Rubberneck, thanks for your willingness to offer up your beliefs and disprove my original post.Rubberneck wrote:But this is you presuming that they hold a specific opinion, when actually an opinion may not exist, only the acknowledgement that there are possibilities out there that currently try to explain, but they haven’t committed to believe any of them yet.It's an acknowledgement that they don't want to personally offer their opinions since:
So what? Do you commit an opinion on absolutely everything and never hold off until further information is available? You never scrutinise concepts that are aimed to convince you but fail, even when you don’t hold on alternative?a) they embrace other things with quite certainty rather than reverting to a nihilistic position on knowledge, andAnd you don’t do this in any other walk of life? Theists offer the arguments – if you don’t want them criticised then don’t offer them and sit in your protective bubble. Atheists, like anyone else where theism/religion is irrelevant, will criticise arguments put forward for a variety of things without offering an alternative, yet you seem to think theistic claims should be offered some special dispensation where alternatives must be offered before you’ll even entertain their criticism? How precious.b) they criticise other people's arguments for their beliefs. For example, God creating based upon fine-tuning arguments, kalam cosmological (particularly WLC's), evidence in physical creation that leads us to conclude a beginning) -- in doing so presume to know better and yet don't really offer up any substantial alternative.So actually, your quibble isn’t against atheism, it’s against agnosticism, or more specifically agnostic atheism. Why should people, or even how are people supposed to offer an opinion when they don’t currently hold one? Would you prefer these people to lie and make something up for which they don’t believe? You can knock yourself out in an exercise where you critique an opinion someone doesn’t actually hold if you wish, but you may find that even more boring and less worthwhile than discussing with someone who honestly holds no opinion, yet is willing to discuss your opinion.When pressed for something, they recede into a position of agnosticism -- that we can't be certain about anything... Well, if anyone of any position is going to be so deadset critical and opinionative against others beliefs -- then at least offer your own opinion of the matter. People have opinions without knuckling down certainty -- as you yourself acknowledge.
And I, presumably like you, would criticise the multiverse theory for probably the same reasons you do. Of course, to some of those who believe in a multiverse, they’ll brush someone like me aside as boring because I give them no alternative.Some more honest Atheists will put forward a multiverse scenario, but then quickly avoid any metaphysical critiques to quickly revert to a "I don't know". Yet, surely the logical consistency of possible positions can be evaluated, even if they may not in fact be actual. So the person who does this is just being a bad sport.
To me, a multiverse scenario is on a level playing field with a God scenario – but I could lie and say that I like the sound of the multiverse scenario because it’s rather “atheistic”, so my opinion is that I find the multiverse scenario more probable, and then we can spar, criticising and scrutinising the contrasting opinions we hold. Now that really would be productive….I’m sure you’ll receive rapturous applause and pats on the back aplenty from the theist rafters. If I present myself so that I remain unconvinced by any proposition, be it God, multiverse or whatever, and that fits in with your boredom, so be it. I prefer to approach you honestly than make something up.Re: first sentence, thanks for validating the type of response to expect from an Atheist in my original post.
There’s nothing “convenient” about it, it’s just honest. I keep repeating this sentiment, but would you really prefer me to lie and present an alternative opinion that I don’t actually hold?How convenient in your first sentence here that you avoid offering anything.I’m not declaring certainty. My response is based on the provisional knowledge I hold. I’m open to the possibility that it can be explained in such a manner that it doesn’t pander to naturalism, but I currently see no way in which that can be achieved.Yet, in the next sentence you leap out of such uncertainty to declare with certainty something that is very arguably wrong.Please provide where I have stated that time existing before time is contradictory, or remove the straw-man.Please provide how time existing before time is contradictory?There is no point in a state void of a continuum where time would begin. A temporal state born from an atemporal state is as eternal as the atemporal state, either that or time doesn’t exist.Such may be illusory, but certainly I see nothing contradictory about there being a state of timelessness and then time.
You’re making more of the point for me. Statements don’t hold without the virtue of time’s existence, yet you are making statements regarding an atermporal state, ergo the statement doesn’t hold.Of course, if you look at the issue retrospectively -- at a point in time looking backward -- we indeed may say a time now existed before time. But, this perspective is based upon time's existence. Without having time the statement doesn't hold. Since none of us really questions that we live within time, the statement holds but only in virtue of time's existence.
