Sunday, February 03, 2019

Atheist's claim of no evidence

Image result for evidence for God


 The atheists have been fired up repeating their mantra "there's not a shred of evidence for God." There are times when I find that annoying and times when I find it amusing. The reason for either reaction is because all believers know they have reasons for believing and a lot of those reasons are based upon good evidence. Even those who don't have evidence sometimes have sophisticated reasons why they don't need it. The atheist world is simplistic it defies anything sophistocated. This is a true example of what Tillich meant when he said "if you know that being has depth you can't be an atheist." The atheist is assuming that the so called "default" amounts to the basis for a tennable world view, assuming (fallacious) that the alleged default is based upon a true appraisal of the world as it is, which is reflected accurately by a surface view of things proved to exist (or thought to be proved to exist) and no need to delve any more deeply into the matter of being.

The atheist assumption lends credence to the ideologically assumption that to accept only the most well proved scientific assumptions is to mount up a great fortress of facts that demonstaes a scientifically validated world view. There are three major problems with this approach:

(1) Selective and self serving: creates truth regime.

(2) Creates a template effect that is used to screen out any other possibilities

(3) Assumes fallaciously that the surface level equates to an adequate world view

(1) Selective and self serving: Of course in implying the big fortress of facts ("I only believe things that are totally proved by science" I have heard many of them say) they are actually selecting the facts they choose to believe and ignoring others they can't stand. The 200 empirical studies on religious experience are a good example. 200 studies is a vast body of scientific data, that is literally a fortress of facts. They don't accept a word of it. I've seen the most idiotic excuses to doubt the studies form bold faced assertion that they are all done by preachers (most of them done by real social scientists) to attacks on the bibliogrpahy compiled by a promoter of the research, which is guilt by association (the bib included both the good studies and some wacy source like Depok Chopra and to these atheists was sure proof the studies are not good). Another example is the big bang. Atheists used to cling to the big bang as the word from science because it seemed to represent the universe popping out of nothing. Then Christians began to observe that it fit creation better, so now atheists turned against the big bang. One good joke, I found atheists quoting a particular site quite a bit and it turned out i was a creationist site! They were quoting like it was a valid scientifically authoritative site because they didn't get that some creationsts are against the big bang.

(2) Template: The selective nature of the fortress of facts means that that atheist is not nobly or boldly sticking to "only that which is proved by science" but is actually creating his/her own truth regalement that seeks to control what is understood as reality and bend the facts to support an ideological view point. The term truth regime refers to an ideology or a world view that screens out all other possibilities and only allows one view to be true. This is just what atheists have done. This is what's reflected in their often heard mantra "there's no proof for your God." It's not becuase they are considering alternatives or weighing coutner evidence. It's pretty clear that they way they decide the question is to create a template that says "here is the only from of knowledge and anything else has to be wrong." Of couret template is based upon an atheist reductions world view. Hold up the God arguent to the template, doe it fit? This is about God adn the tempalte says no God so it doesn't fit, therefore, this can't be proof.

A good example of this is yesterday in sparing with the inimitable "big thinker" as this guy humbly calls himself (as opposed to "tiny thinker" who actually brilliant). I made temporal beginning argument (in a nut shell):

(1) Time begins with the big bang
(2) there can be no time beyond event horizon (this is "before the big bang" to the laymen but since there can't be a "before" before time, physicist such as Hawking transfered it to spacial coordinates and speak of "beyond" time and "within space/time." Or "even horizon" which is euphemism for the big bang).
(3) No times no causes thus nothing can come to be.
(4) there must be some thing that can change the rules for creation (I go on to argue that this rules change can only be a mind--God). For the actual argument see here.

Bigthinker says,"you argument doesn't do anything. it's meaningless." I say "why?" He says "becasue it doesnt' do anything." I said "it proves God." he says 'not can't becasue it's meaningless," "why is it meaningless" "because it doesn't do anything.

Just like the idiocracy in the movie "it's got what plants crave"
what's that?
"electro-lights"
why do plants need electro-lights?
"It's got what plants crave."

