SkepticalOne

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

Given that up to a quarter of humanity are religiously unaffiliated and up to 10% of humanity have no spiritual beliefs, it's not a small thing to gloss over when characterizing humanity.

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category? 

Except this is not a novel definition. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge rather than a statement of belief. The word itself is derived from greek 'a' and 'gnosis' meaning 'without knowledge'. Ie. agnosticism isnt a third position, it is in a category on its own.

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

The context is you claiming human cultures 'always' having a spiritual component means humanity has a built-in spiritual element. I am arguing against this in two ways:

1. large groups of humans dont subscribe to the religion or the supernatural.

2. The desire to fit in and the impact a social group can have on personal views should not be overlooked, especially when attempting to describe an epistimological snapshot of the human brain a priori.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

You are apparently unaware that every cell in the human body defines gender, my friend. It's in the DNA double-helix. Every single bloody cell.

....a man by your reasoning. Jackie Blakenship has XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity.

Sorry trannies, but your gender was detrermined at conception.

FYI, every human is female at conception. If gender is assigned at conception, then every "male" in existence is trans. Your personal opinion can't argue with biology, ma'am.

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in

Except that humanity includes non-belief.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

Let us try one more time. I do hope you engage this time.

Your explanation doesnt address the problem. You are arguing all cultures believe in a spiritual realm therefore spiritual humanity is the default. This is an argument from popularity.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

Why did you feel the need to replace Communism with human trafficking?

Why did you feel the need to reply to my post without tagging me? Cowardly...

Brackets indicate something not said in the original quote. Slavery and human trafficking are closely related in my eyes. Communism wasnt relevant to the point and was not included. I see no indication MAGA is into Comunism. Racism, female subjugation, and human trafficking are a different story.

What you quoted was my response to Double R’s contention that Atheism is the “default state”, [...] but as I was pointing out, has nothing to do with the facts.

The 'fact' that belief in a spiritual realm is popular? This is broken thinking and doesnt logically get you to any conclusion. Again, popularity does not equate to validity.

I have to say, I am impressed you had six paragraphs and only one sentence was (mostly) relevant to the discussion. Your ad hom and red herring game are on point!

If you really want to tak about the conversation you've dropped, feel free to reply: here post 36

Science has never found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at any time in history, everywhere and always, the vast majority of human beings have made belief in a transcendent, reality commonly referred to as spiritual, as an orienting part of how they engage reality. 

Even if this were true, it does nothing to establish the veracity of a spiritual world. Popularity=/= Truth. This is not a pathway to a rational conclusion.

Shoresy wrote:

2 percent of 4 million is still 80,000 people a year, most of whom have documentation as a US citizen on paper, but many are living abroad in a foreign country with their non-American parents.

I feel like you might object to them living here with their parents too...

They may or may not learn English, they may or may not learn any US history,

This is true of Americans too, thanks to our education system.

they may or may not currently reside in a rival country, and may even be raised in a culture that stands for most things Americans culturally despise, like racism, female subjugation, slavery [human trafficking]

If MAGA is any indication, Americans dont despise these enough...

Tourism birth was not likely an issue the 14th framers anticipated.

This is the latest partisan talking point from MAGA. In reality .3% of all births in the US are attributed to foreign mothers with residences outside the US (according to CDC). Even if we go by the most wild-eyed estimates, the percentage is only 2% of all births. Just for perspective, 10 times that amount die every year to heart disease.

fauxlaw wrote:

Not by reading commentary on the subject at the time, in 1866 - 68, by Sen. Jacob Howard [R-IL], who wrote Clause 1 of the 14A.

Howard did not speak for everyone. Jurisdiction was NOT understood to exclude children of immigrants born on US soil. It exempted children of diplomats, children born to occupying enemy forces, and Native Americans who maintained allegiance to their tribes.

Rosie O'Donnell resides in Ireland. I dare say, she wasnt bluffing.

Agreed. This is significant to any individual or religion which claims a loving god exists.

I think the argument from miracles is weak evidence for god and from nde science as strong evidence for god. These are based on empirical science, not philosophy.

These are anecdote, not empirical science.

Atheists just are too bias and lack objectivity to see that.

Objectivity means the thing in question can be verified by people other than the person(s) telling the story. Thats not the case here.

The only point I acknowledged to you is that philosophy only isn't evidence for god. Im mostly thinking of classical Christian apologetics like causation and argument from design, stuff like that

Yes, and I am telling you what you hand-wave away is widely acknowledged to be the strongest evidence for gods.

linate wrote:

Correct

Many apologists, philosophers, and theologians who understand most, if not all, evidence for god comes from philisophical argumentation might wonder why you would be willing to concede everything...

LOL, I didn’t get my feelings hurt

Okay, then we should be able to have a logical discussion.

you refuse to tell us what your argument is actually about.

It was a syllogism with premises and a conclusion. What the argument is about is pretty well spelled out.

