Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Then he goes on to mention the fact that Atheism has negative permutations, I wonder where most of those ideas come from? His issue is with the term "atheism" not with disbelief in God.
You are correct. That is why I brought it up. He is explaining why he does not identify as atheist.
So the compelling argument that Shermer is making is that the theists fail to make their case, the critics make rational arguments against this failure. Ultimately God's existence is irrelevant to humans since they can neither know, or understand a "God" (even if one existed) which explains why the theists have failed in their attempts and the skeptics have convincingly refuted all their arguments. The only thing, Shermer argues, that is relevant in his opinion is belief in God because it actually influences our world because of the choices that believers make, which he argues is ultimately based on faith. Faith he argues is more about a "leap of faith" and as Shermer has stated before:
I really don’t see how you’re disagreeing with me, per se. His pointin his explanation of why he doesn’t identify as an atheist is because he finds the belief in God and a denial of God’s existence as both untenable. Its untenable to hold to the proposition that there is no God. The question of His existence cannot even be answered.
However you seem to have missed the mark completely because the argument is only against one usage of the term atheism [the atheist denier] and the main argument is that neither the theists or atheists [deniers] could ever know a "God". So the claim that God exists is untenable, as God is unknowable, so it cannot be unproven because it has never been proven, neither can it be. All the "proofs" offered by theists have been refuted.
This does nothing to address atheist [disbelievers] who convincingly refute theistic justifications.
It might not. But I can see why he does not identify as an atheist and why he would never reasonably do so. I find his case compelling and I think for accuracy sake others who identify as atheist take a more reasonable approach.
Stemelbow you have assumed the LDS position and regularly make the "atheistic" affirmation of the existence of God and yet have failed to meet any burden of proof for it.
Prove it. I haven’t made any affirmation as you describe.
Which atheist position are you talking about? Since in the OP Shermer talks about two different positions. If you are talking about the Atheist [disbeliever] position then all that needs to be shown is that the theist has failed to prove their claims.
I’m clearly talking about the position that there is no God. If such a claim is to be maintained then there is a burden.
If an atheist simply says "there is no proof of God and no convincing argument by theists for a God's existence, the only place where any God appears are in mythologies which consist of fictional stories and the probability of there being a God is next to nothing therefore I am not a believer in any God" then there is no burden on proof on an atheism other than to show how wrong theism is in its claims.
The proposition included in the above “the only place where any God appears are in mythologies” is untenable on the same grounds of why Shermer doesn’t identify as an atheist. Other than that you describe an agnostic position, it seems to me.
In the case of the LDS Church this becomes even easier because unlike the existence of a God there is a vast amount of evidence condemning the Church and some of its claims can be tested and proved to be demonstrably false. This was the point of Darth's thread on the homoerotic adventures of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. The burden of proof lies with the person making the original claim.
Darth’s thread missed the mark. He made it in response to me and I do not claim the Church is true here. I am here to investigate the criticisms. He has misunderstood from the outset, and it appears you did too.
stemelbow wrote:From my experience it is not belief in God they they find untenable, most atheists know that "belief in God" is possible" they witness it on a day to day basis. Some have even experienced that belief themselves so they know that it is possible. What they find untenable are the arguments that theists use and the claims they make.
That’d be fine if that’s all we had here. Instead the propositions are made that the Church is false, and it is proven there is no God-type of stuff.
This is interesting because some misguided atheists really do make the claim of "I know that God doesn't exist" just like religious people. It is also a common misunderstanding of the position of atheists which along with the bad connotations the word has is probably why Shermer dislikes it. These are the atheist deniers that Shermer was talking about. However this doesn't apply to the majority of people that I know who identify as atheists, neither does it apply to the most "famous" atheists who actually wouldn't place themselves in the position of "I know there isn't a God" in the same way that religious believers claim to know.
Interestingly, though, the atheist denier position is the very position that people here hold regarding the LDS church. That is the pint of this thread.
stemelbow wrote:Shermer is arguing that the theists will never know and that the atheists will never "know" because it is impossible for humans to "know" that is what is meant by saying that the question of existence of a God is insoluble. Shermer is also stating that the existence of a God is irrelevant, since both sides will never "know".
I think you are closer to understanding my point then you and others may think, actually. You’ve actually read the book it seems, or from Shermer before. That is good.
Which leaves the theistic arguments for a God, claims about a God, claims about religions and the concept of a God as it exists in people's minds which can all be and have been refuted. The LDS Church goes one step further and beyond failing to prove the existence of a God like all theists, the LDS Church cannot prove any of its claims with many that are demonstrably false.
Lol. There we go—“the Church cannot prove any of its claims”. So if the claim is that Joseph Smith existed, the Church can’t prove it in your mind. We’re left with an atheist denier position. And I don’t know if any are demonstrable false per se. There are many arguments that are made against certain propositions by the Church, some of those arguments are really pretty good. But I don’t know if any are necessarily proven to be the only explanation, or argument.
stemelbow wrote:So they may move from one untenable position to another, but that is only due to faulty logic from believer to atheist denier.
Lol. Cute. Blame the believers for all the problems of atheists.
However since the existence God is unknowable to both believers and non-believers alike, and thus irrelevant, that leaves the issue of religions and their claims which unlike a God in many cases can be shown to be demonstrably false, in particular the LDS Church.
I believe you’ve misunderstood but that is neither here nor there, so whatever.
stemelbow wrote:Almost as weird as making death oaths?
or being placed under the water repeatedly while someone reads out the name of someone who is dead?
or in an office with an old man as a teenager asking you if you masturbate?
or with the prophet asking for your wife and your teenage daughter?
or outside the temple while a member of your family is married inside?
It is natural to understand why someone who came from a position of faulty logic could then proceed to another position of faulty logic. Thanks for being evidence of that Stem.
Oh brother. What deflection. What gamesmanship.
stemelbow wrote:This is no "out" at all. The point Shermer was making is that as soon as you move away from the existence of a God, which he argues is irrelevant to believer and nonbeliever alike, you can then deal with the practical issues such as the unreliability of faith. Faith is not an "out" from the fact that theists have failed to make their case in the same way that Faith isn't an "out" for the LDS Church when its claims can be proven to be demonstrably false.
But its claims aren’t proven false as you claim. That’s the problem of this joint.
Michael Shermer wrote:This is where Shermer excels because it is where he can show why people believe and act the way that they do which has absolutely nothing to do with proving that something is true and very much to do with people being human. Faith proves nothing other than the commitment of the individual to that belief, it is not an "out" for proving your claims. In the area of "experiences [you] consider spiritual" this is not evidence at all for the claims that are being made.
It doesn’t matter. Just because I have faith and that faith is based on experience it does not stand to reason that faith itself is unreliable. No one can know that, perhaps not even I.
I can see why you would come to that conclusion since you have failed to show any evidence of being capable of "reasoning to prove [your] position, which is impossible to do." All that the atheist disbeliever has to do is show that the theists have failed to make their case, that there is no evidence for their position and show where there is evidence against. The atheist denier never will be able to prove their position and neither will the the believer because it is completely unknowable.
The positions taken by you and others on this site are very much like the atheist deniers. Thanks though.
Nope Stem the very problem is created by the dishonesty of correlation and the LDS Church to its members. It is of their creation regardless of how unwilling you may be to see or accept it.
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Its obvious to me you are staking a claim to the insoluble again. But you do assume dishonesty so it must be so, huh?