Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Has Atheism Become It's Enemy?

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists, and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:41:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the "new-atheism" (Sam Harris, Hitchens, etc.), has created a backlash against itself, much of it not even coming from theists, but agnostic/atheists scholars/philosophers, who can't stand their 3rd-rate logic, and zeal with which they attack something they know little about.

The turn of modern atheism from passively dissenting to actively attacking has also enraged many theists, though I'm not sure if that is necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not sure if this has hurt the cause of Atheism, but it has certainly helped polarize the debate.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Perhaps because most people who think religion is even worth studying to that extent are religious. I mean, most people who join Big foot clubs believe in Big Foot. I'm not saying that is the case, jut that maybe you are confusing cause and effect. Either way, do you have a poll to support this notion?


Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Most philosophers are Atheists, and you don't have to be a philosopher of religion to have an expert opinion on this issue. Philosophers of physics for example, are completely qualified to talk about what they believe is the most likely explanation for the universe. There are many areas of philosophy that make one qualified to talk about God (philosophy of mind), that aren't the philosophy of religion... Anyway, here is a poll done (with a huge sample size of almost 1000) philosophers. Atheism seems to be more popular than theism in the community.

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other117 / 931 (12.6%)

[http://philpapers.org...]

To me, a sample size of almost 1000 paints a clear picture.


and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

You never responded to my claim that most cosmologists are Atheists. The reason I believe this is the case for two reasons. The first reason, is because Sean Carrol says so, and he is a cosmologist, so he would know his own community:

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

[http://preposterousuniverse.com...]

The second reason has to do with the Closer to Truth (hosted by Robert Lawrence). He has interviewed countless scientists, theologians... He has said plenty of times on the show that virtually all scientists he interviews are naturalists. Even Christopher Isham (theistic physicist), when he was interviewed, admitted that he is very uncommon.


If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?

So, first you must:

(i) Show a poll/ piece of evidence that supports your claim that most philosophers of religion are theists

(ii) Show that the philosophy of religion is the only philosophy qualified to make claims about God.

Personally, I think you may have better luck with (i) than (ii). Because, (ii) seems absurd to defend.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:12:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can see why a small subset of atheists would want to set up and operate a church. Since atheism has almost always been a rejection of conventional belief systems, they'd like to beat the religious at their own game. But it's defiance taken too far and it makes a mockery of what atheism is. I mean the very concept of an atheist church was coined by two comedians, right? I think that pretty much sums up just how serious these atheists are about establishing atheism as a religion.

Which it can't be, anyway, unless we are to re-define what constitutes a religion. If we're going to apply the loose definition laid out in the OP then boy scouts could be touted as a religion. But that doesn't make much sense, does it.

Really it's all semantics. Many atheists like myself would also call themselves agnostics because agnosticism/gnosticism is in a separate class from atheism/theism. The former pertains to what you claim to know; the latter being what you believe. But it's all semantics, really, and why argue semantics. I do not believe in a god, but I do not know if one exists or not. On the Dawkins 7 point scale of belief I'd fall under a 6 but leaning towards a 7, in so far as I live under the assumption that a personal god does not exist.

I do see a general trend among many atheist communities where these people will act holier than thou and claim to be smarter than theists just due to the fact that they are atheists, and it p*sses me off. But, it's still not enough to tarnish what atheism is, because it's quite simple. It's just lacking a belief in a god or gods. There's no way you can build a religion around that premise if we're working with strict definitions.

The people who are most bent at labeling atheism as a religion - not surprisingly - are the theists/religious themselves. As though dragging atheism down to their level gives them equal validity. It would seem to be kind of a self-refuting tactic, though. "Atheists also blindly believe based on faith, therefore they're no better than us!".

Perhaps instead everyone should just focus on bettering themselves rather than taking stock in how they measure up against others?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:13:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 12:54:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Perhaps because most people who think religion is even worth studying to that extent are religious. I mean, most people who join Big foot clubs believe in Big Foot. I'm not saying that is the case, jut that maybe you are confusing cause and effect. Either way, do you have a poll to support this notion?