Of course, the discussion is about your contention that you can prove that God doesn’t exist

The conversation was never about that in this thread or any other. I posted an argument and asked for thoughts on it.

I think belief in God is a matter of “faith”, and I believe the word “God” is referential to a transcendent realm of existence, typically referred to as “spiritual”.

That tells us about a *where*, but doesnt do a lot to define "God". Nonetheless, it makes "God did it" at least two assumptions: there is a 'god' (whatever that means) and there is an undetectable realm in which it hides/resides.

Let’s accept that we agree with these two fundamental characteristics of the subject matter.

I cannot accept that definition. It focuses on location rather than attributes of the being in question. Knowing where someone lives doesnt tell us much about the person.

LOL, that comment was sarcasm, I’m mocking your ridiculously uninformed idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis that Occam’s razor could apply to.

Yes, yes, I'm sure that was sarcasm. 😉 Occams razor is philosophical and works just fine outside the magisterium of science.

Given that theism is a matter of faith, which is to say it is a choice one is free to make, and given that the word God refers to a transcendent reality, usually referred to as outside of time and space, then what you mean when you say God does not "exist", it is pertinent to know just how you mean that statement.

The argument is applicable to wherever one might think a god could exist. If we agree to a perfectly loving god, then it's the actions not the realm that's important.

if your position is that there is nothing that transcends the four-dimensional frame of reference of science, then that is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary argument

The extraordinary claim is that there is an undetectable transcendent realm.

Maybe I should have called the thread 'philosophical evidence for god not existing shouldn't count as real evidence'

...and philosophical evidence for god existing shouldn't count as real evidence along with it?

SergeantLynch wrote:

Do you think that in the next universe things will pan out any differently?

That thinking and intellectually progressive organic beings will not create an unknown super-intelligence in their own image.

Hmmm, there are too many unknowns for that questions to be answred, but rumor has it there are cultures on this Earth that dont believe in such an entity. (Pirahã)

...one of the few things I still agree with her about.

Steelman Jesus? Oh great, now Im going to associate Jesus and the T1000 terminator....

and you will only accept peer reviewed scientific evidence that its raining outside and I have the burden to show this evidence?

If you're going to argue NDEs are scientific, then, yeah, you have the burden of proof and scientific evidence will be required. It's not that I will only accept this type of evidence, but that this is the standard of evidence you set.

humans being elaborate flesh robots

As opposed to what - soul radios?! 🤔

If it seems I’m not taking you very seriously,

I dont care if you got your feelings hurt because I didn't reply with bullet points on some other thread. Most of what you quoted wasnt even addressed to me.

When it comes to definitions of god(s), I typically use a default definition that applies to my former beliefs (ie. The Christian god), but I can also work with a deistic definition (an omni god) and other god concepts. I am happy to defer to believers definition of god so long as it is consistent and coherent. Generally, one of the above works.

In this thread, I asked you directly for your definition since it was pertinent to the conversation. What does "god" mean to you? Do you want to answer so everyone can determine if "God did it" really is one assumption as you claim?

So i say its raining outside

That's not a valid analogy. Rain is sometjing every one has experienced. NDEs are not. Even if I am willing to risk my life (which I am not), there is no guarantee of NDE.

I think a lot of your ideas are weak

...and they said there could be no common ground between theist and atheists! 😉

If im wrong show me im wrong.

That is not how a burden of proof works. Claims need evidence to stand.

Why? This is a debate site, not a place to make arm chair conclusory statements

It is a strawman. ...probably thrown out to distract from your inability to support your own conclusory statements.

instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like?

Many atheists, like myself, are former believers who found their beliefs unwarranted after seriously evaluating them. The mature approach would be to accept a nuanced view of atheists rather than naively strawmanning their position.

I think it’s common for young children to see the Bible as a story book and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in the sky that grants wishes to those who pray. Of course, as children age and mature their conception of God and their understanding of faith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of understanding things.

Sure. As an 'adult theist' what do you mean by "God"?

But they do see a being of light

And? It is only through a filter of Christianity where Jesus alone could equate to light.

And those that do know him or even skeptics who are just more familiar do see him and Christian content at a significant rate such that it's a core component of ndes. Doesn't happen quantitatively or qualitatively the same with other religions.

So you claim.

On a side note, do you seriously take the position that humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?

I would question and/or disagree with that characterization.

Isnt that what atheism or skepticism or materialism is reduced to these days?

What does this have to do with NDEs? Are you lashing out? 😄

Plain evidence staring us in the face,

"Plain evidence" like the non-scientific tome for 15yos cited above? Suffice to say, thats not strong evidence of your conclusions.

How is this relevant to the conversation?

You claim "god did it" requires one one assumption, but "God" (the term) comes loaded with an assortment of massive assumptions.

A generic god (ie a poorly defined deity) likely can't be disproved, but then again that which hasnt been established with evidence doesnt need to be disproved with evidence. The burden of proof lies with those making positive claims of existence.