Ask an atheist

[Reaver197]

If you have no justification for your belief, how can you say it's the right one to have?

Explain to me how one has a child without having sex, and especially then say it is of the "seed" of the father who cannot have contributed any genetic material to the child if such a claim is true.

Also, http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html.

Mary had to have popped that cherry at some point.

Also, the belief that she was a virgin, in the modern sense, seems to be a misnomer, to say the least.

http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=7

 

[gm jack]

Woah woah, hold the phone, you're confused about what the Immaculate Conception means. It means Jospeh and Mary had a baby, without having sex. She's the "virgin" Mary because she'd never had sex before nor afterward. The baby Jesus just showed up in her womb. But it's still her and Joseph's child. And it's through Joseph that the bloodline has been traced back to King David. Now technically Matthew and Luke disagree on the bloodline path from Joseph back to the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel which leads to David, but they both agree it goes back to Zorobabel and then Da/vid, regardless.

I thought Jesus was the son of God, not the son of Joseph

Actually I ignored that part, because it says that Acts 1:9 gives the time frame of 40 days and Luke 24:51 the same day, however if you scan here, you'll see that Luke 24:51 does not in fact say it took place on the same day as his resurrection, but "an event which was ten days before the first Pentecost after the resurrection, and thus some forty days after..."

So yeah, basically I have no idea where infidel.org got that from, but it's inaccurate.

I don't understand the Jewish calendar, so I will go no comment.

Lets say you, me and 9 other folks all witness the same event, and then we are asked to describe the event in words. Mind you several years have since passed. We agree to tell the truth of our account to the best of our ability. In doing so, it's very likely we will not all say the exact same thing, and we may even contradict one another, and yet everything we said was true to the best of our ability. Does this mean our accounts are totally invalid? What if our accounts of this one event are the only ones even close to being accurate, and what if the event itself is so important that it -must- be written about. I mean, unfortunately there weren't video cameras back in the day, but I'm willing to take them at their word, and I'm willing to forgive their obvious inability to recount the details as perfectly as a machine, and I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that multiple accounts of the same event may very well indeed be somewhat different. But all in all, these differences are minor, and inconsequential, when considering the value of the teachings inherent to the document itself.

You'd hope the key details would be consistent though. Like of the Gospels originally ending with the tomb being found empty (Luke I think). Older versions of the gospels found did not have anything after. And appearing to the disciples. One said he appeared to all of them when they were together (with Judas not dead, IIRC). You'd think they'd all remember him appearing to the group.

No, and... no? No... yeah. No. No I do not, and that is because I have no need to (thanks, Kmar )



Correct, however belief in an all power deity is not "every other field" it's a unique field, and the rules of justification by evidence are null and void. Just because -you- need evidence doesn't mean we all do. It's just you, really. We're all individuals in this, and we all either choose to accept the possibility of God or to not accept the possibility of God. If physical evidence is going to the be the thing you bank your decision on, then you may as well remain a non-believer, lol because as I've stated, there is no true evidence to be had, no real empirical data to be collected, or harnessed. All there is, is faith, which is all there needs be (if you're a believer).

The idea is that God is not a justifiable belief because there is nothing but faith to it. Nothing can, and arguably has (lets keep that can of worms closed for now) ever given evidence for it. The Flying Spagetti Monster has all the credentials God does.

Yep, it's a real *****, ain't it? This is why so many younger folks feel like impostors (myself included when I was younger) when their parents force them to go to church. Cause you're sittin' there... twiddling your thumbs, thinking to yourself, wtf is all this? what I am even doing here? I don't believe in this fairy tale. It's all nonsense. None of it is true! You can't PROVE any of this! Waste. Of. My. Time. It's not until something changes, either within you, or within the world around you, that you decide otherwise. Maybe you read something, for me it was in reading an old hardcover book recounting the Miracle of Our Lady of La Salette, reading it a bit at a time, over several weeks, while accompanying my ex gf on her weekly visits to the catholic church's prayer room. I spent a long time afterward questioning everything about the Church, about its role in the World, and about its origins. I questioned God, his existence and his purpose, and his purpose for us. And I got my answers.

I guess it's how you view it. I do believe religion does has some answers. For a philosophical look at the world, they are a standard point of calling, even if you then look elsewhere. However, ever since I really got introduced to the possibility of their not being a God, all I have done is question it.

Excellent question, and very typical of an atheist actually, Mr. Agnostic

"We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).

“Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20).

We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.

Having settled this by faith, we are then free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life as well as the blessings. As we consider such matters, it is helpful to keep the following great truths continually in our minds." -source

As I said, I would be an atheist if I was too close minded to rule out the possibility entirely. While those of us here can debate about what is right or wrong, how is the suffering and killing of the defenseless ever right? How is the girl who was ***** and killed by a pedophile when they were 9 deserving of it, while people like Mugabe go on the destroy their own country while taking everything still worth having in it for themselves?

I just think it's far too big of people standing here in at least comparative luxury standing here and saying it is Gods will while so many are born into such ****.