Or maybe you're illegimately dismissing the results as confirmation bias?

http://philpapers.org...

Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Most philosophers are Atheists, and you don't have to be a philosopher of religion to have an expert opinion on this issue.

It certainly would help. If a person who specializes in philosophy of science and does little to no work and philosophy of relgion (to the extent that they confuse basic distinctions) then that certainly makes me doubt their competence. And the links I provided certainly show evidence of that in professional atheist philosophers.

Philosophers of physics for example, are completely qualified to talk about what they believe is the most likely explanation for the universe. There are many areas of philosophy that make one qualified to talk about God (philosophy of mind), that aren't the philosophy of religion... Anyway, here is a poll done (with a huge sample size of almost 1000) philosophers. Atheism seems to be more popular than theism in the community.


Not particularly. Though interdiscinary studies do help.

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other117 / 931 (12.6%)

[http://philpapers.org...]

To me, a sample size of almost 1000 paints a clear picture.



and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

You never responded to my claim that most cosmologists are Atheists. The reason I believe this is the case for two reasons. The first reason, is because Sean Carrol says so, and he is a cosmologist, so he would know his own community:

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

[http://preposterousuniverse.com...]


And I've been unimpressed by many cosmologists' philosophizing skills. Particularly Carroll's and Krauss's and Stenger's....

The second reason has to do with the Closer to Truth (hosted by Robert Lawrence). He has interviewed countless scientists, theologians... He has said plenty of times on the show that virtually all scientists he interviews are naturalists. Even Christopher Isham (theistic physicist), when he was interviewed, admitted that he is very uncommon.



Again, what does that show?

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:15:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 12:58:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?

So, first you must:

(i) Show a poll/ piece of evidence that supports your claim that most philosophers of religion are theists


Already did.

(ii) Show that the philosophy of religion is the only philosophy qualified to make claims about God.


Never said that. Just saying that I trust their competence more than those who don't specialize in it (and so should others). One ought to end more credence to those experts who specialize in some desired discipline than those who don't.

Personally, I think you may have better luck with (i) than (ii). Because, (ii) seems absurd to defend.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Really I was tired of the atheism vs. theism debate and the flamewars between the two camps years ago. You can't fight fire with fire. The man I admire most for his temperament and his treatment of people of faith is Carl Sagan. The world needs more kindness, more empathy and more compassion. More willingness to treat people with kindness rather than scorn. It isn't always possible, of course, but it's a goal we should strive towards.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:15:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 12:58:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?

So, first you must:

(i) Show a poll/ piece of evidence that supports your claim that most philosophers of religion are theists


Already did.

Not that I saw. I only saw 3 links to blogspots...


(ii) Show that the philosophy of religion is the only philosophy qualified to make claims about God.


Never said that. Just saying that I trust their competence more than those who don't specialize in it (and so should others).

I don't. Because God's existence doesn't necessarily have to include religion. God could exist, and religion could be false. I trust philosophers of physics more for example, because they are more qualified to talk about universal origins, and what the explanation might be.

Either way, it seems you concede that most cosmologists are Athiests (by avoiding the issue) so I don't need to say anything more about that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:44:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Never mind about you ignoring the cosmologist issue, I seen you made two posts instead of one, which was confusing. I will now respond to your other post.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:13:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 12:54:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:00 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:04:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/17/2013 11:47:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Atheism has been a unique form of philosophy that dared to challenge what many people believed. Religion. What started as Agnostic, turned into a full on belief of no God itself. It has developed to where now it is an organization like religion. Filled with conferences, organizations, rules, denominations, and even churches. Atheist people I met always actually claim to be agnostic. Why? They hate the term atheist and the atheist people. They claim atheists are know it alls and they love to say they deny God only so they can offer scientific evidence. But everytime I hear things, it's always "We are still working on it". Let me know when you do find out the answers of the universe being created as well as the earth and us. But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?

