Evidence for the Creator: Foxhole Atheists

I’d give up on discussing ‘Darwinism’, you obviously lack the knowledge to rationally discuss it, in part because you reject it because you think it somehow your religious narrative... the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection doesn’t necessarily contribute one was or anther to the ‘GodDiIt’ belief nor even to the underlying idea of an ‘Intelligent Designer’, just the specific narrative of how life began and evolved given the supporting preponderance of evidence. Unless, the ‘GodDidIt’ narrative requires rejecting evolution (it doesn’t), The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories ever developed.
As for me, and that is what you suggest, being an exception to your ‘no atheists in foxholes’, I’d say that statement is only supported by those that have written accounts that have been cherry picked by believers to support their bias, and has no bearing beyond what you believe; you cannot presume to know what you can’t prove; the thoughts of the millions that have died in conflict. Just like your angst argument... a projection of what you believe, and cannot possibly be logically or empirically shown to cover all those of different cultural belief systems. Of, course, my arguments might be the product of the Great Deceiver; would the be God or?

 

I would say that fear of impending death strips of certain illusions. It helps us focus on things that are important to us. It teaches us that life can end, and if we want to do certain things, we should get around to it. It does indeed strip away the fluff and superficial. However, none of that is indication of truth outside of our own intentions.

That kind of fear only reveals to us things that we on some level already believe (including beliefs the circumstances of the impending death taught us, like "I should not have pulled the pin from that grenade").

This is effectively a souped up version of our angst argument. People are predisposed to believe in God, and to put great importance in God, during and after a life-shaking experience even more so, however it is no indication that it is actually so. This is why I criticise you for throwing out more arguments than you can sustain. Your argument has the same flaws as the last one did, and if we pursue it, we can explore it. But by avoiding that and creating new threads, you get no refinement of your arguments.

 

You: ""'There are no atheists in foxholes,' rings true"""


Prove it.

I have heard that old, trite, meaningless phrase stupid phrase (it's old, really old so I guess god believers can't come up with anything new).

If they think that proves there is a god because someone made up that inane phrase then they, as usual, have no proof.

They can't even prove that phrase is true....they have NOTHING to back it up.

I have been in bad circumstances In my life and I didn't fall back on some imaginary "friend" to take the responsibility......I dealt with it myself....

 

I wish I could believe in a God
But I see zero evidence of any such thing

 

Ad hom projections about my 'knowledge!', are deflections. I offer reason and evidence, and you can address that, or me, personally, if you prefer.

I suspect i am more familiar and conversant in the topic of origins than most, but i do not offer that as an argument of my authority. I prefer to address the facts and reasoning.

..yes, so you believe. So you assert. But you are mistaken.. ..perhaps you are a product of State mandated religious Indoctrination?

2 problems:
1. I do not claim any such Absolute Knowledge. I am examining the evidence, to see what it suggests.
2. It is quite possible to 'know' something that cannot be empirically proven. Witnesses to crimes, or other historical events cannot always 'prove!' that the event took place, yet they 'know' it did.

..that is another topic, that is in the works..

Why? How? You merely assert a prejudicial belief, about all humans, with no explanation as to why or how this phenomenon can be.

There are 2 possibilities for this angst/dread of death, and the obsession with abstracts of eternity, the metaphysical, and God:

1. It is Real. There is a God, Who has instilled an 'awareness', or inkling of 'something' beyond the material.
2. It is a delusion. It is not real, but a delusion for weak minded dupes, who cannot face their own meaningless existence in a godless universe.

I see no 'predisposal!', but only the consideration of these 2 possibilities. Most people, over the millennia, have believed in the former. That belief is corroborated by compelling evidence, the 'foxhole atheists' being one.

Your judgment and dismissal of my arguments have been, 'I don't believe that, therefore your arguments are invalid!' I offer these concepts and phenomena as EVIDENCE for the Creator. The accusation of 'flaws!', has not been proven, just asserted.

Your groupthink loyalty is impressive.

I'm not attempting to 'Prove!', anything, but am examining the evidence.. physical, psychological, historical empirical, and inferred, FOR the Creator.

