The subject question, Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?, was posted to the Quora site.
A certain Roy Yeo replied:
There are no “forms of atheism”, nor are there “motives” for it. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god. Period.
“Do you believe in god?”
“No, I don’t.”
There, you’ve found yourself an atheist.
Atheism has no agenda, no doctrines, no tenets, no dogma, no motives. It’s merely a state of being.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Of course there are forms of Atheism: they range from what is academically known by various terms such as “strong” and “weak.” Of course there are motives: just ask any Atheist why they converted to Atheism. But part of the problem is that every Atheist appoints themselves the (pseudo) authoritative arbiter of how to define “Atheism.” For example, you merely provided the watered down preferred definition du jour. Also, that “Atheism has no agenda, no doctrines, no tenets, no dogma, no motives” is a dogmatic statement, it is dogmatheism.
Roy Yeo:
Motive refers to the goal of a person’s actions. Atheism is the result of a person being unconvinced by the claims that any god exists. Do not attempt to redefine words to suit your narrative.
Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any god.
Whether the atheist says they can’t prove a god doesn’t exist, or if they claim that no god exists, it doesn’t change that fact that they don’t believe any god exists.
If you have to twist what I said about atheism not having any dogma as dogma, then it says a lot about your wilful misunderstanding of what atheism really is. Don’t be that desperate to make everything fit your narrative. Some things just don’t.
Ken Ammi:
Motive refers to the premise of a person’s actions.
That “Atheism is the result of a person being unconvinced by the claims that any god exists” is myopic—and a highly subjective issue.
As I noted, “academically known by various terms” so that is not me, it is about academia.
You don’t seem to realize that in affirming that some Atheists “claim that no god exists” does denote a denomination, a sect, an offshoot, etc. and that is academia’s point.
Such is what is meant by denomination, a sect, an offshoot, etc.: same premise, different spin.
Now, you refer to “wilful misunderstanding” but how do you know it’s willful and since you seem to condemn misunderstanding: why so?
Roy Yeo:
Motive is the GOAL of a person’s actions. Premise refers to the underlying proposition. Get your definitions right. If you’re not a native English speaker, please refer to a dictionary.
I’ll say this one last time; atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god. Gnosticism or agnosticism pertaining to atheism simply refers to what the atheist thinks about god’s existence. They’re not sects or denominations, because there are no beliefs to categorise.
Regardless, the premise is still the same – atheists are just not convinced that any god exists.
Your referring to my stating atheism as not having any agendas, dogmas, doctrines and tenets, as “dogmatheism” (are you making words up too?) is clearly a wilful misunderstanding, because I have already defined what atheism is three times in this post.
Your clear refusal to accept that means your redefinition of it was clearly done with intentional disregard.
Ken Ammi:
Friend, please look up “motive” in dictionaries.
Atheism is a worldview premised on “the absence of belief in the existence of any god”—well, it’s actually premised on hidden assumptions that (un-viably) result in the conclusion of “absence of belief in the existence of any god.”
But since you demand that Atheism has not “sects or denominations” then since you positively affirm God’s non-existence, you must prove it.
You don’t seem to be aware of the history of “Atheism” such as what has been meant by the application of that term.
As for “intentional disregard” you imply that such (if, that is what is it) is some sort of problem but how so on your worldview?
Roy Yeo:
Let’s put this as simply as possible. Atheists are not convinced by the claims that any god exists. That’s it. I don’t understand your need to redefine it.
We’re not saying god doesn’t exist. We’re not “positively affirming god’s non-existence”. As such, we have nothing to prove.
On the other hand, theists are the ones who are making the positive claim that their god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders to provide credible evidence to support that assertion and belief.
If you don’t believe leprechauns exist, would you bother looking for evidence that they don’t? Can you even? That’s the same logic being practiced here.
Atheism is NOT a worldview because it does not establish a “truth” or a point of view about the world. We simply do NOT believe any theist’s claims that god is real due to the complete absence of objective evidence.
We’re all born without that belief. God is an idea and external influence that needs to be drilled into young minds in order to stay alive. If you really want to delve into the “history” of atheism, there you have it.