Well, most philosophers are Atheists,

And most philosophers who've studied the issue the most (i.e. philosophers of religion) are theists.

Perhaps because most people who think religion is even worth studying to that extent are religious. I mean, most people who join Big foot clubs believe in Big Foot. I'm not saying that is the case, jut that maybe you are confusing cause and effect. Either way, do you have a poll to support this notion?


Or maybe you're illegimately dismissing the results as confirmation bias?

http://philpapers.org...

How can I dismiss results I have never been introduced to? Yes, you are correct, I accept that most philosophers of religion are theists.


Also, atheist philosophers who don't specialize in phil of religion tend to be little better than non-philosophers on the relevant issues.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Most philosophers are Atheists, and you don't have to be a philosopher of religion to have an expert opinion on this issue.

It certainly would help. If a person who specializes in philosophy of science and does little to no work and philosophy of relgion (to the extent that they confuse basic distinctions) then that certainly makes me doubt their competence.

Not at all. God could exists, and religion could be false. The philosophy of religion doesn't have a monopoly on talking about God.

And the links I provided certainly show evidence of that in professional atheist philosophers.

How so?


Philosophers of physics for example, are completely qualified to talk about what they believe is the most likely explanation for the universe. There are many areas of philosophy that make one qualified to talk about God (philosophy of mind), that aren't the philosophy of religion... Anyway, here is a poll done (with a huge sample size of almost 1000) philosophers. Atheism seems to be more popular than theism in the community.


Not particularly. Though interdiscinary studies do help.

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other117 / 931 (12.6%)

[http://philpapers.org...]

To me, a sample size of almost 1000 paints a clear picture.



and most cosmologists as well. So, I'd say Atheism is alive and well. Most lay-people believe in God, but the people who know and study reality the best think otherwise.

You never responded to my claim that most cosmologists are Atheists. The reason I believe this is the case for two reasons. The first reason, is because Sean Carrol says so, and he is a cosmologist, so he would know his own community:

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

[http://preposterousuniverse.com...]


And I've been unimpressed by many cosmologists' philosophizing skills. Particularly Carroll's and Krauss's and Stenger's....

That's a subjective claim.


The second reason has to do with the Closer to Truth (hosted by Robert Lawrence). He has interviewed countless scientists, theologians... He has said plenty of times on the show that virtually all scientists he interviews are naturalists. Even Christopher Isham (theistic physicist), when he was interviewed, admitted that he is very uncommon.



Again, what does that show?

That most people who study the reality we live in (cosmologists) don't believe in God. so, Atheism isn't dead.

The only reason I mentioned all the support Atheism has in the philosophical and scientific community is because the OP implied that Atheism was dead. Nope. It is alive and well.


If you just mean militant Atheists, then who cares?

I'm not saying:

"Most philosophers and Cosmologists are Atheists, therefore, it is probably true, or it should be taken more seriously than theism"

I am saying:

"Most philosophers and Cosmologists are Atheists, therefore, Atheism is not dead. Not by a long shot."

I was only responding to the OP, and letting him know that Atheism isn't dead.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?"

I was only responding to that. I was just driving home the point that Atheism is not dead. Whether it is true or not, or should be taken more seriously is a different matter. Atheism is still alive and well in the philosophical and scientific community, so there is still a "movement"of these people. However, when he says "movement", that may imply militant Atheism. Which, nobody should care about anyway.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 2:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:54:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?"

I was only responding to that. I was just driving home the point that Atheism is not dead. Whether it is true or not, or should be taken more seriously is a different matter. Atheism is still alive and well in the philosophical and scientific community, so there is still a "movement"of these people. However, when he says "movement", that may imply militant Atheism. Which, nobody should care about anyway.

Why are you capitalizing the word atheism when it is a common noun?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 2:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 2:00:09 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?"