This classic sums it up.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If God is allowing evil to persist and make people who desperately want to get away from it suffer for it, is he either not willing or not able? You have simply cited scripture which is the classic "God says so". Why is this part not a serious cause for concern? If there is an afterlife and people need to accept Jesus, then some people are condemed to hell on dying too young to have a chance to accept him. If you say "well they go in anyway", then everyone else is at a long term disadvantage by having to go through life and accept God in it in order to get the same as if they die early. One way or another, someone gets a bad deal.

This is more or less the same thing gm jack pointed out. In summation, spiritual truth is different, it's something that cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.

Then why trust it? It's been constantly shifting goalposts on how to disprove God. Heaven is no longer up above and hell down below (possibly inspired from rudimentary volcano knowledge?) to out of this plane of existence. There is no way to disprove it as over time, t has simple been labled as beyond human understanding, therefore making it categorically impossible to disprove.

You are not the boss of me. Seriously though, for you that's fine, but for me it's unnecessary. I have no justification for my belief. Only that I know its the right one to have, and I'm stickin' to it.

Which is why some people think religious people are irrational. In the end it comes down to "I know it's right".

You misunderstand here.. the purpose for choosing certain gospels over others was to help uneducated people to be a part of the church. There's SO many versions of the Bible now, it's crazy, and sometimes the same passage really does get told differently, and its meaning may even shift a bit, sometimes more's read into it than what was originally there. That's what Church is for, to help guide you through it so you're not all alone trying to figure out the fallacies, the contradictions, the outright omissions. That's also why there are so many different Churches. Catholicism for me, is the root source, the original... and so if I attend Mass, I do so at a Catholic Church. But technically I was raised Episcopal (and hated it most of the time, how boring!).

So if what is there is not what was in the original Greek, then how can you trust it? such the gist is the same, but if a passage got one bad translation early on, then it could consequently give a completely different meanning over 2 millenia of chinese whispers.

LOL so wait, you're the authority on what a miracle is? Good to know. I don't believe you, btw. And I don't need proof to know I don't believe you, either

And you are? Many modern miracles really don't seem to stand up. Healing don't tend to stand up as a lot of clergy will get asked fro blessing by thousands of sick people in their lives. Even more if they are prominent enough or in a popular church. Is it so impossible that some people get better at around the same time anyway?

It's bit like the reverse over the MMR jab and autism link that was supposed to have been around a few years ago. The guy failed to account for the fact that the jab was given just before the peak age of autism manifestation (jab was give at 5 years old, most people with autism are diagnosed when they are 5 or 6). Give correlation, but not causation, because there is going to be overlap between the event anyway.

 

[rvkevin]

Just a few notes before going onto new grounds.
-You really didn't just say that after your death that every human will cease existing.
-You really didn't use special pleading in regards to belief.
-You really didn't use the equivocation fallacy by redefining the word miracle.
-Btw, Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. Heroic virtue is not a miracle and to say so is to misuse the word.

"We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right."

Are you saying that suffering is acceptable because it is part of God's plan? Are you saying that torture, genocide, starvation on a national scale is acceptable because it is part of God's plan?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."-Epicurus

 

[Eyada]

You don't understand.

Sucumbio isn't interested in arguments or reasoning or proof; and he definitely isn't interested in evidence.

He is advocating Fideism; which means that any direct debate concerning God is impossible to have with him. He seems to advocate Pascalian Fideism, but it's difficult to tell; the numerous Fideist ideologies are separated by very subtle and fine points.

The only discussion you could have with him would be an extremely technical philosophical epistemological debate concerning the very foundations of knowledge, justification, and belief.

Anything else (and I do mean anything, no matter how compelling) will be met with the blunt reply of "Faith is sufficient."

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Thanks for your response.

First, let's make it clear that the conversation has shifted from philosophical discussion about the existence of God to a series of attacks for the rational belief in the Christian God, and, more particularly, the Bible. That's all fine, but I think it should be noted that we're doing that . I don't remember asking why the reign of the church has lasted for so long, but yes, Christendom has been heavily stained by those claiming to act in name of God. I consider it a shame, but also to be expected as spiritual conviction was used as a political tool upon adoption into the roman empire. Therefrom, it is clear that people desiring to manipulate things for their own end, have used anything they can, including religion and faith in God.

I just say 'atheist' because I don't know what name you choose for, "Person who is angrily against organized religion and is pretty sure there is no God but thinks that is kind of irrelevant." I tried to say agnostic-atheist earlier, but that didn't really seem right either.

If you're going to drop that bomb, though, let's also not forget that Christians were heavily, heavily persecuted at the birth of the faith. In that case, Christians were savaged for their beliefs.

Yeah, so they should have known better <.<
I thought Jesus taught, "Turn the other cheek."
not, "Get revenge for what you've suffered."

No, I'm not ashamed of believing in God, and I'm also not ashamed of participating in a body of believers. The issue with organized religion (as opposed to disorganized religion, apparently) is that not everyone who wears the pin follows through with the spiritual conviction it implies. You see, if everyone who called him or herself a Christian were walking around feeding the poor, selling all they had to love others, turning the other cheek, praying for and counseling one another, considered others better than him or herself, and were united in one mind, you probably wouldn't be saying that. For this I have no response, except to say that a Jew is not one outwardly, but one inwardly -- what is in the heart works itself out logically in our actions or works.