There’s no need to further intellectualise it by diving into the etymology of the word as it is inconsequential to this conversation.
Ken Ammi:
The neo-Atheist definition of “Atheism” as “lack of belief in God” says nothing about God’s existence and saying something about God’s existence is supposed to be what Atheism is all about, rather than saying something about the opinions of individual Atheists.
This is not about my need to redefine it, the “lack of belief” is the redefinition.
So, when you say “We’re” as if you speak for all Atheist, “not saying god doesn’t exist” you clearly have not looked up “Atheism” is various dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites, etc. There are many scholarly sources that affirm that Atheism includes positively affirming God’s non-existence.
But when you say “the burden of proof falls on” theists to “provide credible evidence” the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence.
If Atheism is NOT a worldview then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?
As for that “We’re all born without that belief” I agree that Atheism requites no more intellect that can be mustered by a baby.
But you committed a genetic logical fallacy (even if logical fallacies are irrelevant on Atheism) since any and all ideas can be said to be based on external influence. Do you reject math because we’re all born without a belief in math?
But you say “in order to stay alive” so do you oppose those Atheist missionaries who purposefully attempt to damage people’s ability to “stay alive” by attacking theism?
Roy Yeo:
Like I said, you’re attempting to pseudo-intellectualise this whole thing.
Regardless of which dictionary or website you refer to, atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.
It is only with that absence of belief that one might say “god doesn’t exist”, or “I don’t believe god exists”. That’s the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. But that’s just splitting unnecessary hairs as far as this conversation goes.
So yes, in that regard, I speak for all atheists.
Oh look at you, comparing atheism to the intellect of a baby. What a beacon of exemplary behaviour for all theists to follow.
“Do you reject math because we’re all born without a belief in math?”
No, silly. That was my point. All ideas are external influences. Math can be supported by proofs. Science can be supported by objective evidence. God can be supported by… Oh right. Absolutely nothing.
You want me to believe in an idea? Convince me it works. You want me to believe in a claim? Show me credible and verifiable evidence. It’s not that hard to understand, is it? I’m already using baby intellect here, so try to keep up.
“Genetic logical fallacy”… Pfft. Please.
And yes, I oppose all missionaries, regardless of their message. The sheer misguided arrogance of it all is revolting, to say the least.
Which brings me to my final point – there are no “atheist missionaries”. Anyone calling themselves that have no idea what they’re saying.
Atheism is not an organised religion. It has no message to spread. It is merely a state of being. If you can understand that at all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Ken Ammi:
The neo-Atheist definition of “Atheism” as “lack of belief in God” says nothing about God’s existence and saying something about God’s existence is supposed to be what Atheism is all about, rather than saying something about the opinions of individual Atheists.
“god doesn’t exist” and “I don’t believe god exists” are categorically different and that’s been my point all long: one is a positive affirmation and the other tells us something about the Atheist, not about God.
Whence did you get the authority for “speak for all atheists”?
You seem to have misremembered, it was you who was “comparing atheism to the intellect of a baby.”
Indeed, “Math can be supported by proofs” but the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence cannot which is why that definition of Atheism has been shunned by some Atheists who prefer to make subjectively emotive statements about their opinions instead.
But see, you refer to “proofs” and that “Science can be supported by objective evidence” but only as a hidden assumption: you must first justify why, on your worldview, proofs and/or evidence is required to be presented, why we should based our beliefs on, proofs and/or evidence, etc.
In fact, so that we don’t end up writing essays back and forth: let’s forego side issues and only focus on that.
BTW: “Pfft. Please” is not a defeater for identifying your genetic logical fallacy (not that fallacies matter on Atheism).
No “atheist missionaries”? I have personally encountered THOUSANDS of Atheists who’s goal is to debunk my theology so that I will accept Atheism (whoever they pseudo-authoritatively they define it).
Indeed, “Atheism is not an organised religion” it’s a disorganized one (even if it has styled leaders, “churches,” etc.).
If Atheism “has no message to spread” then why are you spreading what you’re spreading?
As for that “It is merely a state of being” wait, I thought that “atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.”
So, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?
Roy Yeo:
You seem really hung up on this “neo-atheist” thing, so let’s replace “god” with something else. Let’s go with leprechauns and unicorns.
