Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Being right about everything makes atheism a "leap of faith"???

Expand Messages
  • Todd Greene
    That one might make up notions about gods says nothing about whether one originated the notion of God. Obviously, that s the disagreement. Says nothing
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      "That one might 'make up notions about gods' says nothing about whether one originated the notion of God."

      Obviously, that's the disagreement. "Says nothing" is manifestly false. Indeed, the Bible God is precisely an example of the fact that it 'says a lot' about humans making up the notions of gods.

      - Todd Greene


      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #25016):
      >
      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      > "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
      >
      > > We did already have that discussion, and
      > > I pointed out the error in your representation,
      > > the error being the fact that
      > >
      > >> "whether imagination has the power
      > >> to and does, in fact, take information
      > >> and manipulate it (e.g., make up notions
      > >> about gods and all sorts of other things)"
      > >
      > > is the same thing as
      > >
      > >> "It's about the origination of the idea/concept
      > >> of God".
      > >
      > > Representing them as being two different things
      > > is a false distinction.
      >
      > In the context of the discussion, they ARE NOT the same thing, and pointing out the distinction between imagining things regarding God and originating the idea/God is fundamental to the matter that was under discussion in the Dziubla v. Baty and Campbell v. Owen discussion and to understanding the limits of the science as Daniel Dennett was said to admit (e.g., the science is with Baty on this point and not with Greene).
      >
      > That one might "make up notions about gods" says nothing about whether one originated the notion of God.
      >
      > As was pointed out in the Dziubla v. Baty Debate on that matter, atheists/atheism believes that imagination had the power to have originated the idea/concept of God and does, in fact, account for the origination of such idea/concept.
      >
      > It's an interpolation beyond the science.
      >
      > Atheists believe beyond the science on that point.
      > I don't.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Robert Baty
      >
    • rlbaty50
      ... I knew we could agree on that! That is the fundamental disagreement on this fundamental issue. Says nothing is NOT manifestly false! Perhaps it is just a
      Message 2 of 17 , Oct 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

        > "That one might 'make up notions about gods'
        > says nothing about whether one originated the
        > notion of God."
        >
        > Obviously, that's the disagreement.
        >
        > "Says nothing" is manifestly false.
        >
        > Indeed, the Bible God is precisely an example
        > of the fact that it 'says a lot' about humans
        > making up the notions of gods.

        I knew we could agree on that!

        That is the fundamental disagreement on this fundamental issue.

        "Says nothing" is NOT manifestly false!

        Perhaps it is just a rhetorical hyperbole to emphasize the point of disagreement being whether or not imagination has the power to have originated the idea/concept of God and does, in fact, account for such origin.

        That has not been scientifically demonstrated, and that is the point.

        What it does say, if I am to accommodate that there is "something" it says about the matter, it is this:

        Imagination has the power to take ideas and manipulate them and, that being the case, it is the basis upon which the atheist/atheism interpolates beyond the evidence and concludes that imagination had the power to and does account for the origin of the idea/concept of God.

        See Dziubla v. Baty Debate archived here. Dziuba, I propose, could not establish the truth of the major and minor premises, though admitting such were believed to be true by atheists.

        Todd Greene can do/has done no better!

        Some believe it was imagination.
        I believe it was revelation.

        As Todd and I appear to agree:

        > "Obviously, that's the disagreement!"

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd Greene
        That has not been scientifically demonstrated, and that is the point. Actually, the point is that all of the relevant empirical evidence supports the idea
        Message 3 of 17 , Oct 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          "That has not been scientifically demonstrated, and that is the point."

          Actually, the point is that all of the relevant empirical evidence supports the idea that humans have made up various notions about gods, and that none of them have actually come from a god.

          And that's why atheism is correct.