Well I think if people are already good in their hearts, whether or not religion is present, why do we even need it in the first place then? I mean, The good Samaritan helped that poor Jew without ever having heard of Christianity.

We agree that law is good, but not all lawyers live to expand justice. We agree that having a police is effective (maybe necessary?), but there are crooked cops as well. For this reason alone we do not discredit law and the police force altogether. The same is true of Christianity.

It's backwards with religion though. When a lawyer or a cop is particularly dedicated to their job, that is a good thing because it means they are doing the right thing. However, the more closely you follow the scriptures in religion,the more savage and crazy it gets! I think that's why a lot of Americans tend to take their Christianity with a grain of salt, if you know what I mean. We are very 'casual' with our faith.

I'm not struggling to reconcile evidence with belief, friend. I only adhere to being aware of the limitations of the evidence I (or you) can provide, and taking that in its context. I accept that there are some things that I cannot prove or disprove, and some things that need further elaboration. I'm aware of the shortcomings of much of what I put forth, but it is sufficient enough for me to leave a reasonable doubt to utter skepticism. I do not argue so as to convince, but as to allow some degree of thought which is not violated by excessive skepticism and (possible) hardness of heart. I hope that I don't appear to be militant or trying to convince you of anything, and if I do, please forgive me.

I sure do agree with the hardness of heart part.
I despair sometimes thinking about how we're all just fleshy bags of meat and water that will eventually be distributed back to the earth as a bunch of little atoms and that the dickery we put up with every day is for nothing :/

Just the other day, after learning what the ultimate fate of the universe will probably be, I was so pissed off I wanted to convert to a religion on the spot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo skip to 50 minutes in. So hopeless. At least we have a lot of time to come up with a way to escape being eternally cold and lonely.

I am skeptical of everything. Scrutiny is pretty much the name of your game when you're an atheist. It basically means you're admitting that we know almost nothing about the universe so nobody should pretend to have all the answers, even though we really want em.

Given that the original writings were nearly 2000 years ago, and that the texts were meant to be shared so that the news could be spread, it is very good that we have the kind of historicity that we do. In our literary canon, we -barely- have the original copy of... anything that goes back that far. I haven't heard of the website you are quoting, and it seems to be more of a home-run marketplace to buy copies of what are claimed to be the original writings of various religious texts. I don't really consider this scholarship, and I'd love to have some more verification for what you are saying, as evidenced by other accepted scholars (this is the scientific way, no?).

Most definitely, but you could do a google search and plenty of sites would have turned up lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 has a lot of references at the bottom if you're looking for those.

I actually didn't know that John lived to be 110, thanks for the new fact. How'd you learn about that?[/COLOR]

I dunno, man. Miracles were pretty commonplace back in the day. Not so frequent anymore, sadly.

There is no evidence given there at all, man. Only that a few scholars disagree with the generally accepted authorship of the accepted canon. I never contested that there was opposition. This "higher criticism", the Jesus Seminar, advocates of Q come up again and again, with less and less to offer. There is no proof of Q, for example, apart from the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar. You made no reference to this:

Whaaaat?
What's wrong with my scholars? You haven't heard of them?

They would be the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm

The official representation of the Vatican in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops

These guy's evidence holds weight, in my opinion. If the church itself is willing to admit it.

Here is a typical problem with skeptical reading of the gospels:
(a) If the gospels agree, then the authors conspired together, and shouldn't be trusted
(b) If the gospels give different accounts, then the story is inconsistent, and shouldn't be trusted

Your cited page here offers sheer controversy with plausible alternatives for what is generally accepted. That's all very good, but just because something is plausible doesn't mean I need to accept it, no? I mean, I'm sure that's an argument you'd just as quickly press on me.

I will point out again that you transitioned from the historicity of the bible to the evaluation of its claims. This was a different argument, which is in turn different from the philosophical exploration of the existence of God. That link and the article there was very, very good. I cannot say I have an answer for every problem there, and it gave me lots to ponder. Thanks for the link. Many of arguments put forth are poor though, in assuming that because John says A and Matthew says B, that they contradict each other. This is only the case if A negates B, which in many of the quoted "contradictions", it doesn't. It is possible that John comments on something that Matthew didn't decide to put in. It is possible that an alternate perspective is given so that more is understood. Some of the arguments stem from the author of the article using a specific translation of a word that is not always translated that way. The literal word should prevail there, I think. Either way, the point is well taken.

The truthful answer is that it's largely experiential. I find Christ's claims to be consistent with life as I see it. His commentary on the nature of man, and how we relate to God strike a deep chord in me. This is not definite proof of Jesus' claims by any means. As well, if you couple Christ's claims with his evidence of miracles, you start thinking twice. If this guy claims to be God, gets owned, but somehow comes back to life, you look at that twice. I'm quite convinced of Jesus' resurrection historically, and that beckons me to look closer at what Jesus says.

