I have asked similar question regarding the atheistic position HERE

I am raising similar issue on the opposite side of the spectrum.

There are reasons that inform our opinions and our stance regarding certain issues. Surely, none of our answers are absolutely foolproof, we can always find problems we can say challenges the validity of our opinions.

This is a thread to discuss issues or problems philosophically consequential to the atheist position.

What, in your opinion, are the problems of theistic position?

As a former theist here are some of the problems I came up against:

1. Lack of evidence: the evidence for a god or gods is severely lacking and the ones usually presented are not unequivocal ie they can be explained by other means.

2. The necessity of faith: I came to the realisation that no truth in this universe currently requires faith for its operation. Truths are independent of belief.

3. The inconsistency in the knowledge of what a deity is supposed to be as well as its characteristics: I would surmise that if a deity wants its existence known it would provide the same information to everyone who is interested. Instead we have a whole bunch of differing doctrines of what a deity is. Either the deity is not giving the information and men are trying to conjecture it or the deity is incapable of maintaining information about itself.

The moment you believe in any god you voluntarily have to

- Give up your common sense
- Become a slave to your spiritual leader ie pastor, imam etc


Everything is wrong with believing in any god. The idea is an insult to the human intellect

LordReed:
As a former theist here are some of the problems I came up against:

1. Lack of evidence: the evidence for a god or gods is severely lacking and the ones usually presented are not unequivocal ie they can be explained by other means.

what in your opinion would be sufficient evidence?

2. The necessity of faith: I came to the realisation that no truth in this universe currently requires faith for its operation. Truths are independent of belief.

Agreed.

3. The inconsistency in the knowledge of what a deity is supposed to be as well as its characteristics: I would surmise that if a deity wants its existence known it would provide the same information to everyone who is interested. Instead we have a whole bunch of differing doctrines of what a deity is. Either the deity is not giving the information and men are trying to conjecture it or the deity is incapable of maintaining information about itself.

there is no reason to think there should be only one or they will all be remotely similar

hahn:
The moment you believe in any god you voluntarily have to

- Give up your common sense
- Become a slave to your spiritual leader ie pastor, imam etc

I disagree with this and rightly so.

Everything is wrong with believing in any god. The idea is an insult to the human intellect

How so?

it is actually an implication of human intelligence.

The claims of theistic positions have no concrete basis in reality. In fact, they have no basis at all. They all have to be accepted by faith and they cannot survive critical thinking and logical analysis.

johnydon22:
I disagree with this and rightly so..

How so?

How so?

it is actually an implication of human intelligence

The theistic position forces us believe in things without any evidence and suggests that without a god we are incapable of being good.

The mere fact that theists promote ridiculous claims and fictional characters as reality proves that it is an implication of man's stupidity. Not intelligence

Believing in god brings out the stupidity in humans

johnydon22:
what in your opinion would be sufficient evidence?

Whatever is sufficient to justify the claim ie define the god, define the evidence.

there is no reason to think there should be only one or they will all be remotely similar

Doesn't justify the cacophony. Messages from a disparate group of gods should be coherent enough to distinguish.

Martinez19:
The claims of theistic positions have no concrete basis in reality. In fact, they have no basis at all. They all have to be accepted by faith and they cannot survive critical thinking and logical analysis.

Here's a critical thinker. What do you make of it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1e2DfwN5oQ

I would transcribe if you prefer it written.

LordReed:


Whatever is sufficient to justify the claim ie define the god, define the evidence.

elaborate

Doesn't justify the cacophony. Messages from a disparate group of gods should be coherent enough to distinguish.

aren't they?

hahn:


How so?

One can believe in God and still be of independent whim even more so than an atheist. I've seen so many of such.

The theistic position forces us believe in things without any evidence

Fundamentally many of us believe or agree with somethings without evidence or due to supposed evidences.

and suggests that without a god we are incapable of being good.

In an objective moral sense, that is true. The only short coming of that argument is that such morality should be absolute.

The mere fact that theists promote ridiculous claims and fictional characters as reality proves that it is an implication of man's stupidity. Not intelligence

To imagine such fictional characters in the first place is an act of creative intelligence.

Besidrs, there are many unrealistic things we push today as reality in the supposed secular left of the spectrum.

Like the idea that a man can be a woman and vise versa, that is nonsense and so many of these atheists do not have a problem with that demonstrating the powers of conviction, the tendency of anyone to distort reality. If that is in unintelligence, then it can be argued that theism do not have a monopoly for that.