Do you believe they exist? If no, would you go so far as to say definitively that they don’t? If so, then you’d be making a claim, one of which supporting evidence would be requested. If you simply said you don’t believe they exist, then that’s it. Nothing more is required on your part.
And that’s what atheism is all about, neo- or otherwise. All you’re doing is splitting hairs where there’s none to be split. The entire foundation of atheism in any form is not about “saying something about god’s existence”. It is about not being convinced by claims of the positive.
“the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence cannot which is why that definition of Atheism has been shunned by some Atheists who prefer to make subjectively emotive statements about their opinions instead.”
So let me get this right. You get to make subjective statements about the existence of your god and all other gods, but cry like an indignant baby when atheists do the same? Oh no… the unfairness of it all. What shall we ever do?
“If Atheism “has no message to spread” then why are you spreading what you’re spreading?”
I was answering a question. I’m not going out knocking on doors and spreading the word of… oh wait. There’s nothing to spread. What’s your excuse? You’re the one who’s stretching this out to be more than it is.
Your encounter with the “thousands” of atheists trying to debunk your theology are doing the same as I am. Or are you also trying to redefine missionary now too to include any atheist that disagrees with you?
“As for that “It is merely a state of being” wait, I thought that “atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.”
Which part of “absence of belief” do you not grasp? It is a state of being, is it not? A state of non-belief.
“So, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?”
Unless credible, verifiable, observable and objective evidence can be provided to prove god’s existence, the idea of god is irrelevant to me. There you go – atheism in a nutshell.
Ken Ammi:
I’m only “hung up on this ‘neo-atheist’ thing” because I know the history of the semantics.
You don’t seem to be aware of it and so you assert, “The entire foundation of atheism in any form is not about ‘saying something about god’s existence’” when, say we go back to the 1800s AD or so, that was the whole point, to say something about God’s existence.
Replacing God with leprechauns and unicorns is a category error: you can’t replace a philosophically necessary being with arbitrary ones.
I’m unsure why you go full blown childish, “cry like an indignant baby” but the first step is for the Atheist to justify demanding evidence. Without that there’s no such issue as that I “get to make subjective statements” but you don’t since the whole framework upon which any such standards are built would collapse.
So, when you merely jump to an asserted demand for “credible, verifiable, observable and objective evidence” you must first justify your demand for such.
You may not be “going out knocking on doors” but you’re doing much more than that, your posting to the WORLD WIDE web, after all.
Indeed, since it is “a state of being” then it’s your worldview.
Ken Ammi:
So we’re living in the 1800s now, are we? If we say, “I don’t believe you,” when you tell us your god exists, that’s exactly what we mean. As such, your god doesn’t exist to us until you can prove that he does.
When did god become “a philosophically necessary being”? Why is god even necessary in this day and age? Atheists have lived their entire lives for tens of thousands of years without god. That pretty much goes to show how necessary he is.
And who are you to decide which beings are “arbitrary”? If we were to replace your god with the Jade Emperor or Zeus, would you still consider that a random or personal whim?
It’s not a category error. They’re all imaginary beings until proven otherwise.
You don’t get to see the hypocrisy in your statements, clearly. You’re making subjective assertions that your god exists, aren’t you? Well, I’m saying I don’t believe you.
So, provide me with the evidence such that I may be convinced. That is my justification – I am NOT convinced. Why does this escape you?
In a court of law, is it not the job of the prosecutor or accuser to provide the evidence to support their claims so that the judge and jury can be convinced beyond reasonable doubt? Or are you of the guilty-until-proven-innocent club?
You see, the magic of the World Wide Web is that everyone has access to it. Here on Quora, people ask questions and other people answer them. Does that look like missionary work to you?
If you’re not interested in theism/atheism spaces, just don’t join them. No one’s going to send you direct messages asking if they can talk to you about not believing in some god.
You claim to understand semantics, but if such easy definitions escape you, then I’m afraid you really don’t at all.
And also, when the hell did a state of being become a worldview? If you don’t believe Krishna is real, would you consider that a worldview? Is not believing in the Vedas considered a worldview?