I do not expect to change anyone's beliefs, nor do i demean anyone's beliefs. I offer evidence FOR the Creator, which is denied by many, who believe in atheistic naturalism.

You can mock or caricaturize other's beliefs, but that is just an expression of religious bigotry.

 

Pictures worth way more than theist denialism drivel.

 

Yes, this proves, once for all, that there is no God..

 

Hope you didn't hurt yourself moving your strawman goalposts for the umpteenth time!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You: ""'There are no atheists in foxholes,' rings true"""
Prove it.
I have heard that old, trite, meaningless phrase stupid phrase (it's old, really old so I guess god believers can't come up with anything new).
If they think that proves there is a god because someone made up that inane phrase then they, as usual, have no proof.
They can't even prove that phrase is true....they have NOTHING to back it up.
I have been in bad circumstances In my life and I didn't fall back on some imaginary "friend" to take the responsibility......I dealt with it myself....

Is that the same "groupthink" that believers practice ?

Inane, antiquated phrases are not evidence of anything.

Then why post?

Right here you did: ""Your groupthink loyalty is impressive.""

..as you did with "there are no atheists in foxholes" and ""Your groupthink loyalty is impressive.""

both are expressions of bigotry.

 

What do you actually think you're accomplishing here with this thread?

What is your purpose for posting this?

 

Not deflections, nut observation.

Given that a great many are not knowledgeable about the Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection, nor the huge body of supporting evidence from other disciplines, your statement sets a low bar and as for addressing the facts and reasoning, your ‘facts’ and the reasoning you apply are are not derived from and judged from a common, universal, standard for measuring their validity. Those engaging in deriving understanding of nature using the scientific method have a specific standard for assessing the foundations, underpinnings, and confidence in knowledge accumulated using the Scientific method, namely any knowledge accumulated must be able to be falsified, be independently verified if methods are replicated, and provide elements for prediction. This standard for accumulating knowledge is incompatible with the underpinnings of knowledge of religious reasoning and assessment of ‘evidence’ that measures against myth or text that already has defined the standard for assessing ‘Truth’. Only one of these means for gaining understanding of nature provides the systematic means for manipulating and exploiting nature to human survival advantage.
As to the toss-away insult, a projection that I might be ‘a product of State mandated religious Indoctrination?’ I find that humorous. Does that apply to all scientists? Or just those that you disagree with? Regardless, I am my own council for the knowledge I have accumulated, more than once considered a heretic among those of my discipline. At heart, I am a skeptical thinker, whether in assessing the claims of religious, political or science ‘authorities’.

No one claims absolute knowledge I know except those having faith that I am surely going to Hell because I won’t follow the dogma they have adopted. Those that truly engage in expanding understanding using the scientific method would suggest they have ‘truly’ found ‘truth’ or ‘knowing’, but operate by increasing understanding by building confidence in their understanding and accept they can be proven wrong... that being part of the process of expanding understanding... and when being found wrong in an understanding would welcome that knowledge. For instance, were there a means of testing the Hypothesis of the existence of a Creator or multiple creators, many scientists, including myself, would find it interesting. But then there are those like myself if faced with an entity professing to be the ‘creator’, I can’t think of a test that would ‘prove’ that conclusively to me, but I would welcome the opportunity for such an engagement.

Ok, so how would you discern between a ‘great deceiver’ and a God? Then, of course, you have the God Loki, a God that delights in deceiving mere mortals.
How does anyone know you are a ‘great deceiver’ plying your trade?

First, when have I done that... I tend to share knowledge I personally have a high confidence in, express skepticism about sweeping statement’s of unsupported ‘Truths’ like your angst and foxhole arguments when you can’t possible support those statements with anything but cherry picked examples used as evidence to bolster your arguments, arguments that can’t be supported using the scientific method.
Second, Science is an exploration of the unknown, and no one in science I know professes to ‘know’ but rather, in a continual search to explore the unknown.

Ah, there is either a God or there isn’t. Or... maybe, multiple Gods. Or, maybe a new plane of existence. Or, maybe a rebirth of some sort. Or... nothing.