          - Todd Greene


          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          > "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
          >
          > > "That one might 'make up notions about gods'
          > > says nothing about whether one originated the
          > > notion of God."
          > >
          > > Obviously, that's the disagreement.
          > >
          > > "Says nothing" is manifestly false.
          > >
          > > Indeed, the Bible God is precisely an example
          > > of the fact that it 'says a lot' about humans
          > > making up the notions of gods.
          >
          > I knew we could agree on that!
          >
          > That is the fundamental disagreement on this fundamental issue.
          >
          > "Says nothing" is NOT manifestly false!
          >
          > Perhaps it is just a rhetorical hyperbole to emphasize the point of disagreement being whether or not imagination has the power to have originated the idea/concept of God and does, in fact, account for such origin.
          >
          > That has not been scientifically demonstrated, and that is the point.
          >
          > What it does say, if I am to accommodate that there is "something" it says about the matter, it is this:
          >
          > Imagination has the power to take ideas and manipulate them and, that being the case, it is the basis upon which the atheist/atheism interpolates beyond the evidence and concludes that imagination had the power to and does account for the origin of the idea/concept of God.
          >
          > See Dziubla v. Baty Debate archived here. Dziuba, I propose, could not establish the truth of the major and minor premises, though admitting such were believed to be true by atheists.
          >
          > Todd Greene can do/has done no better!
          >
          > Some believe it was imagination.
          > I believe it was revelation.
          >
          > As Todd and I appear to agree:
          >
          > > "Obviously, that's the disagreement!"
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Robert Baty
          >
        • rlbaty50
          ... Todd, I think we are getting close, but we re not quite there. It now seems that you are redefining atheism in your above comments. That is, I was
          Message 4 of 17 , Oct 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

            >> "That has not been scientifically
            >> demonstrated, and that is the point."
            >
            > Actually, the point is that all of the relevant
            > empirical evidence supports the idea that humans
            > have made up various notions about gods, and that
            > none of them have actually come from a god.
            >
            > And that's why atheism is correct.

            Todd, I think we are getting close, but we're not quite there.

            It now seems that you are redefining "atheism" in your above comments.

            That is, I was thinking that you and most atheists nowadays were not against the notion that there might be a God, you just didn't believe in one.

            It is not disputed by me that folks "make up various notions about gods" and that none of the made up notions have actually come from god; by definition.

            That may explain why non-believers don't believe, as I have been pointing out; they extrapolate beyond the evidence so as to accept "by faith" the notion that the idea/concept of God ORIGINATED through the imaginative power of the human mind.

            Atheists believe it.
            Theists don't.

            That's my unrebutted/unrebuttable point!

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Todd Greene
            There s the default or simple atheism referring to the mere fact of someone not having a belief that any particular god exists. There s the more active
            Message 5 of 17 , Oct 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              There's the "default" or "simple" atheism referring to the mere fact of someone not having a belief that any particular god exists. There's the more "active" atheism of considering a theistic claim and seeing flaws about the claim ("Belief in a god isn't justified because there isn't good evidence to back it up").

              This is in the latter category. Atheists are correct (that belief in a god isn't justified because there isn't good evidence to back it up), because not only does all of the relevant empirical evidence support the idea that humans make up notions about gods, it supports the idea that humans have made up all notions about every god (an exception being when the word "god" is merely applied as an empty label to the cosmos itself, in which case the word itself has become a misleadingly pointless word). There isn't good evidence for Thor, Aphrodite, the Bible god, Isis or any other god.

              This is why trying to use the word "originated" to try to make some distinction that doesn't actually exist doesn't work, because the evidence of "religious thought" in humans shows nothing more than a typical evolutionary development, just like the evolutionary development of writing, or other things invented by humans. It would be like someone trying to say that it's merely a "non-alienist faith" that the Great Pyramid was made by humans instead of having originated from aliens. It's merely an empty word game, being motivated by trying to tar atheists with the hypocrisy of relying on faith just like religious believers do. In fact, all of the relevant evidence supports the idea that humans designed and built the Great Pyramid, and there isn't any good evidence to show otherwise - which is why it's completely wrong to say that "non-alienists" are relying on faith.