Believing in god brings out the stupidity in humans

No. It doesn't. It is actually one of the reasons we became a dominant species on earth. Our capability to believe in imagined order.

Martinez19:
The claims of theistic positions have no concrete basis in reality. In fact, they have no basis at all. They all have to be accepted by faith and they cannot survive critical thinking and logical analysis.

I disagree. It is actually a logical speculation just like the multiverse theory and the likes.
One can argue that it is naive, but logical? Yes. It is logical.

johnydon22:
elaborate

Apparently the god claims are not the same. Its kind of unfair to demand a piece of evidence that is out of character for the particular god claim.

aren't they?

No they aren't. Just within Christianity alone there as many as 30k+ denominations with different ideas of the god and its message. That's one hell of a cacophony.

LordReed:


Apparently the god claims are not the same. Its kind of unfair to demand a piece of evidence that is out of character for the particular god claim.

Give an example with one distinct God. Forget the rest. I just want to understand the nature of evidence we require.

No they aren't. Just within Christianity alone there as many as 30k+ denominations with different ideas of the god and its message. That's one hell of a cacophony.

Can scientific speculations not be subject to such variations prompting the need fot scholarly arguments?

Can it be inferred then that maybe these distinctions are inevitable as it is with every scholarship?

Many people trying to understand one thing.

johnydon22:
Give an example with one distinct God. Forget the rest. I just want to understand the nature of evidence we require.

OK. The evidence should be recordable, testable and repeatable. Say for the Christian god and the claims of the ability to resurrect its own body. It should manifest a body, allow scientists to dismember the body then put the dismembered parts back whole and living. Do this as many times to ascertain there is no trick involved and it is beyond our capacity to perform.

Can scientific speculations not be subject to such variations prompting the need fot scholarly arguments?

Can it be inferred then that maybe these distinctions are inevitable as it is with every scholarship?

Many people trying to understand one thing.

Scientific speculations are acknowledged to be wholly human so debate is allowed and welcome but a transcendent god capable of interacting should have no such problems.

Analogy: I assume you have never seen Barack Obama in person nor have you medically examined him but you are fairly certain he is of African decent, male, was one time president, has a mother and father, etc. We have no such certainty for almost any characteristic of the god claim. Why would an intelligent being be unable to so clearly communicate its nature and render such scholarly debates frivolous?

The atheist comment here are laughable .

To suggest that theistic arguments are weak is to dismiss the capability of philosophical and theological heavyweights from Augustine to Maimonides to Aquinas to Erasmus to Descartes. To suggest the arguments of these figures are weak is to suggest many of the greatest thinkers in history were philosophically inept - is beyond absurd. It is utterly clear, at this point, that you are measuring the strength of an idea by how much you agree with it.

There are plenty of rock solid arguments for the existence of God, but some of them need to be developed gradually like a complicated court case.

Some theistic arguments are weak sure, while some are very strong but some atheists just lack the rational capacity to understand them. Both represent the poorest end of a richer narrative

LordReed:


OK. The evidence should be recordable, testable and repeatable. Say for the Christian god and the claims of the ability to resurrect its own body. It should manifest a body, allow scientists to dismember the body then put the dismembered parts back whole and living. Do this as many times to ascertain there is no trick involved and it is beyond our capacity to perform.

Evidence indeed.

Scientific speculations are acknowledged to be wholly human so debate is allowed and welcome but a transcendent god capable of interacting should have no such problems.

Analogy: I assume you have never seen Barack Obama in person nor have you medically examined him but you are fairly certain he is of African decent, male, was one time president, has a mother and father, etc. We have no such certainty for almost any characteristic of the god claim. Why would an intelligent being be unable to so clearly communicate its nature and render such scholarly debates frivolous?

A transcendent God is just like the multiverse theory. They are of no observable consequence but we know that they are not impossible.

vaxx:
The atheist comment here are laughable .

To suggest that theistic arguments are weak is to dismiss the capability of philosophical and theological heavyweights from Augustine to Maimonides to Aquinas to Erasmus to Descartes. To suggest the arguments of these figures are weak is to suggest many of the greatest thinkers in history were philosophically inept - is beyond absurd. It is utterly clear, at this point, that you are measuring the strength of an idea by how much you agree with it.

There are plenty of rock solid arguments for the existence of God, but some of them need to be developed gradually like a complicated court case.

Some theistic arguments are weak sure, while some ate very strong but some atheists just lack the rational capacity to understand them. Both represent the poorest end of a richer narrative

I agree

vaxx:
The atheist comment here are laughable .