I do not see meaning in the universe. Maybe there is. Maybe not. I am the author of meaning in my life, much of which, at it’s core, is a continual satisfaction of developing knowledge driven by my curiosity. If I have any sense of purpose relative to others, I is that of my self defined principles of honor that are more extensive than those I have observed in other, even the most ardent professed religious zealots, and mine are and have long been indelible. As for the angst of pending death, As I posted earlier, I experienced an event where I already accepted death. As to it’s eventuality, my curiosity is looking forward to what it may bring, but given the inevitably, I do see no reason to rush it, I will get there. When I do, I will learn something....or I won’t. I am ok with either.

Your compelling evidence is only the product of what you have selectively chosen to believe as a product of confirmation bias.

I have my standard for explaining why I have confidence in my knowledge, and accept it as imperfect.
You have yours, however, as I noted in previous posts you have frequently made statements in direct conflict. I noticed when pointing them out, you don’t address the discrepancies.

And which group is that?

Given the number of threads you proffered to submit your arguments, I find that difficult to believe.

Your belief, your accepted evidence, picked to suit your beliefs. OK.
As for others, I don’t speak for them or with them.

If there is anything I might mock it’s the inconsistencies and absence of Logic of those trying to sell their beliefs.
As for your assertion of ‘religious bigotry’, Where I was raised, that statement is the pot calling the kettle black. You reject any religion other than your own.
But, I was also raised to challenge others and express my thinking.

Ah...predictability...and the humor...

 

What belief am I asserting? That humans have a propensity to feel angst? I would have thought you'd agree with that.

Well, if you want to claim to have evidence, I guess you would have to provide some evidence that there is no predisposition. If "well I haven't been able to think of an alternative" was good evidence, we could prove anything.

My arguments have not simply been my disbelief in it. Now, I'm not sure which judgements you're talking about, but if I say that I don't believe something, that should be an indication to you in what particular way your observations and logic have not been sufficient evidence.

 

How many more 'evidences for a creator'. If there is one simply show him to us.

There's more evidence around the world for ancient 'gods' and flying saucers in religions and beliefs. Even the Bible suggests it. Most religions have 'seen' god or gods.

 

Another good example of ridicule as a deflection from reason..

..so you assert. I offer facts and reason. Summarily dismissing them as 'not derived from and judged from a common, universal, standard!', is an unevidenced assertion.. a dismissal that evades the topic. If you have a topical rebuttal, make it.

Atheistic naturalism is as much a 'myth!', as any other religio/philosophical belief. Just because it is your belief, does not make it Absolute Truth.

Believe what you want.. but if you make demeaning, snarky jabs at me, why the indignation if they are returned?

I've offered many such evidences, and there is more. Convincing someone, against their will, is not my goal. I cannot undo decades of Indoctrination with a paragraph.

Exactly. How does one 'know' if they follow Truth and Reason, or if they are deceived?

There can be no 'meaning,' in a godless universe.
Everyone just chooses to do what they want, and there are no 'standards', to judge them by.

I would call that a delusion, in a godless universe

I look forward to my death. I have been intrigued by it all my life, and it is getting closer every day. I can hardly wait to cross that River.

..so you assert. ..so you judge and accuse. ..
and yet you complain if i return your judgment..

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

False accusation, with no evidentiary basis.. ad hom, not rational rebuttal.

Don't project your bigotry on me.

Your 'prejudicial assertion', was that humans invented this angst, from fear. You have no evidence of this, just assert it, prejudicially.

You're making the claim of 'predisposition!' The burden of proof is on you. I am inclined, based on the overwhelming evidence, to perceive angst as an 'insert' into the human psyche, as a spiritual compass, to redirect us back to our Creator.

If you wish to rationalize the entirety of the human experience as some 'predisposition to delusion!', then you have to explain 'how' this could or would happen, not just assert it did.

Pretty high bar for my reasoning skills! Unless i convince you, my reasoning is flawed..

I think the more plausible (or at least equally plausible), scenario is revealed in the old quip:

A man convinced, against his will..
Is of the same opinion, still..