If so, then all atheists share that singular “worldview” – that we don’t believe any god exists.
On the other hand, you’d have to have as many worldviews as there are other gods that aren’t yours. Do you see how ridiculous and desperate you’re getting?
Ken Ammi:
Friend, you’re just digging a deeper hole.
Firstly, something can exist even if it’s existence has not been proved: that is the case every single time something is proved to exist.
But you say “until you can prove that he does” but you must first justify your demand for proof on your worldview.
It is a non-sequitur to jump form that “Atheists have lived their entire lives for tens of thousands of years without god” to that God is not necessary for various reasons including that they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview. Also, they have not lived without God since God exists.
The concept of a philosophically necessary being refers to issues such as that nothing would exist without God so He is necessary, absolute ethics would [not] exist without God so He is necessary, etc.
Yes, the Jade Emperor or Zeus would be a personal whim since they are not the one true living God.
A for your category error again, you replaced a philosophically necessary being with arbitrary ones who are not characterized in nearly the same way so that is, by definition, a category error. Evidence of your category error is that no Atheists are making a living by writing book, presenting lectures, being interviewed, etc., etc., etc., against leprechauns and unicorns.
But see, you positively affirm “all imaginary” as a jumped to assertion and to back to “until proven otherwise” when step one is for you to justify your demand for proof from your worldview.
You imply that it’s wrong to be hypocritical but don’t bother saying why: you just keep jumping to asserted conclusions without arguments.
Likewise, what if I was “making subjective assertions” how is that condemnable on your worldview?
So you finally come to double down on demanding evidence (as you term it this time) with your pseudo justification being “such that I may be convinced” but that’s a pure form of incoherence. It does not escape me that you’re not convinced (and you speak as if what you are or are not subjectively convinced of is a standard).
Justification refers to how, on your worldview, it’s a universal imperative to provide evidence/proof and to base our views only on those things that have been evidenced/proven—which, ironically, you’ve not evidenced nor proven.
Interestingly, I ask for your justification and your other reply is that other people demand evidence, “In a court of law” but that just punting and moving the goalpost one step back.
Indeed, it does look like missionary work when Atheist are on the World Wide Web preaching their pseudo gospel that they are right, they found the truth, and everyone else is wrong.
Yes, “If you don’t believe Krishna is real” that would be considered that a worldview since then no matter what you’re thinking about, you would never accept that Krishna had anything to do with it, would never give credit to Krishna for anything, would not allow any evidence to count as evidence of Krishna, etc., etc., etc.
That’s why I asked in what area of your thinking about anything and everything you accept God since that in none of it implies that Atheism has infected all of your thinking about anything and everything, and so it’s a worldview.
BTW: if you deny there are Atheist worldviews then you disagree with Dawkins—which is fine, I do it all the time.
My one worldview encompasses any and all “other gods that aren’t” mine and, btw, what you subjectively consider “ridiculous and desperate” is not a standard.
Bottom line is that on Atheism truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand others adhere to it.
I recommend you focus on these facts (even though on Atheism fact are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand others adhere to them) since anything else you may say will ultimately have to does with these issues so I will only be on the look out for what you say about these issues—since I’m done written multi-issue essays.
Roy Yeo:
Just about everything you’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased in favour of your beliefs. How am I to be convinced by that?
“…they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview.”
Your oldest biblical texts are barely 2,700 years old. Humans have been around for over 100,000 years. You might want to do the maths, or you could very conveniently just make sweeping statements that everyone was without their “true” god before yours decided to create the world. Please. That’s such absolute nonsense.
“…nothing would exist without God so He is necessary, absolute ethics would exist without God so He is necessary, etc.”
Oh really? So my innate sense of empathy is because of your god that I don’t believe exists?
You’re talking about the same ethics that killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of your god? The same ethics that made priests molest and rape little boys? Those same ones that made pastors fleece their congregation of billions to fund their multi-million dollar mansions and private jets? Those ethics that make people completely intolerant and unaccepting of the fact that other people have other beliefs or none at all? Ahh… those ethics. Yeah, I don’t need that level of hypocrisy in my life.