So you understand that either there was no change from atemporal to temporal or that there was no change because time doesn’t exist. Sorted.To restate matter. In actuality, the reality of the matter is there would have just been a changeless state "without time" (atemporality) and then a change to a state with time (temporality). A cause cannot retro-cause itself, so this is ultimately an illusion of time, since without the existence of time there really was no before/after.First off, I’m not trying to appease or live up to your standard of “sophisticated”. Secondly, I have thought about it, realised that such a concept doesn’t hold grammatically because of the limitation of our language, so that any talk of “before” is meaningless. Thirdly, I have entertained different ideas, whether it’s God, an eternal universe and so on. I’m also aware that the model used for things like the KCA is merely just one model, a model of an inflationary universe, where certain theorems, theories and hypotheses circulate. To “retreat” into agnosticism is to admit that my knowledge on such issues is found wanting, and I won’t be taking a punt either way until further evidence is provided…. or I could just lie and make up a belief to get you to engage.Perhaps if you actually thought about was before the singularity, and entertained different ideas (as very few more interesting Atheists do)... then you'd be able to offer more sophisticated responses rather than retreating into Agnoticism (it really isn't retreating into Nihilism since you accept many things as true with some certainty -- Nihilism strictly speaking in an ontological sense will say nothing can be known).Any statement I made previous didn’t take into account your many years of experience debating and entering into discussions with self-identifying atheists, for the obvious reason that I’m oblivious to it. I don’t know how you expected me to factor that in.You're talking against my many years of experience debating and entering into discussions with self-identifying strong/weak Atheists.
The only way one can become inconsistent with their atheism is to flit between being atheist and theist."Atheists" can and are often inconsistent with their "Atheism" (as I have argued elsewhere).Ok, fair point.Further, I do not describe "how atheists feel about their position" but rather "how I feel about their common rhetoric".And peel away at every individual atheist and you’ll probably find that they have a lot of beliefs, perspectives and behaviours in common with you. So what? Perhaps it would be better if you approached every individual on their own merits, instead of categorising and dividing people up into neat little boxes.While I willingly admit that its wrong to categorise ALL Atheists in one broad stroke, by the same token it is my experience that Atheists generally seem to have a lot of beliefs, perspectives and behaviours in common.
The only card you’re playing here is your persecution one.The one commonality I highlight in many Atheists I've experienced, is that they love to criticise the positions of others on reality while offering none of their own. Yet, in order for criticisms to really be valid, the "Atheist" needs to assume some higher and more logical position on reality. So the Atheist who criticises other views that attempt to explain reality, is ultimately claiming to know something about reality which he continues to hide his cards on by offering up nothing.
I cannot comment on what you have experienced. All I can say is that you seem to want to paint most atheists in a certain light, as if that somehow makes their stance invalid. All you’re really doing is having a moan.
Aww, diddums. Are the atheists not playing fair? Grow up. This has nothing to do with playing fair. No-one is obliged to offer alternatives before they can criticise a concept or opinion in any walk of life. Oh, and there a plenty of atheist Buddhists.At least those of other positions, like Theists, Deists, Buddhists put something on the table in intellectual fairness from which they can criticise.
I’ve never said that I’d be highlighting generalisations and straw-men that hadn’t already been admitted to. I merely stated that I had observed some, and you’re happy to admit that you’ve made some. That would make me correct in my observations.As for any generalisations I may have made, re-read my original post. After I describe what seems to be almost prophetic now of the way an Atheist would respond to each of my four questions... I nonetheless write:
Kurieuo: Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
So I'm not sure what it is you are trying to exactly argue re: generalisations and straw men that I already didn't admit to? Nonetheless, generalisations often arise due to observing many shared commonalities within the group being generalised. In this instance, I've generalised Atheists. But heck, I've left it open to any Atheist who disagrees to show themselves different!
Again, I cannot comment on what you have experienced. All I can say is that it doesn’t match mine. Just out of curiosity, do you hold theists who match these criteria as intellectually unfair and boring, or is it just atheists?
I’m not being dishonest, and I ask that you please retract the slur that I am not being honest. It’s not for me to provide something for which I don’t have in order to prove you wrong. I’m not stating that you are wrong, for one. And I’m not interested in sycophantically pandering to “K’s 1% of Atheist” club, as if it’s wrong not to be if you’re an atheist. Can I join you on that pedestal or will you come down to humility level?Now, I feel in your case that you've had much time to provide something substantial. To provide your opinion and prove me wrong, or at least place yourself in the 1% of Atheist who in my experience are intellectually honest.