Exactly. The obvious reality that every human culture has an inkling of 'something', is evidence that something is there.

Add to that the overwhelming evidence.. inferred, scientific, empirical, extrapolated, personal, and historical.. and only a fool could state dogmatically,
'There is no God!'

 

Makes one wonder what to call someone who disingenuously DISTORTS facts in order to PRETEND that they dogmatically comprise "evidence" of their IMAGINARY "creator"!

 

I have only claimed how it seems to me. I phrase myself like that because the topic of the matter is not what I believe, but whether your claims stand up. I am not really asking you for specific answers to my questions, I am challenging you for a coherent structure that can deal with all objections.

I'm suggesting predisposition as one avenue which your view should be able to deal with if you want to claim to have evidence. I am willing to consider other avenues as well, for instance, the idea that what we're observing isn't unique to humans. For instance, I could imagine a discussion between the idea that evolution favours angst specifically and the idea that angst is merely a side effect of a combination of other things that evolution favours. However, those details are for another thread, this thread claims evidence for the creator side of things. Where is the evidence that this compass points us to something real?

I agree, but to show that you have provided insufficient evidence, all I need to show is that there are plausible ways in which the world could be that also consistent with your observations (or challenge your observations).

Well, imagine the opposite, that someone could have their claims become accepted as truth, even when they are faced with valid objections. Yes, the bar is pretty high, that's why nobody's been able to provide sufficient evidence before, and why people who claim to provide sufficient evidence tend to be wrong.

 

He that complies against his will, Is of his own opinion still, Which he may adhere to, yet disown, For reasons to himself best known. Samuel Butler.

 

Not ridicule or deflection, just an observation.

You have not provided either objective fact nor cogent reasoning, but have made a number of conflicting statements.

I have not shared my beliefs. Merely called attention to unsupported assertions and conflicting statements you have posted.
Try again, show where I have expressed my belief system, particularly where I have embraced Atheistic Naturalism.

I do, until I find reason to believe otherwise, none of which you have demonstrated. So, being snarky is pointing out inconsistencies and conflicts in your posts? OK.

You have not posted uncontested evidence, but have fabricated a case based on your interpretation of what you suggest is evidence, but evidence that is cherry picked. For instance, asserting universal ‘angst’ is some indicator of God planted in the psych of humans is evidence of God, fails on two levels, the first, that angst is universal, something you can’t show is a true statement and second that it is something created by God as a spiritual compass pointing to God, again a statement that is spurious and not one of fact. Do you reject the idea that angst is a product of the mind of man? Can animals exhibit Angst?

That’s my question to you.
As for me, I follow the principle of pragmatic Cartesian Skepticism, finding the scientific method, thus far, the best means for building a foundation for epistemology that provides for both understanding nature and providing practical knowledge for manipulating it to human advantage.

Whether or not the universe is Godless, does not mean there is no meaning any more than a universe of God means humans understand any meaning or purpose bestowed by God.... for someone to say they know God’s purpose or a God’s defined meaning would mean that someone is claiming to know the mind of God, which by most believing in God, would be something of an impossibility...

Do you claim to know GOD’s mind?

You are entitled to your opinion.

Ok.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion; lots of judgements of me precede yours.

I do. Ditto.

 

Let's look at it another way......I'll call it Genocide Theists

In a time of crisis they deny there could be a god.

I see no biological or natural explanation for this phenomenon in humanity, which leaves it as a primal instinct.. a deep seated 'knowing', or at least feeling, that there is no God who can help us, and we involuntarily cry out. This is not a thought out process, but an instinctive response in a crisis. In the deepest recesses of our being, we 'know' that our Creator is not there.

 

No Atheists in foxholes? Come to think of it I've never seen a Christian in a foxhole. It's hard to follow Jesus' advice to "Love your enemies" when your emptying a clip at them.

 

"I look forward to my death. I have been intrigued by it all my life, and it is getting closer every day. I can hardly wait to cross that River"

Strangely, so do many elderly people who have had a good atheistic life and many who are suffering crippling injuries/illnesses.