If the argument is right, I'm not saying an intelligent atheists in good shape at the top of his game can't find valid things to argue agaisnt it. This guy is clear just going in circles because as presented the argument does prove nothing should be here without an all seeing mind capable of re-writing the rules for creation. Yet this guy keeps saying "It doesn't do anything" but he never says what he means. One guy, so what? The whole board has been stumped by it so far. I've done this before. this very argument had sec webbers screaming and cursing becuase they could not find an answer. At times when I have insisted on pushing to the limit and forcing them to face that the did not answer one of my arguments, they would saying "I dont' think arguemnts prove anything anyway. We've seen this over and over again. The Lungs of Charles Anne. Second miracle to put St. Teresa of Lisieux (sp) over the top. I did everything but get the xrays. They demand that I get them. They wont even investigate they just demand that until I own the Xrays (which are in the archives the church in Eruope you can buy copies but expensive and I can't find anyone who can tell me how) until I own those Xrays it's not proven it's bull shit it's not valid they can't be bothered with it. Becasue part of the evidence comes from a saint adoration site then they just dismiss completely, even though I have spoken with a member of the Lourdes/saint making medical committee who swears the X-Rays are there and they are genuine. I am not even asking them to take my word for it, they wont even investigate by search for other sources.

(3) Surface Level = world view:The atheist rests in his comfort zone imagining that the surface level of appear is a valid world view. The surface level (that which is clearly proved by science) is a very basic level and a very misleading level. Of course they don't even understand the basic problems of epistemology. when you confront them with that they poo poo. They will tell me my sense of God's' presence is totally untrustworthy worthy because perceptions and experiences are subjective and subjective is always misleading. You ask them "how do you know you exist" they say "O don't be stupid, I see the world around me, I'm here. It appears to me so clearly as I experience the world." The surface is the world of superficial perceptions. Trusting that as "that which is proved by science "is totally illusory. Consider particle-wave duality. The more closly we seek the answer the more unreal reality seems.

Belief in God is a world view. It's at the world view stage of belief, just as the concept of the big fortress of facts or the validity of scinece, the distrust of the subjective all of these are world view level concepts. Its' a world veiw precisely because you can't prove it. That would like trying to prove that one should love others, or that one should be a democrat or republican. These are sweeping ideas that rest of on vast sets of assumptions. There's no way to prove a world view as the world view is the scale in which we weigh proof. When we accept that something is proved it's proved agaisnt the background of our world view. You can't prove the background of proof that would be redundant and requite a regression. You need another world view against which to weight the evidence for the first world view and so on.

World view are paradigms and they shift according to their abilities to handle anomalies. This is basic theory according to Thomas S. Kuhn. We absorb anomalies into the paradigm. Something doesn't fit we just say "o that's just an anomaly, just wait and further evidence will clear it up." When there are too many of these and another world view answers them better then the paradigm shifts. Kuhn says this is the engine that really drives science. It's not a cumulative piling up of facts, as the atheists would have it with their fortress of facts, but the shift when the former world view can't hold anymore. The fortress of facts topples when we come to realize there is too much depth in being to be dismissed and the fortress of facts is not enough for a world view.In the mean time they decide the truth of evidence comparing the template and saying 'this God argument doesn't fit the atheist template so it must be wrong, therefore, it's not proved."

At that level the concept of proof in God argument is superfluous. They are not really comparing facts in a fortress they are slectively keeping out facts that contradict their view. This all makes them content with the surface but then anything that disturbs the surface is a proof of depth and thus a reason to believe there can be more. The atheist fortress of facts is self defeating.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree that it is wrong to say there is no evidence for God.

I would even say that the Bible is evidence for the Christian God. It is pretty poor evidence (it is more readily explained without recourse to a god), but it is still evidence.

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

It's not the only evidence.

Ryan M said...

"all believers know they have reasons for believing and a lot of those reasons are based upon good evidence".

That's a strong claim, and if I would bet, I'd say even a weaker claim isn't true. That is, it's not even true that MOST believers know they have good reasons for believing (assuming by "reasons" you mean "good reasons").

That aside, it seems to me that you're really taking issue with common atheists, but if you're going to tackle common atheists as accurate representatives of the best among atheists, then you ought similarly do the same for theists. In that case, let's be accurate about common theists: common theists do not have rational reasons for accepting theism or auxiliary views such as Christianity. Rather, common theists have views that are not reflected upon to a degree that they have obviously inconsistent sets of views (e.g., believing in astrology, ghosts, magic, reiki, mediums, etc). Common theists, IMO, are really little to no different than common atheists with respect to how rational their belief is.