I was only responding to that. I was just driving home the point that Atheism is not dead. Whether it is true or not, or should be taken more seriously is a different matter. Atheism is still alive and well in the philosophical and scientific community, so there is still a "movement"of these people. However, when he says "movement", that may imply militant Atheism. Which, nobody should care about anyway.

Why are you capitalizing the word atheism when it is a common noun?

I'm a capitalist.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 2:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 2:00:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:00:09 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:54:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"But has atheism come to a point where we can no longer take them seriously anymore or is there still a movement of these people?"

I was only responding to that. I was just driving home the point that Atheism is not dead. Whether it is true or not, or should be taken more seriously is a different matter. Atheism is still alive and well in the philosophical and scientific community, so there is still a "movement"of these people. However, when he says "movement", that may imply militant Atheism. Which, nobody should care about anyway.

Why are you capitalizing the word atheism when it is a common noun?

I'm a capitalist.

Well played sir, well played.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 5:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

But most people who don't believe in God probably don't care enough to get involved in the philosophy of religion. I mean, if they had a philosophy of Big Foot, I'm sure most people who believe Big Foot doesn't exist won't care enough to get involved in that philosophy. My point is that is is not really an interesting result that most philosophers of religion are religious (it should be expected). However, it is interesting that most philosophers in general are Atheists. There is no reason why we would expect that...

Either way, the only reason I mentioned that most philosophers and physicists/ cosmologists are Atheists was to prove that Atheism is not dying, and alive and well. I wasn't implying that my position is better because most philosophers and scientists agree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:52:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

Yeah, this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:04:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 5:18:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

But most people who don't believe in God probably don't care enough to get involved in the philosophy of religion. I mean, if they had a philosophy of Big Foot, I'm sure most people who believe Big Foot doesn't exist won't care enough to get involved in that philosophy. My point is that is is not really an interesting result that most philosophers of religion are religious (it should be expected).

Why should it be expected? Shouldn't we expect these religious philosophers to encounter enough serious philosophical problems (PoE, argument from divine hiddenness, etc) with religious beliefs/theism to at least move them toward agnosticism?

However, it is interesting that most philosophers in general are Atheists.

Not really. It's intellectual fashion these days to be naturalists/materalists/physicalists too (I have no idea why considering arguments are rarely put forward for the position(s); instead they are just assume that it is the case.... but that's besides the point). Most naturalists/materialists/physicalists tend to be atheists.

There is no reason why we would expect that...


If the the examples I pointed to are any indication of how the general professional non-PoR specialist atheist philosophers are then that's not really an important/interesting result.

Either way, the only reason I mentioned that most philosophers and physicists/ cosmologists are Atheists was to prove that Atheism is not dying, and alive and well. I wasn't implying that my position is better because most philosophers and scientists agree.

I get that, I was just pointing out something that I think is salient.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:05:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:52:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

Yeah, this.

You can get with this, or you can get with that
I think you'll get with this, for this is where it's at
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:19:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:04:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:18:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

But most people who don't believe in God probably don't care enough to get involved in the philosophy of religion. I mean, if they had a philosophy of Big Foot, I'm sure most people who believe Big Foot doesn't exist won't care enough to get involved in that philosophy. My point is that is is not really an interesting result that most philosophers of religion are religious (it should be expected).

Why should it be expected? Shouldn't we expect these religious philosophers to encounter enough serious philosophical problems (PoE, argument from divine hiddenness, etc) with religious beliefs/theism to at least move them toward agnosticism?

I know some theistic philosophers who say that there aren't really any good answers to the PoE, but they still believe in God (I saw it on a couple of occasions on Closer to Truth episodes, I will try to find it upon request). Just because a philosopher of religion is a theist, that doesn't mean he believes atheism has been defeated in the literature. Their are many issues theistic philosophers view as "unsolved problems" for theism. That doesn't shake their belief any. Regardless, the poll didn't ask "who has better arguments", but "which side are you on". Religion, over anything else, involves most biased towards ones own position. People kill over religion. People don't kill each other over who's physical model is better. It is something that means more to people's lives than other things. I have seen people say they put Jesus above their children. Do you really think that some academic arguments are going to change their faith? I think not.