To suggest that theistic arguments are weak is to dismiss the capability of philosophical and theological heavyweights from Augustine to Maimonides to Aquinas to Erasmus to Descartes. To suggest the arguments of these figures are weak is to suggest many of the greatest thinkers in history were philosophically inept - is beyond absurd. It is utterly clear, at this point, that you are measuring the strength of an idea by how much you agree with it.

There are plenty of rock solid arguments for the existence of God, but some of them need to be developed gradually like a complicated court case.

Some theistic arguments are weak sure, while some ate very strong but some atheists just lack the rational capacity to understand them. Both represent the poorest end of a richer narrative

Why do we need arguments for a god's existence? Do you need arguments for the Sun's existence?

johnydon22:

A transcendent God is just like the multiverse theory. They are of no observable consequence but we know that they are not impossible.

Its not my position that no god or gods exist.

LordReed:


Why do we need arguments for a god's existence? Do you need arguments for the Sun's existence?

Even evolution or the big bang were subject to arguments.

The sun cannot be compared to a transcendental concept therefore such comparisons don't really follow.

You could say; why do we need arguments for multiverse?

Why do we need arguments for oscillating universe model.

Why do we need arguments for God?

These are transcendent concepts, can never be as obvious as the sun. Through arguments, we can speculate on their possibility.

johnydon22:


Even evolution or the big bang were subject to arguments.

The sun cannot be compared to a transcendental concept therefore such comparisons don't really follow.

You could say; why do we need arguments for multiverse?

Why do we need arguments for oscillating universe model.

Why do we need arguments for God?

These are transcendent concepts, can never be as obvious as the sun. Through arguments, we can speculate on their possibility.

Not for an intelligent transcendental being supposedly in contact with us. If you are arguing for a deist or noninteracting deity sure why not, knock yourself out. The moment you try to argue into existence an interacting god, I think you've lost the plot.

LordReed:


Not for an intelligent transcendental being supposedly in contact with us. If you are arguing for a deist or noninteracting deity sure why not, knock yourself out. The moment you try to argue into existence an interacting god, I think you've lost the plot.

Does a God with the capability to interact has the choice of deciding not to?

There are two types of both deistic and theistic Gods in terms of interaction.

1. A God that can interact but chooses not to

2. A God that cannot.(do not have the capability)

Which of these two options is more likely?

johnydon22:
One can believe in God and still be of independent whim even more so than an atheist. I've seen so many of such.

But theists who worship their pastors and cannot make simple decisions on relationships, business and life in general without consumption their religious leaders and who apply their religious teachings and refuse any logical evidence, like those who believe the world is 4000 years old because it is written in the bible, greatly outweigh those who think independently.

Fundamentally many of us believe or agree with somethings without evidence or due to supposed evidences.

No. Even children show that skepticism is natural. A child who is taught the bible without coercion will easily see the flaws in it. Theism imposes it's beliefs and insists on blind faith without evidence.

In an objective moral sense, that is true. The only short coming of that argument is that such morality should be absolute.

To imagine such fictional characters in the first place is an act of creative intelligence.

But then believing in these things to the point that they argue, insult, disown their family members and even non believers is an act of foolishness

Besidrs, there are many unrealistic things we push today as reality in the supposed secular left of the spectrum.

Like the idea that a man can be a woman and vise versa, that is nonsense and so many of these atheists do not have a problem with that demonstrating the powers of conviction, the tendency of anyone to distort reality. If that is in unintelligence, then it can be argued that theism do not have a monopoly for that.

I didn't realise the op is comparing atheism and theism. I understood that theism is the topic of discussion Herr.

No. It doesn't. It is actually one of the reasons we became a dominant species on earth. Our capability to believe in imagined order

Lol. We are the dominant species because of our ability to survive and create tools.

I stand by the statement that religion is one of the reasons why we have not progressed even farther as a species.

Theism was our first shot at explaining the universe and it is our worst try because it was born out of our ignorance of the world and how it works

johnydon22:


Does a God with the capability to interact has the choice of deciding not to?

There are two types of both deistic and theistic Gods in terms of interaction.

1. A God that can interact but chooses not to

2. A God that cannot.(do not have the capability)

Which of these two options is more likely?

From the theistic position 1 is more likely because god can do whatever it likes

hahn:


But theists who worship their pastors and cannot make simple decisions on relationships, business and life in general without consumption their religious leaders and who apply their religious teachings and refuse any logical evidence, like those who believe the world is 4000 years old because it is written in the bible, greatly outweigh those who think independently.

This can be said for the atheist who simply regurgitate everything Dawkins and his likes say without thought.