You don’t seem capable of comprehending that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When evolution was discovered, objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and observable evidence was provided to support it. Same for a heliocentric universe. The speed of light. Etc. Where’s yours? All you have given are nonsensical, barely-there, “counterarguments” to my requests for evidence.
Now you’re asking me to justify my justification that I’m not convinced by your baseless claims? hahaha… That’s about the silliest thing I’ve heard in a while.
The way you treat Krishna and all other gods is the same in which I treat yours. You believe they are whimsical just as I believe yours is. You don’t believe in other religious texts just as I don’t believe in yours. Your so-called “justification” is that your god in the true god. Really? Prove it.
All you have done is claim repeatedly, albeit in different ways, that your god is real. When I tell you I’m not convinced, you ask me to justify it. You accuse me of shifting goalposts and making logical fallacies. You redefine words to suit your narrative, you remain stubbornly obtuse to what I’m saying and show little to no understanding between subjectivity and objectivity.
“…it does look like missionary work when Atheist are on the World Wide Web preaching their pseudo gospel that they are right, they found the truth, and everyone else is wrong.”
Oh, how the tables have turned, haven’t they? How do you like that feeling now? Isn’t that what most of you believers have been doing for millennia, and are still doing? We’re saying we disagree with you and suddenly, we’re missionaries! How bloody insecure must you be to foist that ridiculous idea on us? If you want to dish it, you’d better be able to take it, buddy.
This whole time, I’d never made any claims and I’ve consistently made only one request. All I’ve been repeating is that I’m not convinced by your claims that your god exists. And if you want to convince me, or any other non-believer, then you’d do well to provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence to support your claims.
If you can’t see that your responses have a) never once answered me, and b) been nothing but hypocrisy and blind cognitive bias, then I can’t help you. And frankly, I haven’t the time nor crayons to keep explaining it to you.
Ken Ammi:
You are not engaging the issues since you are just manipulating my points—you actually seem to be projecting when you write, “Just about everything you’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased in favour of your beliefs.”
For example, in fact, “they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview” with “they” referring to the Atheists undergoing discussion and not all “Humans” who “have been around for over 100,000 years.”
But just deal with the fact that you are just constantly jumping to merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions and so we should work on revealing those assumptions.
Here’s what I mean:
You say what I’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with that (if it was true) on your worldview.
You refer to not being convinced but what you are or aren’t convinced of is not a standard.
You say I make sweeping statements but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with that (if it was true) on your worldview.
You refer to not being “absolute nonsense” but what you do or don’t consider “absolute nonsense” is not a standard.
You refer to your “innate sense of empathy” which on Atheist evolution is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it (oddly, that was a reply to when I wrote “without God…absolute ethics would exist” but I meant “without God…absolute ethics would NOT exist” and which, ironically, is how you took it so you got my meaning anyhow).
You refer to the same ethics that “killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of your god” which besides being a convenient sweeping statements does not tell me why, on your worldview, anything is wrong with that (and you meant “murder” rather than “killing”).
Same with “molest and rape little boys…fleece their congregation…intolerant…hypocrisy” you are just making a list, you never bother saying why, on your worldview, those things are wrong.
You assert “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” without evidence and not noticing that there is no standard of extraordinariness plus, you demand evidence without first justifying your demand for evidence.
And that is what I note you need to justify, your demand for evidence so what you consider silly is not a standard and you misunderstood the issue.
So when you say “evolution was discovered, objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and observable evidence was provided to support it” (which depends on what you mean by “evolution” which you don’t bother defining) you don’t say how your worldview provides you a universal imperative to adhere to what is objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and has observable evidence was provided to support it. See, you keep merely jumping to asserted conclusions.
You refer to what you think is “nonsensical” but what you consider “nonsensical” is not a standard.
You ask me to prove that my God is the true God but you must first justify your demand for proof—on your worldview, that is.
You go on about that I “claim repeatedly, albeit in different ways, that your god is real” but don’t say why that’s unacceptable on your worldview (not your personal opinion). Likewise with that I supposedly “redefine words…remain stubbornly obtuse…show little to no understanding between subjectivity and objectivity” why are those issues on your worldview? You never say any such thing you just jump and demand.