              - Todd Greene


              --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #25026):
              > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              > "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
              >>> "That has not been scientifically
              >>> demonstrated, and that is the point."
              >>
              >> Actually, the point is that all of the relevant
              >> empirical evidence supports the idea that humans
              >> have made up various notions about gods, and that
              >> none of them have actually come from a god.
              >>
              >> And that's why atheism is correct.
              >
              > Todd, I think we are getting close, but we're not quite there.
              >
              > It now seems that you are redefining "atheism" in your above
              > comments.
              >
              > That is, I was thinking that you and most atheists nowadays
              > were not against the notion that there might be a God, you
              > just didn't believe in one.
              >
              > It is not disputed by me that folks "make up various notions
              > about gods" and that none of the made up notions have actually
              > come from god; by definition.
              >
              > That may explain why non-believers don't believe, as I have
              > been pointing out; they extrapolate beyond the evidence so as
              > to accept "by faith" the notion that the idea/concept of God
              > ORIGINATED through the imaginative power of the human mind.
              >
              > Atheists believe it.
              > Theists don't.
              >
              > That's my unrebutted/unrebuttable point!
              >
              > Sincerely,
              > Robert Baty
            • rlbaty50
              ... Todd Greene wrote, in part: (1) ... and (2) ... and (3) ... and (4) ... ======================================================= My
              Message 6 of 17 , Oct 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in part:

                (1)

                > There's the "default" or "simple" atheism
                > referring to the mere fact of someone not
                > having a belief that any particular god exists.
                > There's the more "active" atheism of considering
                > a theistic claim and seeing flaws about the claim
                > ("Belief in a god isn't justified because there
                > isn't good evidence to back it up").

                and

                (2)

                > Atheists are correct (that belief in a god isn't
                > justified because there isn't good evidence to back
                > it up), because not only does all of the relevant
                > empirical evidence support the idea that humans make
                > up notions about gods, it supports the idea that
                > humans have made up all notions about every god...

                and

                (3)

                > This is why trying to use the word "originated" to
                > try to make some distinction that doesn't actually
                > exist doesn't work, because the evidence of "religious
                > thought" in humans shows nothing more than a typical
                > evolutionary development...

                and

                (4)

                > It's merely an empty word game, being motivated by
                > trying to tar atheists with the hypocrisy of relying
                > on faith just like religious believers do.

                =======================================================

                My responses, not in chronological order:

                (4)

                I wouldn't say "just like", but my fundamental proposition remains unrebutted. Atheists "believe" beyond the limits of the empirical evidence that the idea/concept of God "originated", independent of reason and/or revelation, through the power of imagination.

                No empty word game; an important fundamental matter.

                Atheists, in my experience, don't like being put in the affirmative regarding such fundamentals and don't like it being pointed out that on this most fundamental matter they have NOT established that imagination had the power to have originated the idea/concept of God and does, in fact, account for its origin.

                (1)

                For purposes of this discussion, I don't see that the effort to make a distinction is relevant.

                Some just don't believe, and some don't believe as to some particular claims which they don't think are supported by "good evidence".

                Speaking of "empty word games"! That play on "good evidence" fits in there pretty well, in my opinion. Obviously, the atheist, like the young-earth creation-science promoter, doesn't see any "good evidence" for their opposition.

                (2)

                See above for the word play about "good evidence".

                There is evidence to support having to choose between three alternatives as to the origin of the idea/concept of God:

                > Reason
                > Revelation
                > Imagination

                On the imagination claim, the atheist is stuck with having to interpolate from "folks make things up" to "folks made everything up".

                That, of course, is what is in dispute.

                It does not logically follow that if folks make things up, then everything is made up.

                Todd is having trouble agreeing with me explicitly, though everything he has been writing is in implicit agreement with me.

                The "inference from atheism" that imagination has/had the power and does, in fact, account for the origin of the idea/concept of God, explicitly affirmed by some (e.g., Todd), is a belief, an interpolation beyond the empirical data.

                I don't believe that.
                I don't make that interpolation.

                It is NOT demonstrable from the empirical evidence.

                Is there evidence that God revealed himself?

                I think so.

                Is there "good evidence" for it?

                Todd doesn't think so!

                (3)

                That religious thought may "evolve" is not disputed.

                Dealing with "origins" is relevant because it properly deals with the inference of atheism that involves a fundamental belief beyond the empirical data; the point being made by me.