This doesn't mean every theists do this. Your argument was a hasty generalization which is an evidence of a heuristic style of thinking.

No. Even children show that skepticism is natural. A child who is taught the bible without coercion will easily see the flaws in it. Theism imposes it's beliefs and insists on blind faith without evidence.

So, there are no human convictions that transcends theism then?

But then believing in these things to the point that they argue, insult, disown their family members and even non believers is an act of foolishness

Same can be said for the other side. You can literally replace the word theist here with atheist ans it will still be valid, nairaland is a typical example.

I didn't realise the op is comparing atheism and theism. I understood that theism is the topic of discussion Herr.

Yes. Only that bringing up arguments that is attainable on both sides and implies it as sole theistic inclination is dishonest and should be corrected.

Lol. We are the dominant species because of our ability to survive and create tools.

Lol.

1. I said one of the reasons, making the one bold so it is not mistaken.

2. What do you mean ability to survive?

3. Actually, human capability to think up and believe in imagined order is a fundamental reason for their survival and dominance - this is easily demonstrable. Want a go at it?

I stand by the statement that religion is one of the reasons why we have not progressed even farther as a species.

An argument can be made on the contrary.

Theism was our first shot at explaining the universe and it is our worst try because it was born out of our ignorance of the world and how it works

Lol.

vaxx:
The atheist comment here are laughable .

To suggest that theistic arguments are weak is to dismiss the capability of philosophical and theological heavyweights from Augustine to Maimonides to Aquinas to Erasmus to Descartes. To suggest the arguments of these figures are weak is to suggest many of the greatest thinkers in history were philosophically inept - is beyond absurd. It is utterly clear, at this point, that you are measuring the strength of an idea by how much you agree with it.

There are plenty of rock solid arguments for the existence of God, but some of them need to be developed gradually like a complicated court case.

Some theistic arguments are weak sure, while some are very strong but some atheists just lack the rational capacity to understand them. Both represent the poorest end of a richer narrative

Buy there is still no evidence for a god.

In court when requesting for a murder weapon no one expects it to be "developed gradually" instead the inability to provide evidence will lead to the end if the case.

But theists will rather argue the existence of their gods with different descriptions and characteristics.

No one needs a rational capacity to understand nonsense. We simply agree it is nonsense and move on

hahn:


From the theistic position 1 is more likely because god can do whatever it likes

Even from a commonsensical point of view, a creator of a system should be able to interact with this system unless he chooses not to. (The nature of this Interaction however can be arguable)

johnydon22:


Does a God with the capability to interact has the choice of deciding not to?

There are two types of both deistic and theistic Gods in terms of interaction.

1. A God that can interact but chooses not to

2. A God that cannot.(do not have the capability)

Which of these two options is more likely?

I have no basis on which to regard either as more likely than the other. Also like I pointed out the characterizations of god or gods are all over the place so how does one even apprehend if the god or gods have capacity for choice?

johnydon22:


Even from a commonsensical point of view, a creator of a system should be able to interact with this system unless he chooses not to. (The nature of this Interaction however can be arguable)

In a theistic sense the nature of god's interaction is more as an evasive maneuver that anything else and it is also very contradictory

hahn:


In a theistic sense the nature of god's interaction is more as an evasive maneuver that anything else and it is also very contradictory

hahahaha

johnydon22:
This can be said for the atheist who simply regurgitate everything Dawkins and his likes say without thought.

Do atheists consult Dawkins before getting married?
Do atheists go to Dawkins for healing when they are sick?
Has any atheist killed a theist because Dawkins said so?
Do atheists put pictures of Dawkins on their walls as protection?
Has any atheist disowned their kids because Dawkins said they are witches?
Do atheists pray to Dawkins so their businesses will grow?

This doesn't mean every theists do this. Your argument was a hasty generalization which is an evidence of a heuristic style of thinking.

Most theists do this. At least a larger proportion than does who don't and those who don't are often regarded as the less faithful ones by other theists.

So, there are no human convictions that transcends theism then?


Same can be said for the other side. You can literally replace the word theist here with atheist ans it will still be valid, nairaland is a typical example



Yes. Only that bringing up arguments that is attainable on both sides and implies it as sole theistic inclination is dishonest and should be corrected..

Is that what happened on the other thread?

Lol.

1. I said one of the reasons, making the one bold so it is not mistaken.

2. What do you mean ability to survive?

3. Actually, human capability to think up and believe in imagined order is a fundamental reason for their survival and dominance - this is easily demonstrable. Want a go at it?



An argument can be made on the contrary

Sure go ahead