All I can say is of course it is, man. Religion is designed to appeal heavily to you! That's what they were thinking of when they were writing it. They made up 'plausible' ideas as to how it came about, but so did the Greeks, bro.

Why are you so certain that Jesus was resurrected? What is your evidence?
And question number 2: If he WAS resurrected, why does he get so much credit for 'dying' for our sins

Not everyone makes a similar claim. As well, not everyone else's claims have had the same impact on the world. I'm also going to go Christian on you and say that I felt spiritual conviction as I consider Christ and God as revealed in scripture. Call that bologna if you will (I would), but we can only measure what we witness and experience.

No man, we can't even measure that! We lie to ourselves constantly. How often have you followed what you felt in your gut, then subsequently found out your guts had **** for brains? I am always trying to be as skeptical of my own motives as possible when I decide my morals on stuff. Every time I think of a good reason to be moral in a certain way, I try as hard as I can to beat that reason with even better logic, whatever it was. I hate how little we know, it pisses me off how ridiculously ignorant I am. How ridiculously ignorant we all are.

I could go on and try to discredit others who make the same claim, but I feel no need. Again, my purpose isn't to convince you into one thing. It's to share my personal conviction, and allow for philosophically honest discussion about the existence of God-- why I think it is certainly not out of the question and also far from irrational.

The existence of a creator seems completely irrelevant to me at this point, even if he does exist, because he obviously has absolutely NO EFFECT on us now. The Big Bang most definitely happened, for whatever reason, and ever since than he's just let it sort of develop (or deteriorate, depending on how you look at it) on its own. Seriously, he's just let 'cosmic' natural selection take it's course. So many things in the universe get destroyed and exploded and vaporized every second...if there is a higher being, it isn't one who gives a **** about us.

I think organized religion is very arrogant in it's habit of continuously claiming to know all the answers, and the way it claims to have permanent rules. (Rules so perfect that they shouldn't change, in theory)

Oh wait that's your reply to the other guy. crap, I wrote all that out...I'm leaving it up dammit.

 

[booshk]

manuel your example of people floating above you is going to scare the **** out of me when i sleep.

 

[rvkevin]

I just say 'atheist' because I don't know what name you choose for, "Person who is angrily against organized religion and is pretty sure there is no God but thinks that is kind of irrelevant." I tried to say agnostic-atheist earlier, but that didn't really seem right either.

One term that may apply to you is either non-theist or anti-theist.

Sucumbio isn't interested in arguments or reasoning or proof; and he definitely isn't interested in evidence.

He is advocating Fideism; which means that any direct debate concerning God is impossible to have with him. He seems to advocate Pascalian Fideism, but it's difficult to tell; the numerous Fideist ideologies are separated by very subtle and fine points.

Anything else (and I do mean anything, no matter how compelling) will be met with the blunt reply of "Faith is sufficient."

What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying "X is a moral act." Whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women? After all, they have faith that these actions are indeed moral and it would be immoral to not fulfill these actions. They have faith in the divine being that laid out this morality to them and anyone who says or thinks different should also be killed. How would you convince them otherwise? After all, "Faith is sufficient" and rational arguments are left out of the discussion. It seems pretty absurd to me, pretty much to the point where its dangerous (Although some beliefs may be benign, most will have a negative impact). This is why beliefs need to be supported by evidence, when they are not, anything becomes permissible.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Niiiice. Yeah lets go there, why not. You got it. In fact, if I don't exist, then none of you do either!

Are you making a bad joke or do you seriously actually think that's what he meant?

 

[Diakonos]

I don't like to see this turn to theistic-atheistic adversity. I will comment on the thoughtful replies to my thoughts this weekend.

Sucumbio, 1Corinthians 8:2 .

Thanks again for the continued discussion.

I can also share my thoughts on the discussion regarding sovereignty/benevolence/salvation issue, if anyone wants to hear them (read: discuss, not argue about)

 

[Albert.]

Question: Why is the original poster so awesome???

Why has nobody answered this??

but yeah, don't you guys realize that all of the current major religions are just recycled versions of older religions?

I mean seriously... Each age's religion is the next one's literary entertainment. Look at the Greek Gods and how they're taught in schools now as "ancient crazy beliefs/ epic fiction literature!!"

Anyone who's figured out that the bible is fiction (or just plain crap) is ahead of the curve

Good job convincing non-believers to just stop following their own moral codes and **** to subscribe to a horribly out-dated and nonsensical condescending book.

And now I take my leave because there's no use arguing, religious folks always come back with holier-than-thou logic and atheists like myself spend way too much time being ***holes.


If it makes you better, that's great. Good ****. Just know that your religion has done some bad in the world (cough crusades)

 

[rvkevin]

but yeah, don't you guys realize that all of the current major religions are just recycled versions of older religions?

I mean seriously... Each age's religion is the next one's literary entertainment. Look at the Greek Gods and how they're taught in schools now as "ancient crazy beliefs/ epic fiction literature!!"