                Atheists/evolutionists seem kinda proud of the claim that they haven't figured out the "origins" questions, but that they are working on it.

                They need to be, in my opinion, equally open in admitting that they haven't figured out the origin of the idea/concept of God. As was proposed regarding Daniel Dennett's analysis, they are working on it and think they have some ideas/beliefs about that that they believe are to be preferred to admitting they haven't falsified the claim that it was by revelation.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • rlbaty50
                ... http://web.archive.org/web/20071014110013/http://fluidimagination.com/blog/2007/ 07/25/of-dawkins-darwin-dennett-and-the-deity/ Of Dawkins, Darwin,
                Message 7 of 17 , Oct 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's that reference again to how Daniel Dennett, an authority of sorts, put it; from one of his sympathetic reviewers:

                  -------------------------------------------------------

                  http://web.archive.org/web/20071014110013/http://fluidimagination.com/blog/2007/\
                  07/25/of-dawkins-darwin-dennett-and-the-deity/

                  Of Dawkins, Darwin, Dennett, and the Deity
                  Posted by Kyle

                  In Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon,
                  Daniel Dennett summarizes...

                  THE ARGUMENT IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE THAN THIS,
                  OF COURSE,
                  AND RIDDLED WITH COMPETING AND UNPROVEN THEORIES,
                  BUT DENNETT'S POINT IS NOT THAT SCIENCE KNOWS
                  HOW RELIGION EVOLVED NATURALLY,
                  BUT THAT IT HAS SEVERAL IDEAS...

                  -------------------------------------------------
                  -------------------------------------------------

                  My further comments:

                  That's the point I have been trying to make.

                  Science has not actually accounted for the natural evolution of religion; much less the origin of the idea/concept of God.

                  However, scientists/atheists have some ideas/beliefs about that and I guess some of them are working on the problem.

                  Till then...I win! :o)

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • Todd Greene
                  ...and that all them are more plausible than the existence of a supernatural entity. And the reason all of them are more plausible than the existence of a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Oct 7, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "...and that all them are more plausible than the existence of a supernatural entity."

                    And the reason all of them are more plausible than the existence of a supernatural entity is because of the available evidence supports it, while the supernatural entity idea itself doesn't have any good evidence for it at all.

                    It's like art. We have all this archaeological evidence about humans making art going back for many tens of thousands of years - but it's quite true that we will NEVER know which specific human (or pre-human ancestor) made the first piece of art. That doesn't make it "faith" to say that humans made up art to begin with. Indeed, the argument "We don't know X, therefore God did it" (in this case, "X" being "who the very first human or pre-human ancestor who made the first piece of art was") is nothing more than a common fallacy.

                    - Todd Greene


                    --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
                    > Here's that reference again to how Daniel Dennett, an authority of sorts, put it; from one of his sympathetic reviewers:
                    >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    > http://web.archive.org/web/20071014110013/http://fluidimagination.com/blog/2007/\
                    > 07/25/of-dawkins-darwin-dennett-and-the-deity/
                    >
                    > Of Dawkins, Darwin, Dennett, and the Deity
                    > Posted by Kyle
                    >
                    > In Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon,
                    > Daniel Dennett summarizes...
                    >
                    > THE ARGUMENT IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE THAN THIS,
                    > OF COURSE,
                    > AND RIDDLED WITH COMPETING AND UNPROVEN THEORIES,
                    > BUT DENNETT'S POINT IS NOT THAT SCIENCE KNOWS
                    > HOW RELIGION EVOLVED NATURALLY,
                    > BUT THAT IT HAS SEVERAL IDEAS...
                    >
                    > -------------------------------------------------
                    > -------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    > My further comments:
                    >
                    > That's the point I have been trying to make.
                    >
                    > Science has not actually accounted for the natural evolution of religion; much less the origin of the idea/concept of God.
                    >
                    > However, scientists/atheists have some ideas/beliefs about that and I guess some of them are working on the problem.
                    >
                    > Till then...I win! :o)
                    >
                    > Sincerely,
                    > Robert Baty
                    >
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... I note again that Todd is further, implicitly, confirming my position in the matter. ... I ll let those interested look up the definition of plausible .
                    Message 9 of 17 , Oct 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

                      > "...and that all them are more plausible
                      > than the existence of a supernatural entity."