However, it is interesting that most philosophers in general are Atheists.

Not really. It's intellectual fashion these days to be naturalists/materalists/physicalists too (I have no idea why considering arguments are rarely put forward for the position(s); instead they are just assume that it is the case.... but that's besides the point). Most naturalists/materialists/physicalists tend to be atheists.

What the hell is fashionable about atheism? That seems like a cop out to me.


There is no reason why we would expect that...


If the the examples I pointed to are any indication of how the general professional non-PoR specialist atheist philosophers are then that's not really an important/interesting result.

What examples?


Either way, the only reason I mentioned that most philosophers and physicists/ cosmologists are Atheists was to prove that Atheism is not dying, and alive and well. I wasn't implying that my position is better because most philosophers and scientists agree.

I get that, I was just pointing out something that I think is salient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've heard philosophers say that they feel the Holy Spirit or some other such weird supernatural stuff, and that gives them warrant for belief regardless of arguments. Well, I guess its cased closed then!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:41:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:33:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I've heard philosophers say that they feel the Holy Spirit or some other such weird supernatural stuff, and that gives them warrant for belief regardless of arguments. Well, I guess its cased closed then!

So? I've heard some atheist philosophers say they won't even consider theism (and arguments for it) because it's off the intellectual map . Case closed?

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:48:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:41:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 7:33:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I've heard philosophers say that they feel the Holy Spirit or some other such weird supernatural stuff, and that gives them warrant for belief regardless of arguments. Well, I guess its cased closed then!

So? I've heard some atheist philosophers say they won't even consider theism (and arguments for it) because it's off the intellectual map . Case closed?

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

Fair enough.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:02:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:19:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 7:04:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:18:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

But most people who don't believe in God probably don't care enough to get involved in the philosophy of religion. I mean, if they had a philosophy of Big Foot, I'm sure most people who believe Big Foot doesn't exist won't care enough to get involved in that philosophy. My point is that is is not really an interesting result that most philosophers of religion are religious (it should be expected).

Why should it be expected? Shouldn't we expect these religious philosophers to encounter enough serious philosophical problems (PoE, argument from divine hiddenness, etc) with religious beliefs/theism to at least move them toward agnosticism?


I know some theistic philosophers who say that there aren't really any good answers to the PoE, but they still believe in God (I saw it on a couple of occasions on Closer to Truth episodes, I will try to find it upon request). Just because a philosopher of religion is a theist, that doesn't mean he believes atheism has been defeated in the literature. Their are many issues theistic philosophers view as "unsolved problems" for theism. That doesn't shake their belief any.

Have you actually ever really talked to any theistic philosophers of religion or read their thoughts? Like, really talked to them about or read their thoughts about their faith? Doesn't seem like it. For one this part by Rob Gressis' seems to be very typical of their thoughts:

"By contrast, I have nagging, deep doubts about my own religious beliefs. I think this is partly because you can publish lots of secular philosophy in generalist journals while explicitly assuming the truth of naturalism, whereas you can"t publish philosophy that makes explicitly theistic assumptions in generalist journals (or can you? And if you can, under what circumstances can you do so? As a hypothetical? I don"t count those). Perhaps I"m simply neuro-atypical, but I think that would consistently add to the confidence in my convictions. (And this says nothing of the naturalistic assumptions you can make in most conversations with most philosophers.)"

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...

Regardless, the poll didn't ask "who has better arguments", but "which side are you on". Religion, over anything else, involves most biased towards ones own position. People kill over religion. People don't kill each other over who's physical model is better. It is something that means more to people's lives than other things. I have seen people say they put Jesus above their children. Do you really think that some academic arguments are going to change their faith? I think not.


Uh yeah. Partly because PoE i(for example) sn't just an "academic" argument - it's a very existential argument that affects people on every level. Seeing a child starve to death isn't merely "academic".