Anyone who's figured out that the bible is fiction (or just plain crap) is ahead of the curve

I remember hearing that the reason why heliocentric theory was eventually accepted over the geocentric theory was because the people who thought the heliocentric theory was true eventually died and the new generation learned the geocentric theory. I think this is similar to religion, the biggest change in the demographics occurs between generations (which is probably why religion is heavily focused on child indoctrination). Although their are some examples where people lose the dogma in their middle ages.

Edit: http://ayesee.imgur.com/atheismskeptic/KqYTp

If it makes you better, that's great. Good ****. Just know that your religion has done some bad in the world (cough crusades)

Why the past tense? You don't need to look hard to find modern examples of religion doing harm.

 

[Albert.]

I remember hearing that the reason why heliocentric theory was eventually accepted over the geocentric theory was because the people who thought the heliocentric theory was true eventually died and the new generation learned the geocentric theory. I think this is similar to religion, the biggest change in the demographics occurs between generations (which is probably why religion is heavily focused on child indoctrination). Although their are some examples where people lose the dogma in their middle ages.




Why the past tense? You don't need to look hard to find modern examples of religion doing harm.

good sh*tttt

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I always tell people, "There's a reason every Church of Latter Day Saint's family has like 8 or 9 kids..."

edit: I know it sounds horrible and disgusting to call it 'child indoctrination' but that is genuinely what it is. When you are a child, the whole idea of 'choice' is an illusion. You believe what your parents tell you about how the world works. That shouldn't be debated, right?

 

[GofG]

The beliefs of the LDS church are so ridiculous that they cannot spread memetically; they must spread genetically. Non-strict Mormons, i.e. Mormons who do not live in communes, are generally very, very good people who are successful in life and nice to everyone.

If it weren't for these two facts, their religion would have died out years ago.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Atheist's are like the definition of ignorant. Creation is all around us. It's complex too, someone intelligent had to make all these things into perfect order. God created all things. If they can't see that... they are the very definition of ignorant.

 

[Diakonos]

I don't think we get anywhere by calling someone ignorant. Please watch it.

 

[Reaver197]

Unfortunately, things are not in perfect order, and there is much to be left desired in how things operate. If this is truly the best a god can do, then he/she/it is woefully lacking in ability or caring, or both.

Just because something is complex does not at all mean it was made by someone/something. Wonderfully complex systems can arise from chaotic randomness on their own.

 

[gm jack]

Atheist's are like the definition of ignorant. Creation is all around us. It's complex too, someone intelligent had to make all these things into perfect order. God created all things. If they can't see that... they are the very definition of ignorant.

If you think it is perfect, you are ignorant. Obvious example, the recurrent pharyngeal nerve goes from the brain to the larynx, but it has to go around vessels near the heart first. In something like a giraffe, this is a pretty long way. Also, the crossing of the airways and the oesophagus in the throat leads to people choking when the system fails. A better idea would be for them not to cross and the oesophagus and the trachea to spiral around each other.

Order is not perfect. Look at the extinction rates. If new ones aren't coming along, God really wasted him time making thousands of species just for them to go extinct.

As said, complexity can arise without a creator. Mechanisms for this are proven to exist. If you think it isn't possible, you really need to look deeper.

 

[rvkevin]

Atheist's are like the definition of ignorant. Creation is all around us. It's complex too, someone intelligent had to make all these things into perfect order. God created all things. If they can't see that... they are the very definition of ignorant.

Yes, everything was made for humans in mind. Everything is in perfect order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

Not.

 

[john!]

Good job keeping this thread civil, or at least non-lockable lol. 15 pages isn't bad for a religion thread.

So let's try to agree on terms here.

Theist: holds the position that God does exist
Atheist: holds the position that God does not exist
^^^ These two are mutually exclusive

Agnostic: One who does not claim to know whether God exists or not.
^^^ Is compatible with both theism and atheism

These are good, right? So why does only one of the first two positions require evidence, and the other one doesn't? They have the exact same cognitive value.

Take for example the "black swan"... the English thought all swans were white for a long time, until they went to Australia and found black swans. What if God (or the proof of God) is a black swan waiting to be discovered?

So even if you find evidence for God not existing, others will find evidence for God existing (there are a bunch of arguments out there, search Google) and each person has to judge for themselves. It's dishonest to put atheism at a higher level than theism and say "we don't need evidence". It's a positive claim just like theism is... especially if you reword it like so:

Atheist: holds the position that either the Universe was created by a force that was not divine, or that the Universe was not created at all, and has always existed.

^^^ That statement requires evidence. Atheism is a belief.

Re-posting...

 

[GofG]

Atheism is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism does not require any evidence whatsoever. Atheism doesn't mean believing in science as opposed to religion; it is simply not believing in religion. Not believing in the existence of things for which there is no evidence is the "neutral" perspective to take.

Atheism is not an origin story. It does not propose anything and therefore does not need evidence. The origin story that most atheists take is science, which does require evidence. Luckily, science has lots of evidence!

Edit: Just to clarify.

The argument is between science and religion, not atheism and theism. Theism is an origin story. Science is an origin story. Atheism is simply the rejection of theism; not the replacement of theism with science (although that is what it usually means).