                      That was the tail end of the quote I gave which was:

                      > THE ARGUMENT IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE THAN THIS,
                      > OF COURSE,
                      > AND RIDDLED WITH COMPETING AND UNPROVEN THEORIES,
                      > BUT DENNETT'S POINT IS NOT THAT SCIENCE KNOWS
                      > HOW RELIGION EVOLVED NATURALLY,
                      > BUT THAT IT HAS SEVERAL IDEAS...

                      Todd then added:

                      > And the reason all of them are more plausible
                      > than the existence of a supernatural entity is
                      > because of the available evidence supports it,
                      > while the supernatural entity idea itself doesn't
                      > have any good evidence for it at all.

                      I note again that Todd is further, implicitly, confirming my position in the matter.

                      The fact of the matter is, as is indicated in the above quote:

                      > science has NOT confirmed how religion
                      > evolved naturally and has NOT confirmed
                      > how the idea/concept of God originated.

                      I'll let those interested look up the definition of "plausible".

                      For purposes of this discussion, that aspect of the quote refers to just what I have been saying; there is a "belief" beyond the limits of the evidence that imagination has/had the power and does, in fact, explain how the idea originated.

                      Some believe the origin was natural. Todd does.
                      Some don't. I don't.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • Todd Greene
                      beyond the limits of the evidence Of course, since all of the relevant evidence shows that humans have the capacity to make up notions about gods and that
                      Message 10 of 17 , Oct 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "beyond the limits of the evidence"

                        Of course, since all of the relevant evidence shows that humans have the capacity to make up notions about gods and that humans do in fact make up notions about gods, the idea that humans made up notions about the Bible god is anything but "beyond the limits of the evidence", which is why the argument you're using (the argument from Alexander Campbell) is false, and why it's false to say that the atheist description is merely "faith". (There's also the related point that the notions about the Bible god themselves are inherently flawed, and there's also the related point that the notion of the Bible itself being a supposed "infallible Word of God" is flawed.)

                        The problem with the theistic argument is that it can't even get off the ground - in other words, as a speculation it has not in any way been grounded in reality, the "ground" being real world evidence. The atheistic approach is entirely grounded in reality.

                        - Todd Greene


                        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
                        > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                        > "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
                        >
                        > > "...and that all them are more plausible
                        > > than the existence of a supernatural entity."
                        >
                        > That was the tail end of the quote I gave which was:
                        >
                        > > THE ARGUMENT IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE THAN THIS,
                        > > OF COURSE,
                        > > AND RIDDLED WITH COMPETING AND UNPROVEN THEORIES,
                        > > BUT DENNETT'S POINT IS NOT THAT SCIENCE KNOWS
                        > > HOW RELIGION EVOLVED NATURALLY,
                        > > BUT THAT IT HAS SEVERAL IDEAS...
                        >
                        > Todd then added:
                        >
                        > > And the reason all of them are more plausible
                        > > than the existence of a supernatural entity is
                        > > because of the available evidence supports it,
                        > > while the supernatural entity idea itself doesn't
                        > > have any good evidence for it at all.
                        >
                        > I note again that Todd is further, implicitly, confirming my position in the matter.
                        >
                        > The fact of the matter is, as is indicated in the above quote:
                        >
                        > > science has NOT confirmed how religion
                        > > evolved naturally and has NOT confirmed
                        > > how the idea/concept of God originated.
                        >
                        > I'll let those interested look up the definition of "plausible".
                        >
                        > For purposes of this discussion, that aspect of the quote refers to just what I have been saying; there is a "belief" beyond the limits of the evidence that imagination has/had the power and does, in fact, explain how the idea originated.
                        >
                        > Some believe the origin was natural. Todd does.
                        > Some don't. I don't.
                        >
                        > Sincerely,
                        > Robert Baty
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.