.

We dont know exactly how it happened. All we know for certain is that it was random and blind.
God didnt do it.
Did I make a positive assertion here? Too bad. My beliefs need not carry any burden of proof.
I win!!

Whats really obvious here is that the atheist defends no beliefs because he claims in the end to be a humble agnostic after first arguing like an anti-theist.
Of course every human being on the planet has beliefs. Even when it comes to the existence or non existence of a God. Agnosticism is a total near useless wishy-washy position here.
And yet the atheist might say, "I am 99.8 percent certain there is no god"
Falling short of a positive claim (Richard Dawkins, is that you?) is a sneaky brilliant tactic!

The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.

All sarcasm aside, folks:
What ultimately turns me off about atheism is its brazen dishonesty and arrogance.
Not having anything objective to hang their hats on, new atheists eventually are cornered by their own beliefs
That and atheism eventually caves in on itself and as Nietzsche said, leads to Nihilism.
Men like Flew and Russel (two of the most notoriously aggressive atheists who ever lived) in the end attested to atheisms' inability to survive as a coherent depiction of reality.
But atheists conveniently leave this out of their sermons.

ant wrote: The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.

OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.

OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?

Darwin,

Ive already answered this question here on BT before.

?

More graffiti. I feel like I'm feeding the troll.

I cant wait to get my lesson on how a snowflake is like consciousness

They aren't alike, but if they actually were, I'm sure you'd accept the lesson with an open mind.

Its pretty easy to understand that when complex systems interact you are bound to get something like consciousness.

I'm glad it's easy for one of us. If you're really that smart, try explaining it. Show that you have the requisite intellectual humility to have assimilated your opponents argument well enough to spit it back at him. Mocking aside, I wish you'd make the attempt.

We dont know exactly how it happened. All we know for certain is that it was random and blind.

That's your strawman.

Whats really obvious here is that the atheist defends no beliefs

Atheists defend beliefs all the time. That's another strawman. The beliefs they won't claim certainty towards, such as one of many hypotheses for the origin of the universe, are beyond our ability to know at this time. You mock people for not claiming confidence for ideas that do not warrant confidence.

because he claims in the end to be a humble agnostic after first arguing like an anti-theist.

Only because the theist thinks he's got the right hypothesis, regardless of everything else. If half the world were zealotous followers of transpermia, I'd argue against them just as strongly. Not because I have the answer, but because their position is unjustified. The justified position is that we don't know.

The agnostic atheist has no beliefs

What's this, the sixth time you've repeated this same line? I have beliefs, including some beliefs that I'd die for. Why the hell doesn't this click? Stop preaching this false straw man.

Not having anything objective to hang their hats on, new atheists eventually are cornered by their own beliefs

They would be cornered, sure, if your straw men were real. Your issue with atheists is the ontologically positive claim. Theists suffer from the same, an ontologically positive claim. Why attack atheism for the same crime as theism? If they are guilty, so are you.

Men like Flew and Russel (two of the most notoriously aggressive atheists who ever lived) in the end attested to atheisms' inability to survive as a coherent depiction of reality.

An in your confirmation bias, you give these two men more credence than hundreds of other brilliant men with opposite opinions. Atheism doesn't depict reality. Philosophical naturalism depicts reality. It is coherent, and it is atheistic. But the two are not identical. One is a component of the other.

What ultimately turns me off about atheism is its brazen dishonesty and arrogance.

If atheism is dishonest, then so is theism. If atheism is arrogant, then so is theism. The fault is mirrored. The real issue you have is that most atheists are agnostic atheists. You simply can't stand the fact that a strong stance isn't taken. Not that a strong stance is justified, but it leaves you without anything to attack. So you fabricate strawmen post after post.

ant wrote:

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: The agnostic atheist has no beliefs except one that he throws around despite formal rules of evidence applicable to doxastic attitudes, which Dexter clearly denies and rejects for the sake of saving militant atheistic hides.

How slippery!

Yes, it doesnt get any more disingenuous than this.

OK, so going by your own rules of evidence, do you believe in the claims of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism or not?

Surely you're not going to be a coward and dodge the question again?

Darwin,

Ive already answered this question here on BT before.

?

Just spit it out. We might avoid repeating the same thing a hundred more times.