Science has lots of evidence for what it proposes (in fact, that's the point of science. Not to push an agenda, or to influence people, but simply to try to predict what would happen in circumstances unknown based on what did happen in circumstances known). The grandest part of science is that it has done all of this good work with things like math, and biology, and physics, without relying on any sort of supernatural beliefs whatsoever. It has not yet come across a problem where God is the solution. Perhaps in the future, Science will prove the existence of God. If it does, that does not mean that the theists were "right all along" and that we atheists should have believed from the beginning; it means that we did the best we could with what we had (a book from the bronze age) and if God wanted us to believe in his existence he **** well should have given us something to go off of.

 

[gm jack]

The difference is that the burden of proof should always rest with the one doing the proving. Of course, agnostic is the more correct position in the absence of disproving one side or the other. However, one side of the argument keeps getting strong as we learn more, while the other has had to adapt to explain what the other is saying.

 

[rvkevin]

So let's try to agree on terms here.

Theist: holds the position that God does exist
Atheist: holds the position that God does not exist
^^^ These two are mutually exclusive

Agnostic: One who does not claim to know whether God exists or not.
^^^ Is compatible with both theism and atheism

These are good, right? So why does only one of the first two positions require evidence, and the other one doesn't? They have the exact same cognitive value.

Claims require evidence. Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim (or a set of claims).

Take for example the "black swan"... the English thought all swans were white for a long time, until they went to Australia and found black swans. What if God (or the proof of God) is a black swan waiting to be discovered?

Before discovering the black swan, they would not have been justified in believing black swans existed because of a lack of evidence. This is not to say that they would have been justified to say that "Black swans do not exist." If God is the black swan, then at this time, the claim does not have sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God.

Atheist: holds the position that either the Universe was created by a force that was not divine, or that the Universe was not created at all, and has always existed.

This is incorrect. Atheism does not hold the belief that the universe was created by a force that was not divine. This would probably be better classified as naturalism. Atheists do not hold that there cannot be such a being, they usually hold that there is insufficient evidence to justify believing the god hypothesis. If an atheist did make that claim, then they would require evidence, but it is not something that all atheists claim.

 

[john!]

I'm hearing a lot of those old phrases... "non stamp collector"... "burden of proof"... etc.

If you think that God probably doesn't exist (that's what an atheist is after all), then you have to have a reason. It's as if Copernicus said "I think the Earth is not the center of the Universe", but had no evidence at all to back up his claim. Even though he's right, he would have been laughed at, because even though he's making a negative claim (just like atheists do), he had no evidence to contradict the prevailing theories at the time (yes I think God is a theory and within the realm of science). Neither do atheists, but they still insist that they don't need evidence.

Why do you think that God probably doesn't exist? Why aren't you a pure agnostic? Making a claim about the origin of the universe is pretty big stuff. Since you don't think God did it, I'd like to hear your alternative theories as to how everything began. Because without an alternative theory, and without any evidence, your claim holds no value. You do have an alternate theory, right?

 

[rvkevin]

Why do you think that God probably doesn't exist? Why aren't you a pure agnostic? Making a claim about the origin of the universe is pretty big stuff. Since you don't think God did it, I'd like to hear your alternative theories as to how everything began. Because without an alternative theory, and without any evidence, your claim holds no value. You do have an alternate theory, right?

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. The Big Bang theory is the best explanation at this point in time. But it is important to note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, the God hypothesis does not fit the scientific definition of a theory, it is a hypothesis at best. Just because someone prefers a bad explanation to no explanation does not mean that we should grant their wishes.

 

[GofG]

I'm hearing a lot of those old phrases... "non stamp collector"... "burden of proof"... etc.

If you think that God probably doesn't exist (that's what an atheist is after all), then you have to have a reason. It's as if Copernicus said "I think the Earth is not the center of the Universe", but had no evidence at all to back up his claim. Even though he's right, he would have been laughed at, because even though he's making a negative claim (just like atheists do), he had no evidence to contradict the prevailing theories at the time (yes I think God is a theory and within the realm of science). Neither do atheists, but they still insist that they don't need evidence.

Why do you think that God probably doesn't exist? Why aren't you a pure agnostic? Making a claim about the origin of the universe is pretty big stuff. Since you don't think God did it, I'd like to hear your alternative theories as to how everything began. Because without an alternative theory, and without any evidence, your claim holds no value. You do have an alternate theory, right?

I do not believe that there is an invisible, microscopic elephant in my garage because my experience has given me no reason to believe in such an elephant.

I do not believe there is a god because my experience has given me no reason to believe in such a being.

Aside from sheer numbers, the only thing theism has going for it is, as I said earlier, a book from the bronze age, translated and translated and translated again. This book is so horribly riddled through and through with errors, contradictions, factual inaccuracies, and ludicrousness that it stands more of an argument against its own veracity than for it, so I will safely discount it from the list of evidence for christianity.

And so we are left with two options:

• God exists, for which there is no evidence (don't say "look around you! look at all the creation!" God is simply a way of explaining existence; existence is not evidence for God)
• God doesn't exist, for which there is no evidence.