No, it’s not that you “disagree with you and suddenly, we’re missionaries!” but that you disagree and attempt to get people to convert to Atheism since you are “completely intolerant and unaccepting of the fact that other people have other beliefs” or else you would just think something in keeping with your worldview which would be, “Oh well, accidentally existing apes are believing in untrue things in a universe wherein there is no universal imperative to adhere to truth so it’s a non-issue.”
You refer to “that ridiculous idea” but what you consider ridiculous is not a standard.
Before we can get to “provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence to support” my claims you must first justify, on your worldview, your demand to provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence.
You imply condemning, “hypocrisy and blind cognitive bias” but don’t bother saying why?
See, you have a LOT of basic level groundwork to do before you make this enormous list of asserted demands.
Roy Yeo:
Geezes… Why is this so terribly impossible for you to understand? Everything you said regarding why I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?
If man didn’t have that, civilisations would never have formed. All religion has done is hijack what is a natural instinct and claim it as some god’s gift to man.
The Biblical god, based on inferred data and information, is 6,000 years old. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. You want to claim credit for those 194,000 years prior?
I’m not projecting anything. I’m stating my observations and point of view. If you can’t tell the difference, then I can’t help you there.
And what is this standard you’re talking about? You want to convince me that your god exists, right? Then I don’t know how much simpler I can make it when I say, “Prove it.”
I could tell you right now that I’m god himself. Would you believe me? If yes, then you need to stop arguing and worship me right now and stop with your insolence. If no, why not? Do I need to prove my claim?
My “worldview” does not define what is “credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence”. Science does. Language does. The fact that you keep harping about this means you have no idea what a worldview is. You can’t possibly be so dense as to not understand what objectivity is either, can you?
So in short, my “justification” for requiring objective evidence is I DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS.
If you want to convince me, then prove to me that one does. If you want me to believe that your god is responsible for humanity’s natural empathy—from 200,000 years ago to present—then prove it to me. I’ve made this statement more than once now.
Was that easy enough for you to understand? Or are you going to keep playing this silly and desperate little game of parrying?
Ken Ammi:
I am not ignoring anything but am just seeking to get you to expose your hidden assumptions.
For example, “I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY” well, “I think” is subjective to you, by definition. And on your view thoughts are accidental as is your ability to discern them—plus, they are predetermined by the accidental laws of thermodynamics.
And more to the point, your “innate sense[s]” are also accidental, as is your ability to discern them and, just like your thoughts, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them.
Thus, “EMPATHY” is just your interpretation of an accidental combination of accidental neural chemistry.
I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?
I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?
Thus, “If man didn’t have that, civilisations would never have formed” and on your view, civilizations formed as a byproduct of accidents which carry no universal imperatives to adhere to them—in other words, civilizations are not an ought, they need to have formed.
“All religion has done is hijack” but the only thing I infer that you imply is wrong with that—even based on your impotent accidental “innate sense”—is that what was hijacked is “what is a natural instinct” but, again, on your view our “natural instinct[s]” are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to them.
You argue against a young Earth creationism view “The Biblical god…is 6,000 years old” but are merely imposing a pseudo standard since even if “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years” what does that matter? See, you are now demanding adherence to what you view as facts but on your view facts are accidental (because truth/reality is accidental), as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to them.
So you imply adherence to logic but on your view logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to it.
Also, even on a young Earth creationism view it would not be the case that “The Biblical god…is 6,000 years old” since “The Biblical god” is eternal, by definition (I’m willing to think that, that was just a slight misstatement on your part).
Indeed, you hit the accidental nail on the head when you wrote, “when I say, ‘Prove it’” since when I ask that you, on your worldview, justify your demand/request for proof (not evidence?) you simply cannot do it. If I were you, I would ponder that my worldview is such a fundamental failure that I can’t even demand/request proof. See, your worldview fails before it even begins and you are getting a taste of that now. See what happens when someone helps you expose your hidden assumptions and you realize their just a bottomless pit of subjective assertions? That seems to be why you decided to impose your subjectivism on me and turn this into a case of, “You want to convince me…Then…” But we are not there yet, we’re still taking baby-steps in analyzing your modus operandi (which is not operandi-ing very well).