Maybe atheists on average are irrational in their atheism, but portraying Christians as the opposite (on average or ALWAYS rational in either their Christianity or theism) is not needed to defend that hypothesis. If anything, you weaken the credibility of your case by including an obviously problematic claim. Linking to a blog called "AtheistWatch" certainly doesn't help either. When we make an argument, we can separate our sentences into premises, conclusions, and background information. I think as a general rule, do not include any background information that is itself not relevant to the premises or conclusions, especially when that background information hurts the goal of the arguer. For example, if you wanted to change an atheist's mind with this post, then I would not include an obviously controversial and irrelevant claim such as "all theists have good reason to believe" since probably many theists believe for bad reasons (wouldn't it be odd that people can be religious for bad reasons but not be theists for bad reasons?).

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
Joe"all believers know they have reasons for believing and a lot of those reasons are based upon good evidence".

RyanThat's a strong claim, and if I would bet, I'd say even a weaker claim isn't true. That is, it's not even true that MOST believers know they have good reasons for believing (assuming by "reasons" you mean "good reasons").


You've changed the terms in re-wording it.My original claim said 2 things: (1)"all believers know they have reasons for believing" and (2) "and a lot of those reasons are based upon good evidence" Neither say anything about Most and neither says they know their reasons are good. My original statement allows for most reasons to be based and most to not know what a of reason is. your weaker sense is actually stronger.

Moreover, on an existential or phenomenological scale the reasons can be relative so what is to you a crummy reason may be to me a fine reason.You might say "no trie analytical philosopher would value reason X. [bracket Scotsman] but I am not analytical philosopher.


That aside, it seems to me that you're really taking issue with common atheists, but if you're going to tackle common atheists as accurate representatives of the best among atheists, then you ought similarly do the same for theists. In that case, let's be accurate about common theists: common theists do not have rational reasons for accepting theism or auxiliary views such as Christianity.

That is actually irrelevant, Ryan. My issue was about the idea that good reasons exist and that the major thrust of atheist rhetoric says it does not not.In the little debate world where I came up (college: NDT circuit, High school: NFL) that is a should/would argument and thus does not count. In other words we argue about what people should think not what they do think.



Rather, common theists have views that are not reflected upon to a degree that they have obviously inconsistent sets of views (e.g., believing in astrology, ghosts, magic, reiki, mediums, etc). Common theists, IMO, are really little to no different than common atheists with respect to how rational their belief is.

But I do. I am not asking you to believe in of Based upon what other people think. but upon what I think.

Joe Hinman said...

revision I am not even asking you to believe based upon my reasons but to re think your own reasons.

Joe Hinman said...

Maybe atheists on average are irrational in their atheism, but portraying Christians as the opposite (on average or ALWAYS rational in either their Christianity or theism) is not needed to defend that hypothesis.

I never said that. Remember my two points above.

If anything, you weaken the credibility of your case by including an obviously problematic claim.

If you mean the majority of Christians are rational you have read that in. The closest I came to saying that is that reasons are relative to the reasoner not the same.


Ryan: Linking to a blog called "AtheistWatch" certainly doesn't help either.

Atheist watch was mine. I wrote it I and specific reasons for linking. I have more to say about that. I have decided to make a post of it tomorrow I hope you will read it.

Ryan: When we make an argument, we can separate our sentences into premises, conclusions, and background information. I think as a general rule, do not include any background information that is itself not relevant to the premises or conclusions, especially when that background information hurts the goal of the arguer. For example, if you wanted to change an atheist's mind with this post, then I would not include an obviously controversial and irrelevant claim such as "all theists have good reason to believe" since probably many theists believe for bad reasons (wouldn't it be odd that people can be religious for bad reasons but not be theists for bad reasons?).

Here we are going to open up a transcendental discussion about the nature of truth.Your assumption is that analyst logic is the only way to know truth, my assumption is that truth is phenomenological and that means the best we can do short of mystical revelation is verisimilitude. I think there are more ways to get at that then just analytical logic.


I speak of relative reasons because belief is not just an analytical chore to for homework.It is a passion for which one might die. Are you will to die for the law of excluded middle? Phenomenological apprehension is not just an proportion of truth discovery it's a means of getting your sentences in order but there must be something there to talk about.Such as personal experience.

When I say the reasons of most theists are good I am not saying they beat your argument I'm saying they resonate with the believer in terns of a life choice. Ultimately i think all believers are motivated by an intuitive sense and these reasons are merely the chords that strike that resonate note and activate that note.