Just as I assume, believe, that there is no invisible, microscopic elephant in my garage (and do so without evidence), I assume there is no God.

Now that I have cleared the idea of theism out of my mind, I am free to look for alternate origin theories. I, like most atheists, choose science.

 

[john!]

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. The Big Bang theory is the best explanation at this point in time. But it is important to note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Also, the God hypothesis does not fit the scientific definition of a theory, it is a hypothesis at best. Just because someone prefers a bad explanation to no explanation does not mean that we should grant their wishes.

Hence why I said "pure agnostic". Almost everyone, believers and non, is agnostic to some extent.

Keep in mind that the ancient Greeks likely did not consider the thunder god to be within the realm of science. The heavens are too far away! But now we know how thunder works. It is science, and just because it's not testable now doesn't mean it never will be.

I do not believe that there is an invisible, microscopic elephant in my garage because my experience has given me no reason to believe in such an elephant.

I do not believe there is a god because my experience has given me no reason to believe in such a being.

Aside from sheer numbers, the only thing theism has going for it is, as I said earlier, a book from the bronze age, translated and translated and translated again. This book is so horribly riddled through and through with errors, contradictions, factual inaccuracies, and ludicrousness that it stands more of an argument against its own veracity than for it, so I will safely discount it from the list of evidence for christianity.

And so we are left with two options:

• God exists, for which there is no evidence (don't say "look around you! look at all the creation!" God is simply a way of explaining existence; existence is not evidence for God)
• God doesn't exist, for which there is no evidence.

Just as I assume, believe, that there is no invisible, microscopic elephant in my garage (and do so without evidence), I assume there is no God.

Now that I have cleared the idea of theism out of my mind, I am free to look for alternate origin theories. I, like most atheists, choose science.

Well first of all, God is a scientific theory like I said above. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Saying "look around you" is actually great advice, because the Universe itself is the evidence. The fact that there is something rather than nothing demands an explanation. Never in human history have we seen something come from nothing.

So you can't compare God to the invisible elephant, or invisible pink unicorn, or whatever, because there's no unexplained evidence for them. The universe could get along fine without them. God is a different story, because the laws of the universe as we know them cannot explain the existence of the universe itself, so it's not unreasonable or superfluous to think that there might be a being responsible for it.

 

[GofG]

Actually, the greeks believed that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus, a real mountain in northern Greece.

Also, what does your avatar mean? Qwantz is still going strong; yesterday's comic was particularly good.

 

[rvkevin]

Hence why I said "pure agnostic". Almost everyone, believers and non, is agnostic to some extent.

Keep in mind that the ancient Greeks likely did not consider the thunder god to be within the realm of science. The heavens are too far away! But now we know how thunder works. It is science, and just because it's not testable now doesn't mean it never will be.



EDIT: Responding to G's post now.

What do you mean by "pure agnostic?"

If you ever met God, how would you know?

And God is testable by science. Prayer studies have shown that the "God grants prayer hypothesis" is not true.

 

[john!]

Well you get my point about the thunder god. To say that the origin of our universe is untestable is assuming too much. Today we are doing things with science that were unthinkable centuries ago.

There was a Melee player (NES n00b) who tragically died a few months ago. His avatar was a tan colored dinosaur. Mine was already T-Rex, so I made T-Rex brown and put "RIP" in his memory.

Pure agnostic means you refuse to make a claim as to whether God exists or not.

Just because "God doesn't grant prayers" doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

 

[rvkevin]

Pure agnostic means you refuse to make a claim as to whether God exists or not.

This person is also an atheist.

Just because "God doesn't grant prayers" doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

What makes God distinguishable from being non-existent?

The fact that there is something rather than nothing demands an explanation. Never in human history have we seen something come from nothing.

What evidence do you have to make the claim that there was "nothing?"

First law of thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

[GofG]

Well first of all, God is a scientific theory like I said above. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, no it's not. Don't throw the word "theory" around like that. Theories must be falsafiable. God is simply not falsafiable.

Saying "look around you" is actually great advice, because the Universe itself is the evidence. The fact that there is something rather than nothing demands an explanation. Never in human history have we seen something come from nothing.

The existence of God would explain the universe, but explanatory value is different from evidence. There are an infinite number of theories that could explain the origin of the universe just as well as religion can; these theories have the same explanatory value. Explanatory value is very useful when dealing with science. Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory with no explanatory value, but lots of evidence, which is why it's so controversial and misinterpreted: we are pretty sure it's real, but we have no idea what it means. On the other hand, string theory is a theory with a lot of explanatory value (it would explain everything, in fact!) but with very little evidence backing it, and as such it is regarded with skepticism in the scientific community.

The question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a very important question. The answer that we eventually come up with had better:

• have quite a lot of explanatory value; it should completely explain the origin of the universe
• have quite a lot of evidence; its veracity should not come into question

God doesn't fulfill this list. While he does a decent job at explaining the origin of the universe, there simply isn't enough evidence to make him stand out from the other billions of possible explanations.

