He Who Claims "God", Has A Moral Obligation To Produce Evidence.

And why is that? Does the Bible not talk about God interacting with the physical world?

 

Indeed Uniformitarianism is an easy way out especially when one reads the history of Uniformitarianism. Proposed by a geologist, and is alleged to be a "self-maintaining infinite cycle based on natural history and not on the Biblical record." It was also "popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[SUP][2][/SUP]"

So now you take it upon yourself to say that atheists (anyone making a declaration of being an atheist- - which are quite a few) utilize Uniformitarianism as a justification for all of their beliefs. Remember now,, you were answering this question "What beliefs do atheists hold as an instrument that justifies those beliefs?" So in essence you have stated that atheists only have one belief and that belief is used to justify that one belief. Gee that sounds familiar. I asked for the 'beliefs' (plural), and you took it upon yourself to limit the 'beliefs' of atheists to just one 'belief'. Now according to the requirements of the question, that one 'belief' must justify that one 'belief'. Outside of that one belief, there can be no other beliefs (according to you and your statements above in response to my request for the plural version [beliefs]). Therefore, there is no belief held by atheists pertaining to such things as love, or an individuals ability to achieve any goal,
(belief being defined by a dictionary).
"be·lief
(bĭ-lēf&#8242n.1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

 

Metaphysical BS, that's all, we are just lucky our universe happened to have the physics and chemistry to create biological life it might have not it was a throw of the dice. Happenstance that happened to work out for us.

 

I indicated that you made an ad hominem fallacy, referring to the bolded part of your quote below. When you replied, you chose to leave out this highlighted portion. Fail much?

 

So you have a disdain for others expressing opinions yet it is OK for you to express opinions. Got it.

 

It's a logical fallacy to think that way; we aren't 'lucky' this planet/location in the universe has the capacity to sustain conscious life, because if it didn't, we would have never been 'unlucky' enough to have not existed... We just would never have existed.

 

When your opinion is an ad hominem fallacy, there is no reason for me to point it out.
Nice try.

 

Do you really think that I am concerned about your hangup on logical fallacies? If you do you are only partly right. My concern in that matter is pointing out particular fallacies that you commit. As for me, I am not self obligated to adhere to such fanciful imaginations as logic and logical fallacies. There is no law, rule, statute, regulation, TOS, or any other obligatory document which requires me (specifically) or anyone else to adhere to such BS. Members on this forum have been repeatedly reminded by me of the same thing. So, if you want to say that I am irrational or illogical, then have at it. On the other hand, in the case of irrationality, be prepared to show documentary evidence, signed and sealed by an official psychologist or psychiatrist that demonstrates that I (by my real name) have been evaluated by that said doctor and that said doctor has determined that I am 'irrational'. Otherwise ... deal with it. You are the one who has volunteered to act according to the whims of another man (the creator of "logic"). Don't attempt to push that philosophical dogma off on me.

 

Just to ensure I understand your post correctly, please feel free to correct my interpretation of the above...

1. I am the only one "hung up" on logical fallacies.
2. Your concern is pointing out fallacies (which seems to contradict point 1).
3. You do not have to adhere to any form of logic (which would make pointing out fallacies - as in point 2 - a demonstration of hypocrisy).
4. There is no reason to adhere to any form of logic (which makes point 2 a waste of time, and hypocritical)
5. "Members on this forum have...." = appeal to popularity.
6. I am allowed to say you're being irrational, which is a good thing since ignoring logic is (by definition) irrational.
7. despite the fact that you admit that you do not use logic, and cannot dispute that this fits the definition of "irrational", someone must obtain the unobtainable in order to express the logical conclusion that you are being irrational.
8. A repeat of point 1, which still contradicts point 2.
9. you (a Christian) whine about someone pushing their "philosophical dogma"...​

Is the above interpretation correct? If not, care to clarify?
It's nice to see you making assertions for a change.

 

Exactly so.

We're here on earth because earth happened to be a planet upon which this kind of life started.

Too many folks forget the truly gigantic numbers of earths where this experiment was run.

 

I myself as an atheist do, and I know others that do.

Perhaps I was confused by your poorly worded and vague question. The second question.