Ryan M said...

Ultimately i think all believers are motivated by an intuitive sense and these reasons are merely the chords that strike that resonate note and activate that note.

This claim would certainly be false. Remember that any claim that ranges over an entire group can be falsified by there being a single counter example. For that claim, there's not just one counter example, there is probably millions upon millions. If your claim is true, then it's true among ALL theists at ANY point in time. But ask most former theists (turned atheists) if they believed due to any sort of intuitive senses. You'll probably find that almost all of them would say no. In my case, I was a theist because I was raised to be a theist. My belief in God was no different than my believe that eating broccoli was good for me. That is, I believed because my parents told me it was true, and I took their teachings to be true. Certainly I had no intuitive sense where I felt God. Even some theists would claim they don't feel any sort of presence of God in their life (Mother Teresa famously had struggles like this during her life).

I would say probably, most theists believe God exists for the same reasons most religious people believe their particular religion is true. That is, it comes down to geological location, family history, non-family environment, etc. It would be odd that all (or even most) theists believe in God due to some intuitive sense, but at the same time it's not the case that most theists believe in their particular religion due to some intuitive sense.

I think the talk about "all believers are motivated by an intuitive sense" highlights what I initially advocated; that to show that one's group can be rational, one need not show that everyone in their group is rational. You don't need to defend the belief of all theists to show that SOME theists can be rational in their belief.

Ryan M said...

Your assumption is that analyst logic is the only way to know truth

This isn't what I had in mind. Rather, my point was a point about what makes a good advocate. Or rather, what is partially necessary to be a good advocate. To put my point another way, we can say a good advocate must do the following;

1. Provide all necessary premises to support their conclusion.
2. Provide no information which is not necessary to understand either their premises or conclusion.

As a special case of 2, I am saying a good advocate must not provide unnecessary information which either hurts the arguer's credibility with their intended audience or hurts the credibility of the argument itself with their intended audience.

So here are two examples:

Case 1 - Person A wants to convince Person B that smoking is bad. Person A provides Person B with two things; 1. a definition of what they mean by smoking being "bad", and 2. all the necessary medical data which supports their conclusion. In this case, Person A is being a good advocate because they've provided all the necessary information to understand the conclusion and how it is supported, and they've provided no unnecessary information.

Case 2 - Person C wants to convince Person D that marijuana is safe to ingest. Person C provides Person D with three things; 1. a definition of what they mean by marijuana being safe to "ingest", 2. all the necessary medical data which supports their conclusion, 3. prima facie false and wild claims that marijuana cures cancer, makes people grow taller, makes men more muscular, and can make women more fertile. In this case, Person C is being a bad advocate. They meet two of the necessary conditions, but they meet one of the sufficient conditions to make them a bad advocate since not only did they provide unnecessary information, but they provided unnecessary information that hurts their credibility as an advocate. A good argument can often be seen as bad when it is bundled with controversial claims, obviously false claims, etc.

So my point about arguments was not that one must use "analytic logic" to arrive at their beliefs with epistemic justification. Rather, my point was that when using arguments in the role of an advocate, one must avoid doing things which hurt their role as an advocate. In your case, it would be avoiding posting things which an atheist will obviously be turned off by such as "all theists are reasonable in their theism" when you're only trying to advocate that "there is at least some evidence for theism". The former claim not only is unnecessary to the latter claim, but it would turn off most atheists from wanting to read further.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
Ultimately i think all believers are motivated by an intuitive sense and these reasons are merely the chords that strike that resonate note and activate that note.

This claim would certainly be false. Remember that any claim that ranges over an entire group can be falsified by there being a single counter example.

So then all humans are not mammals? eyes are not see? ears are not to hear?

For that claim, there's not just one counter example, there is probably millions upon millions. If your claim is true, then it's true among ALL theists at ANY point in time. But ask most former theists (turned atheists) if they believed due to any sort of intuitive senses. You'll probably find that almost all of them would say no.

I was an atheist Ryan.I know from my own experience that atheists often deny what becomes plain once you believe.


In my case, I was a theist because I was raised to be a theist. My belief in God was no different than my believe that eating broccoli was good for me. That is, I believed because my parents told me it was true, and I took their teachings to be true. Certainly I had no intuitive sense where I felt God.