So, the issue of that “I could tell you right now that I’m god himself…Do I need to prove my claim?” is merely doubling down on your lack of ability to justify demanding/requesting proof and merely punting to see if proof is justified on my worldview—but we’re not there yet, you’re getting ahead of yourself (and may be doing so as a diversionary tactic).
I find it fascinating that you admit that your worldview is not scientific since, your “‘worldview’ does not define” those categories but “Science does” (and, of course, that’s a reification fallacy since “Science does” nothing rather, scientists do things). But whence to you get “objectivity” from a worldview according to which all of reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it?
So, in short, that you “DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS” is not a justification for “requiring” mind you “objective” see above, “evidence” not proof this time. This is another key issues, you are “requiring objective evidence” because you “DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS” but you’re not exposing hidden assumptions such as that ascertaining empirical truth is not only possible but a universal imperative, that we ought to (“requiring”) base our view on what can be on what “objective evidence” can demonstrate, that if you subjectively “DON’T BELIEVE” then one must adhere to your asserted demands, etc., etc., etc. This is critical thinking and analyzing not just of those views you subjectively don’t like but of your own merely jumped to assertions.
You then play the same card as before where you impose your subjective preferences on me, “If you want” and then merely asset, “then prove to me” which is just tripling (or whatever, I lost count by now actually) making baseless demands. So yes, you “made this statement more than once now” but you must realize that I am not required to only reply with “How high?” when you assert “Jump!” Rather, I ask “Why?” and you fall apart. Yet, you only really fall apart because your worldview failed before it even began so it left you with nothing but emotively subjective assertions that you demand carry weight when in reality, they weigh as much as a dream.
So, let’s just simplify this since it’s getting verbose: given the noted facts (which on your view are accidental), what is the universal imperative to provide evidence or proof, to only hold to views that have been evidenced or proven, etc.?
Roy Yeo:
Let’s make this short.
Accidental or not, you agree that we’re born with a natural sense of empathy, right? And this empathy is the result of “neural chemistry”, correct? So that means this empathy exists. Right?
That means, we are in agreement that for as long as homo sapiens have been around, so has his innate sense of empathy. Correct? Good, so there’s nothing to prove here, yes?
Okay, now let’s move on to the claim that the Abrahamic god gave man his sense of morality. Now, the Abrahamic god can be traced to old pagan religions—Babylonian, Greek, Mesopotamian, etc.—that date as far back as the Bronze Age.
This particular god wasn’t written about, spoken about, or even discussed until just over 2,000 years ago. Suddenly, the world is expected to believe all the different claims that are made about this god. But why should we?
So, all I’m asking—all any atheist and other non-believer is asking—is to provide credible, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, observable and objective evidence that A) this god of yours exists, and B) our sense of morality was created by this same god.
It’s really that simple. Until the criteria for A and B can be met, nobody has any reason to give your assertions the time of day.
You can attempt to pseudo-intellectualise whatever I’m saying until the cows come home and it will not change the fact that I have no reason to believe your claims.
Ken Ammi:
The issue is that even if we agree on empathy, on your worldview adhering to it is merely an emotively subjective personal preference de jour based on hidden assumption and without transcendent reproductions if you disregard it.
But to make this short I will bypass your various logical and even historical fallacies (since no fallacy matters on Atheism anyhow: you seem to keep ignoring that fact (yet, facts matter not on Atheism either)) and note that you are merely doubling, tripling, etc., etc., etc., on “provide credible, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, observable and objective evidence” when I, yet again, had noted, “what is the universal imperative to provide evidence or proof, to only hold to views that have been evidenced or proven, etc.?”
You seem to realize that your worldview utterly fails so you merely keep demanding without a premise form your worldview.
So, since you believe that we’re accidentally existing apes in a universe wherein there are no universal imperatives—such as to be logical, provide evidence, etc.—then you discredit yourself while I just sit here and point out that fact.
Shouldn’t your concern be that, for example, your worldview collapses the very concept of holding to views based on evidence since it has no premise for demanding evidence nor evidence based views?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.