And you seem ignorant of the typical intellectual formation/journey of a theistic philosopher. They change their minds all the time on very big issues (i.e. their "faith").

Would you say the same thing about atheist philosophers of religion? Are they also subject to overwhelming bias? Or do your claims of overwhelming bias only go one way?


However, it is interesting that most philosophers in general are Atheists.

Not really. It's intellectual fashion these days to be naturalists/materalists/physicalists too (I have no idea why considering arguments are rarely put forward for the position(s); instead they are just assume that it is the case.... but that's besides the point). Most naturalists/materialists/physicalists tend to be atheists.

What the hell is fashionable about atheism? That seems like a cop out to me.


...have you ever actually worked/studied in a secular academic environment or heard reports from those who aren't atheists who work/study in those enviroments? I have. Atheism is very much en vogue.

Cop out to what? You mean like how you unduly dismiss theists working in PoR as subject to overwhelming bias. I mean...it simply couldn't be that they don't see the force of these alleged knockdown arguments for atheism or that they think their arguments are better...could it?


There is no reason why we would expect that...


If the the examples I pointed to are any indication of how the general professional non-PoR specialist atheist philosophers are then that's not really an important/interesting result.

What examples?


In the links I provided earlier.


Either way, the only reason I mentioned that most philosophers and physicists/ cosmologists are Atheists was to prove that Atheism is not dying, and alive and well. I wasn't implying that my position is better because most philosophers and scientists agree.

I get that, I was just pointing out something that I think is salient.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 8:02:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 7:19:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 7:04:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:18:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:52:59 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 12/18/2013 2:24:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, PCP, even if you are unimpressed with physicists and their philosophizing skills. Most philosophers of physics are Atheists as well. So, its not just most physicists, but most philosophers of physics.

With respect to your point, compare atheist "thinkers" like Krauss, Dawkins or even professional philosophers like Alex Rosenberg or Dan Dennett who have very little knowledge of philosophy of religion with Bill Rowe or JL Schellenberg and you'll see PCP has a point. The former, I'd argue, make glaring errors routinely and probably aren't even aware of much (most?) of the academic atheist literature.

On the flip side, I don't think Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher of religion (at least not to the extent of Craig, Plantinga, etc), but is one of the better atheist thinkers, IMO. Still, the speciality criteria is generally a good rule of thumb.

But most people who don't believe in God probably don't care enough to get involved in the philosophy of religion. I mean, if they had a philosophy of Big Foot, I'm sure most people who believe Big Foot doesn't exist won't care enough to get involved in that philosophy. My point is that is is not really an interesting result that most philosophers of religion are religious (it should be expected).

Why should it be expected? Shouldn't we expect these religious philosophers to encounter enough serious philosophical problems (PoE, argument from divine hiddenness, etc) with religious beliefs/theism to at least move them toward agnosticism?


I know some theistic philosophers who say that there aren't really any good answers to the PoE, but they still believe in God (I saw it on a couple of occasions on Closer to Truth episodes, I will try to find it upon request). Just because a philosopher of religion is a theist, that doesn't mean he believes atheism has been defeated in the literature. Their are many issues theistic philosophers view as "unsolved problems" for theism. That doesn't shake their belief any.

Have you actually ever really talked to any theistic philosophers of religion or read their thoughts? Like, really talked to them about or read their thoughts about their faith? Doesn't seem like it. For one this part by Rob Gressis' seems to be very typical of their thoughts:

"By contrast, I have nagging, deep doubts about my own religious beliefs. I think this is partly because you can publish lots of secular philosophy in generalist journals while explicitly assuming the truth of naturalism, whereas you can"t publish philosophy that makes explicitly theistic assumptions in generalist journals (or can you? And if you can, under what circumstances can you do so? As a hypothetical? I don"t count those). Perhaps I"m simply neuro-atypical, but I think that would consistently add to the confidence in my convictions. (And this says nothing of the naturalistic assumptions you can make in most conversations with most philosophers.)"