The problem I have with that is we have an internal state confirms or dis-confirms our received sense of right or wrong. It would be hard to say that was not mixed with an intuitive sense. Moreover,if you were only a believer due to family teaching then perhaps you didn't have an intuitive sense,I said believers have it.

Even some theists would claim they don't feel any sort of presence of God in their life (Mother Teresa famously had struggles like this during her life).

She did not say she never had such a sense. It was over whelmed by the immense task she took on.

I would say probably, most theists believe God exists for the same reasons most religious people believe their particular religion is true. That is, it comes down to geological location, family history, non-family environment, etc. It would be odd that all (or even most) theists believe in God due to some intuitive sense, but at the same time it's not the case that most theists believe in their particular religion due to some intuitive sense.

No actually it makes perfect sense.That's there is an almost universal belief in God but the specific expressions of it are culturally bound. That just means the particulars are not essential.

I think the talk about "all believers are motivated by an intuitive sense" highlights what I initially advocated; that to show that one's group can be rational, one need not show that everyone in their group is rational. You don't need to defend the belief of all theists to show that SOME theists can be rational in their belief.

I'm not. I didn't offer that as a proof.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe:Your assumption is that analyst logic is the only way to know truth

RM:This isn't what I had in mind. Rather, my point was a point about what makes a good advocate. Or rather, what is partially necessary to be a good advocate. To put my point another way, we can say a good advocate must do the following;

1. Provide all necessary premises to support their conclusion.
2. Provide no information which is not necessary to understand either their premises or conclusion.

As a special case of 2, I am saying a good advocate must not provide unnecessary information which either hurts the arguer's credibility with their intended audience or hurts the credibility of the argument itself with their intended audience.

there is no reason why Atheistwatch should hurt my credibility. Don't judge a blog by it's title.


So here are two examples:

Case 1 - Person A wants to convince Person B that smoking is bad. Person A provides Person B with two things; 1. a definition of what they mean by smoking being "bad", and 2. all the necessary medical data which supports their conclusion. In this case, Person A is being a good advocate because they've provided all the necessary information to understand the conclusion and how it is supported, and they've provided no unnecessary information.

Case 2 - Person C wants to convince Person D that marijuana is safe to ingest. Person C provides Person D with three things; 1. a definition of what they mean by marijuana being safe to "ingest", 2. all the necessary medical data which supports their conclusion, 3. prima facie false and wild claims that marijuana cures cancer, makes people grow taller, makes men more muscular, and can make women more fertile. In this case, Person C is being a bad advocate. They meet two of the necessary conditions, but they meet one of the sufficient conditions to make them a bad advocate since not only did they provide unnecessary information, but they provided unnecessary information that hurts their credibility as an advocate. A good argument can often be seen as bad when it is bundled with controversial claims, obviously false claims, etc.

So my point about arguments was not that one must use "analytic logic" to arrive at their beliefs with epistemic justification. Rather, my point was that when using arguments in the role of an advocate, one must avoid doing things which hurt their role as an advocate. In your case, it would be avoiding posting things which an atheist will obviously be turned off by such as "all theists are reasonable in their theism" when you're only trying to advocate that "there is at least some evidence for theism". The former claim not only is unnecessary to the latter claim, but it would turn off most atheists from wanting to read further.


I did not say all theists are reasonable. I said all theists have reasons that make sense to them. Most atheists make it sound like no no theists ever thinks about his belief and there is absolutist no reason to believe. I have probed them and they mean it.

2:00 AM

Ryan M said...

there is no reason why Atheistwatch should hurt my credibility. Don't judge a blog by it's title.

Judging blogs by its cover might not be rational, but it happens, so it maximize the likelihood that your intended audience does read your blog, you should take steps to avoid doing anything that might push them away. As a side note, judging blogs by their title alone isn't wholly unreasonable. Rather, sometimes the title of a blog alone is good enough reason to reject the blog as a credible source. For example, a blog with "Natural", "Spiritual", or "Holistic" in the title gives an informed person prima facie good reason to believe the blog is not a credible source on medical information.

I said all theists have reasons that make sense to them.