Stop their while I fetch my violin from my matchbox.Yet, you start off wanting me to place something on the table re: reality -- a definition of reality. Which you rightly (in my opinion) receive criticism for, as your silence in offering up anything appears to just be proving points made in my original post. But, I spend my time responding to provide you with an opportunity to prove yourself different to those Atheists generally identified in my original post. So, I jump through your hoop and offer up a definition of reality. What do you do next? Oh, it really is predictable as I'm sure everyone who previously criticised you would have been expecting. You dive into criticising my definition of reality without even offering your own definition!
I made it specifically clear that I wanted to make sure we understood each other with the term, and in the end we came to an understanding about the nihilistic approach. You’re too quick play your persecution card. We came to an understanding. That was meant to be a good thing wasn’t it?
Oh the “typical atheist” routine. Yawn. You’re good at relaying the structure of how a discussion has gone, I’ll give you that. Carry on….Come on. This isn't even something to do with what existed before or caused our universe. It really goes to justify what I say about your typical Atheist in my OP. But, we're not done yet. I still decide to give you a chance to explain your definition of reality by offering up another invitation. Finally, after criticising my definition a little bit more, you provide a position of reality that seems quite Nihilistic when it comes to knowing anything.
Start a discussion on something else then, other than reality, which you acknowledge requires you to make a priori assumptions about it existing (not that it is true that it exists). We can work with whether the God you believe exists, exists within the reality you believe I also occupy if you wish.But then, after continuing with you further, you reject Nihilism to embrace certain a priori assumptions as being true. And then you criticise me further for generalisations and straw men, though you have lacked presenting your opinion on anything substantial to a discussion on "reality" opting instead to hide behind some "nihilistic uncertainty".
I’m not dismissive of your experiences – I’m oblivious to them! While I can’t comment on them, I can say that you are making presumptuous accusations of intellectual dishonesty that you have failed to demonstrate. If you can’t handle people criticising, scrutinising and questioning your theistic claims without offering alternatives then that’s your problem, yet your way of dealing with it is to accuse them (and me) of dishonesty. It’s pathetic.While you remain dismissive of my experiences with Atheists revealing I suppose what is more accurately a lack of intellectual honesty... Lunelle and you have just supported the full thrust of what I was getting at in the original post of this thread.
Perhaps you should’ve thought about that before you started responding.I've wasted enough time responding. I wish I could take my time back. But in any case, thought I'd open myself up to try a find another Atheist that may fall in that 1%.
Alas, I don’t fall into the K’s notorious 1% club. I’m devastated. Really I am. I really wish I could live up to your standards….
A shame, and I say that minus the sarcasm, that you should adopt the Dunning-Kruger effect. "Typical" Christian….I'll hand over now to let you respond however you like, and any one else here can feel free to jump in, but I'm done wasting my time further with you here.
Sorry that you are offended by some of the things I've pointed out. You've had every opportunity to provide substance to your beliefs, or lack thereof, but have done yourself no favours. Your last post says a lot, and I hope it serves as an eye-opener to many reading. Though you perhaps provide more substance in it than all your other posts in this thread.
If you don't mind me pointing out further (of course you don't!)
, the emotion that comes through in your words seems to reveal that your issue with belief in God is an emotional one, not an intellectual one. Perhaps that is why many Atheists act in the manner I observe eh? Particularly those who love debating on forums like this one, their motivation is raw emotion. After all, if God doesn't exist what meaning is there to debating, let alone anything in life? God bless! No hard feelings. Really, all the best.
So ya, I get what you mean. Personally, I sought out the answers because even at that age (maybe 10 years old) I understood that the universe needed a "beginner". I challenged my pastor around the age of 13 years old, who I think saved me. If it weren't for his answer I probably would have doubted Christian teachers from then on and struggled to remain in the faith. He gave me a 30 second lecture in Gap Theory. I bought it. All of it. It answered my questions. That is until more question arose, but I did what you've done and reached out for the answers. Gap theory doesn't work for me anymore of course, but I've made sense of Christianity and science through sites like this and others.