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...

How does one philosopher speak for the whole bunch? I have seen statements made by various philosophers of religion an opinions vary.


Regardless, the poll didn't ask "who has better arguments", but "which side are you on". Religion, over anything else, involves most biased towards ones own position. People kill over religion. People don't kill each other over who's physical model is better. It is something that means more to people's lives than other things. I have seen people say they put Jesus above their children. Do you really think that some academic arguments are going to change their faith? I think not.


Uh yeah. Partly because PoE i(for example) sn't just an "academic" argument - it's a very existential argument that affects people on every level. Seeing a child starve to death isn't merely "academic".

Most philosophers of religion I know don't question God's existence over a child starving, they are just mad at God at best, but still believe due to prior convictions.


And you seem ignorant of the typical intellectual formation/journey of a theistic philosopher. They change their minds all the time on very big issues (i.e. their "faith").

This seems like a fallacy of equivocation pertaining to "faith". I obviously mean faith in general. Such as, belief that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior and that God exists. Obviously they change their "faith" within that particular framework.


Would you say the same thing about atheist philosophers of religion? Are they also subject to overwhelming bias? Or do your claims of overwhelming bias only go one way?

There is bias in every area, but when it comes to people in their religion; this is where the most bias lies. I think it would be naive to think that atheists in general hold their atheism as something dear to them, in the same way a religious man holds his religion dear to him.

I think that in general, it is clear that religion is more dear to the religious, than atheism is to the atheist (regardless of some exceptions of course).



However, it is interesting that most philosophers in general are Atheists.

Not really. It's intellectual fashion these days to be naturalists/materalists/physicalists too (I have no idea why considering arguments are rarely put forward for the position(s); instead they are just assume that it is the case.... but that's besides the point). Most naturalists/materialists/physicalists tend to be atheists.

What the hell is fashionable about atheism? That seems like a cop out to me.


...have you ever actually worked/studied in a secular academic environment or heard reports from those who aren't atheists who work/study in those enviroments? I have. Atheism is very much en vogue.

That's an ad hoc cop out.


Cop out to what? You mean like how you unduly dismiss theists working in PoR as subject to overwhelming bias.

You need to do some research on the history of religion. People are more emotionally connected to their religion in general, than other people are in other areas. This should be self-evident.

I mean...it simply couldn't be that they don't see the force of these alleged knockdown arguments for atheism or that they think their arguments are better...could it?

There can never be an knockdown arguments for Atheism. Theism is unfalsiable. If the PoE was convincingly proved to everyone tomorrow; God just would have to lose a little omnibenevolence, or omnipotence. A re-defining would occur. Theists wouldn't give up.



There is no reason why we would expect that...


If the the examples I pointed to are any indication of how the general professional non-PoR specialist atheist philosophers are then that's not really an important/interesting result.

What examples?


In the links I provided earlier.

You mean the blogs? I'm sure Atheistic philosophers have different opinions on why it is so popular. So, that is not convincing.



Either way, the only reason I mentioned that most philosophers and physicists/ cosmologists are Atheists was to prove that Atheism is not dying, and alive and well. I wasn't implying that my position is better because most philosophers and scientists agree.

I get that, I was just pointing out something that I think is salient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:34:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, with regards to the quote you provided form the theistic philosopher. Naturalism is a much less heavy an assumption than theism. Thus, presuming it isn't nearly is bad. Naturilism just says that nature exists; no need for more. Theism is like "but wait, there is more!". It makes additive assumptions that most in the field view as unnecessary. Presuming naturalism, is as humble as presuming gravity is all that pulls matter together. Presuming theisms, is as humble as saying there are really fairies on top of that and gravity isn't enough. That's an unnecessary assumption, when we can explain reality without it. We only need assume nature, as that is all we know exists!

Acting like presuming naturalism, and presuming supernaturalism are on equal footing seems naive as well.