1] To disbelieve in God, you must believe in naturalism or some other ism.
That’s not how logic works.
There are three fundamental laws of logic that apply to everyone.
I disagree unless the person is totally ignorant. Two contrary beliefs cannot both be true at the same time on the same thing. Either there is a God, or there is not a God. If there is a God, either this God is the Christian God, or this God is not. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This God cannot both be the Christian God and at the same time not be the Christian God.
For any given proposition you can either believe the proposition is true or not believe the proposition is true.
Whether you believe it is true does not alter the facts of its truth or falsity. It IS either one or the other. It cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Not believing the proposition is true does not mean you believe it is false. You can instead say... “I don’t know”.
Because you don't know does not necessarily mean you can't know. "I don't know" is a plea of ignorance. Even so, those who don't know act contrary to a belief in God. The way they live usually reflects their convictions. But, even if you don't know, what is the more reasonable belief to hold? That we are all here because of an accidental random chance happenstance, or that an intelligent almighty Creator has made us? I say in every way the latter. You can't make sense of the former.
Right now in Texas there is a man charged with murder. Do you believe he is guilty or do you believe he is innocent?
I am not aware of the situation. Where do the facts or evidence lead?
I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.
Not in the case of God. There is sufficient evidence for His existence, and the contrary belief cannot make sense of itself. I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.
That is because Evil is not an empirical attribute; it is not...
We can debate the problem of evil another time. You brought this up as support for your claim that atheists believe no gods exist. I am simply pointing out that someone arguing that your claim is incoherent, is not making a claim about what does or does not exist. Their only claim is that your argument is incoherent.
There is evidence for the Christian belief. It is not inconsistent when understood.
You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.
Making things up about others tends to lead to absurdities.
There’s is no such thing as “atheistic beliefs”, because atheism isn’t a belief system no matter how many times you claim it is.
Yes, there is such a thing as an atheistic belief. An atheist answers the same questions the theist does regarding the Universe, our existence, our morality, who we are, what we are, why it matters, etc.
- “Atheism is the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the existence of God. It is not satisfied with appropriate truth or relative truth, but claims to see the ins and outs of the game quite clearly being the absolute denial of the absolute.” (Etienne Borne, Atheism 1961)
- “An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. . . . a person who rejects belief in God. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967)
- “We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972)
Andrew Montano lists 15 components of a worldview in his articles on the Naturalistic worldview here:
Atheism compiles with that list.
What I’m pushing here is logic, just as I do in any other forum.
When you push logic, it is helpful to realize its origins. Do the laws of logic exist outside of each one of us, or do we make them up? For instance, is the law of identity something that needs you for its existence or is it independent of you. If it is independent of you, then which human being gives it its existence for logic is a mindful thing? Are they independent of any human being? Do the laws of contradiction ever not apply? (i.e., I am physically alive and at the same time I am physically dead)
Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.
You seem to think that I don't know the pitfuls of an atheistic worldview. If there is no ultimate Being responsible for your being and makeup, you become your own, determining what you will and will not believe independent of such a being (your own god). You only have relativism to fall back on in regards to right and wrong. Morality is constantly changing, as shown by examining a nation's belief system and how it changes. What was once thought bad and wrong is now considered right and good. It brings to mind how something can be better. Better in regards to what standard? If there is not a best to compare better, how can you say something is better than it was? Better in whose opinion? Yours? Why SHOULD I believe you? Who are you to decide for me? If God has not revealed, we are all in the boat of moral relativism. That means there is no such thing as better. There is only your opinion instead of my contrary one, and it boils down to who can impose their belief system on the next guy. If you can get enough people to buy into your belief system, you can impose it, that is. (Might makes right, yet there is nothing right about it)
If there is no ultimate, absolute final reference point, what makes your idea of wrongness that opposes my contrary view any better? To have something better, you need a best or else it becomes meaningless. Better in relation to what, and who says?
We all do. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we ultimately value, and from those values we derive standards from which everything else is measured.
Just like I said before, you become your own god, decreeing what is right and wrong in your own eyes, perhaps based on the input of other relative, limited human beings. How does your moral preference make anything right? It doesn't unless there is a final reference point that does not change.
I value the truth. I want to know if I’m buying into a load of crap or living my life blind of the pitfalls I am steering towards. By valuing the truth, I have developed a strong desire to understand how logic works, because most false beliefs we hold, and certainly the most avoidable ones, are the result of faulty logic.
If you value logic and truth, you should try and understand what is necessary for both in the first place. How does logic come from an atheistic worldview, one that denies God? Logic requires mindful beings, but which one(s) invented the laws of logic or are such laws independent of any individual? If so, you discover such laws, not invent them.
When a salesman for example tricks you into buying something you don’t need, they do so primarily by appealing to emotion or using other logical fallacies. I value knowing how to spot the BS before I allow it to harm myself.
One thing is sure, either there is a God, or there is not. There can't both be a God and not be a God. Another thing is for sure, either we are the product of a Mind, or we are not. We can't both be and not be at the same time. Either we trace our existence and origins back to natural chance happenstance causes or to a personal being. If we trace our existence in the causal tree back to natural causes, how did the first cause happen, or are we speaking infinite causes? If we speak infinite causes, how do we get to the present, or is time something we make up as finite beings? There are consequences to how we look at the universe, our existence, morality. Are you consistent with where you begin? You do not think of God as a sufficient cause, or you would believe in such a God. Do you deny all God's as a plausible reason for our existence or just the Christian God? Do you have one particular god you see as plausible?
It seems to me that most theists value the comfort that comes with religion.
And most atheists value the comfort that comes from their denial of God. It means there is no ultimate accountability for your actions, no ultimate justice. People like Hitler can get away with moral atrocities with very little or no consequences. And what of justice? A universe without God makes nothing ultimately matter. You live contrary to such views. You do believe some things matter. Thus you are inconsistent with what you believe. There is a glaring contradiction present that you sweep under the rug. You borrow from my belief system that says things do ultimately matter.
The idea that you need a final reference point to tell you what’s right and wrong for example instead of relying on yourself to figure it out I think supports that.
Again, you show that you are your own god, deciding what is right and wrong, with no best to compare it to.