No doubt at least most theists have reasons to believe in God that make sense to them. That's a very low standard, and I doubt many atheists would claim that all or even most theists don't have reasons for theistic belief that make sense to them. I doubt many atheists think that theists never think about their belief. Rather, I'd bet that most atheists think that theists never think about their beliefs deeply. That is, with the sort of rational consideration we'd give to almost any other proposition where the stakes are high. This would explain why we find theists with flat out contradictory views (e.g., Catholics believing abortion is OK, Catholics believing same-sex marriage is OK, theists in general believing in reiki, chakra points, chiropractic medicine, astrology, ghosts, astral projections, mediums, remote viewing, psychics, and the list goes on...). If, say, you meet a Christian who can't tell you what immaculate conception is, or you meet a Catholic who cannot tell you what transubstantiation is, then you can be confident that such people might have reflected upon the why of their beliefs (that is, the reasons to hold their beliefs), but their reflection is surface level at best.

Ryan M said...

Moreover,if you were only a believer due to family teaching then perhaps you didn't have an intuitive sense,I said believers have it.

Are you implying there is a distinction between being a "believer" and a "Person who believes God exists"?

That just means the particulars are not essential.

Oh I'd think particulars are quite important when one's place in the world not only determines moral beliefs (for example, beliefs about abortion, same-sex marriage, women's rights), but one's place determines what one even thinks about God. For example, some people think of God as being stereo-typically masculine to what many people would now say is "toxic". I'd think that would inhibit one's relation with God when one basically thinks God is akin to a glorified psychopath but still believes God is worthy of worship.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe there is no reason why Atheistwatch should hurt my credibility. Don't judge a blog by it's title.

Judging blogs by its cover might not be rational, but it happens, so it maximize the likelihood that your intended audience does read your blog, you should take steps to avoid doing anything that might push them away. As a side note, judging blogs by their title alone isn't wholly unreasonable. Rather, sometimes the title of a blog alone is good enough reason to reject the blog as a credible source. For example, a blog with "Natural", "Spiritual", or "Holistic" in the title gives an informed person prima facie good reason to believe the blog is not a credible source on medical information.


Not necessarily, mostly just prejudice. yes there bauble brain new ages ideas that use those words. There are also valid philosophical positions that use them,

Joe I said all theists have reasons that make sense to them.

No doubt at least most theists have reasons to believe in God that make sense to them. That's a very low standard, and I doubt many atheists would claim that all or even most theists don't have reasons for theistic belief that make sense to them.


Joe That does tie in with my standard of being relative to the observer. your position would be rather suspects to an existentialist, you seem to just be clinging to the climate pf opinion.

I doubt many atheists think that theists never think about their belief. Rather, I'd bet that most atheists think that theists never think about their beliefs deeply.

so? that's what I think of atheists.


That is, with the sort of rational consideration we'd give to almost any other proposition where the stakes are high. This would explain why we find theists with flat out contradictory views (e.g., Catholics believing abortion is OK, Catholics believing same-sex marriage is OK, theists in general believing in reiki, chakra points, chiropractic medicine, astrology, ghosts, astral projections, mediums, remote viewing, psychics, and the list goes on...).

You appear to be saying that if one goes against the grain of social group then one is automatically to be dismissed. genuflection to climate of opinion does not require deep thought.

If, say, you meet a Christian who can't tell you what immaculate conception is, or you meet a Catholic who cannot tell you what transubstantiation is, then you can be confident that such people might have reflected upon the why of their beliefs (that is, the reasons to hold their beliefs), but their reflection is surface level at best.

those are not the sane thing. going against the group could as often be due to understanding deeply the backgrounder of the group rather than not,



Joe Hinman said...

Joe Moreover,if you were only a believer due to family teaching then perhaps you didn't have an intuitive sense,I said believers have it.

Are you implying there is a distinction between being a "believer" and a "Person who believes God exists"?

Of course. 1 John says I you believe in God hu? oK even demons believe in God. The follower or Christ is not merely giving intellectual ascent to a proposition. But devoting her life to a reality,

Joe That just means the particulars are not essential.

Oh I'd think particulars are quite important when one's place in the world not only determines moral beliefs (for example, beliefs about abortion, same-sex marriage, women's rights), but one's place determines what one even thinks about God. For example, some people think of God as being stereo-typically masculine to what many people would now say is "toxic". I'd think that would inhibit one's relation with God when one basically thinks God is akin to a glorified psychopath but still believes God is worthy of worship.

An old atheist ploy to try and play each group off against all. But that assumes your premise that there is no minutia. There is minutia. So a lot few difference can be dismissed.You are confusing optional views with necessary truth.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan is SOP indexed and peer reviewed?