Are you asking me here what beliefs justify empiricism or what beliefs justify holding other beliefs?

 

of course. however, very few atheists would assert such a thing on the claimed basis of absolute knowledge.

 

just wanted to say - wonderful post

 

Nope and nope. Wrong on both accounts. Why? Because you are making presumptions as usual and on par with someone who seemingly has been duped by the many assertions made within the scientific community. It is also nice to see that there is little hope for you, IMHO.

 

You mean like some children who believe they have an "invisible friend" who no one else can see or hear but the CHILD believes it's there?

Kinda like believing in a god? You mean like that?

 

The questions are asking what they are asking. It is worded just exactly as I intended it to be asked. You say it was poorly worded: Perhaps your confusion is due to an ineffective reading comprehension. Did I mention 'empiricism'? No? Then I would have to conclude that 'empiricism' is not the specific and or solitary subject of the question. I sense that you are now attempting to backpedal for the purpose of rationalizing (making an excuse for) your specific answer showing that atheists only hold one belief and that one belief is uniformitarianism.

 

You mean kinda like the description that came from your mind? To mentally or intellectually image God as an "invisible friend", then your mind possesses its own rendition of what God is to you.... thus showing that God does exist at least in your mind as well as in the mind of all other people who speak or write about God. Does your mind exist?

 

So god is visible and NOT your friend?

No, believers are as childlike as children who truly believe in their invisible friends.

Do you believe Hobbits exist? I mean they exist in some people's mind so you think they're real.....(they aren't)

 

You nailed it in a nutshell. Nice job.

 

You mean you are now changing the goal posts from what was presented in your former comment?

Well it is good that you recognize that believers are adhering to the teachings found in the 'Bible'.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I believe that they exist in the form of a series of books that were written for entertainment purposes, and that the books were followed up by movies depicting the events of the book written story. They obviously exist in your mind as well as others... otherwise, your body could not have typed in the message pertaining to them.

 

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that you used "beliefs" as pronouns twice in the same sentence to refer to two entirely different sets of beliefs.

"So, you think it's not silly that atheists require evidence, tangible evidence, for their beliefs"

That's the definition of empiricism.

I already admitted that I was confused by your poorly worded question. Take it however you will. Why don't you answer the final question that I posed to you?

 

Or maybe you are interpreting it to be in reference to "tow entirely different sets of beliefs." Did you also notice the use of the word "those" included in that sentence... as in "those beliefs" which refers back to the original mention of 'beliefs'? Probably you did not.

Yeppir that is a good quote.

No! The following is the definitions (as presented by one dictionary) of 'empiricism'.

"em·pir·i·cism
(ĕm-pîr′ĭ-sĭz′əm)n.1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
2. a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.
b. An empirical conclusion.

3. The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience."

Your homemade definition is not worth a hoot.

What question was the final question you posed to me?

 

Your original question still has many interpretations, then. You ask me if I think that it's silly for atheists to hold beliefs based on evidence. This I take as a rhetorical question since I already said it was not silly in the post before that. You then ask me what beliefs we, or I, hold that justify holding those beliefs. Now, to me this sounds like you're asking me what beliefs justify using evidence to come to certain conclusions. And to that I would say Uniformitarianism is probably the biggest justification for it. But if you're asking me what do I use to justify my beliefs in the first place, I already told you, I rely on EVIDENCE.

I'm trying to weed out what you meant, and that was my final question to you: "Are you asking me here what beliefs justify empiricism or what beliefs justify holding other beliefs?"

Where do you see a divergence between the definition I provided and the one you provided? Empiricism is the theory that knowledge ONLY (which are just beliefs about the natural world) comes from observable evidence. That is WHAT I SAID atheists do.

 

My question remains the same irrespective to your failed attempts to make the question to read in a manner in which it was not written.

You made a quote .... ""So, you think it's not silly that atheists require evidence, tangible evidence, for their beliefs"
"
followed up by a declaration...

That's the definition of empiricism. "

Your definition of empiricism as previously stated by you does not correspond to the definition you have provided in the post which I am responding to. You keep right on moving the goal posts. Inconsistency seems to be your soup de jure.