So you can't compare God to the invisible elephant, or invisible pink unicorn, or whatever, because there's no unexplained evidence for them. The universe could get along fine without them. God is a different story, because the laws of the universe as we know them cannot explain the existence of the universe itself, so it's not unreasonable or superfluous to think that there might be a being responsible for it.

Actually, if we pretended that the invisible elephant, or the invisible pink unicorn, created the universe, then suddenly the universe doesn't get along fine without them, much like God.

 

[gm jack]

And the idea of God does not explain the existence of God. Saying they have always existed is equally valid for either.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Yes, everything was made for humans in mind. Everything is in perfect order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

Not.

Nothing is entirely perfect, but creation and order around the universe keeps us alive and our future generations alive. I did see the video, but the guy talking seems like a good puppet for Satan.

 

[john!]

This person is also an atheist.

What makes God distinguishable from being non-existent?

What evidence do you have to make the claim that there was "nothing?"

First law of thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

- Nope, an atheist makes the claim that God probably does not exist.

- ??? If he exists, he exists. Just because we don't know it doesn't make it false.

- Either that or the universe is eternal... which still violates natural laws... so the claim still needs proof.

Actually, no it's not. Don't throw the word "theory" around like that. Theories must be falsafiable. God is simply not falsafiable.



The existence of God would explain the universe, but explanatory value is different from evidence. There are an infinite number of theories that could explain the origin of the universe just as well as religion can; these theories have the same explanatory value. Explanatory value is very useful when dealing with science. Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory with no explanatory value, but lots of evidence, which is why it's so controversial and misinterpreted: we are pretty sure it's real, but we have no idea what it means. On the other hand, string theory is a theory with a lot of explanatory value (it would explain everything, in fact!) but with very little evidence backing it, and as such it is regarded with skepticism in the scientific community.

The question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a very important question. The answer that we eventually come up with had better:

• have quite a lot of explanatory value; it should completely explain the origin of the universe
• have quite a lot of evidence; its veracity should not come into question

God doesn't fulfill this list. While he does a decent job at explaining the origin of the universe, there simply isn't enough evidence to make him stand out from the other billions of possible explanations.

Actually, if we pretended that the invisible elephant, or the invisible pink unicorn, created the universe, then suddenly the universe doesn't get along fine without them, much like God.

- How do you know that God isn't falsifiable? Like I said, I think that's pretty presumptuous of you. Science accelerates at a fast pace.

- That's why I asked for other theories. And if they all have no evidence, then there's no reason to say that God doesn't exist, is there?

- He doesn't have evidence yet. But that's no reason to claim he doesn't exist because, like I said, we may find evidence of God someday. I'm still waiting for these alternate origin theories btw...

 

[rvkevin]

- Nope, an atheist makes the claim that God probably does not exist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe that a God exists. Even if they think it is likely, they could still be an atheist. If I flip a coin, I say I have a 50% of flipping heads, but I would not say that I believe it will be heads.

- Either that or the universe is eternal... which still violates natural laws... so the claim still needs proof.

What natural law does it violate?

- How do you know that God isn't falsifiable? Like I said, I think that's pretty presumptuous of you. Science accelerates at a fast pace.

What new evidence that could be discovered that would show the God hypothesis to be wrong? If there is none, then it is not falsifiable.

It's complex too, someone intelligent had to make all these things into perfect order.

This is false. Crystallization forms complex designs without an intelligent agent. Evolution forms complex designs without an intelligent agent. There is no reason to postulate an intelligent agent in the formation of the universe. What reason do you have to make such a claim?

- That's why I asked for other theories. And if they all have no evidence, then there's no reason to say that God doesn't exist, is there?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheism is the rejection of a claim, so no reason is necessary to reject the god hypothesis if it is not supported by evidence.

- He doesn't have evidence yet. But that's no reason to claim he doesn't exist because, like I said, we may find evidence of God someday. I'm still waiting for these alternate origin theories btw...

If there is no current evidence for his existence, then no one is justified in believing that such a being exists. That is not to say that the opposite is true. I already said that the Big Bang theory is the best scientific explanation at this time. There are also other less accepted hypothesizes such as the multi-verse hypothesis.

We've gone a long way without actually defining what God is...anyone willing to give theirs?

Nothing is entirely perfect, but creation and order around the universe keeps us alive and our future generations alive.

". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Btw, he's a well respected astrophysicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson). If that's who you think embodies Satan, I feel sorry for you.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

john!,

The "burden of proof" is quite important to us nonbelievers. I assure you it's not 'just a phrase' from our side of the spectrum - we treat it as a hallmark rule that keeps society from progressing backward.

Also:

Nothing is entirely perfect, but creation and order around the universe keeps us alive and our future generations alive. I did see the video, but the guy talking seems like a good puppet for Satan.

Is this a serious post?

 

[john!]

An atheist is someone who does not believe that a God exists. Even if they think it is likely, they could still be an atheist. If I flip a coin, I say I have a 50% of flipping heads, but I would not say that I believe it will be heads.

What natural law does it violate?

What new evidence that could be discovered that would show the God hypothesis to be wrong? If there is none, then it is not falsifiable.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheism is the rejection of a claim, so no reason is necessary to reject the god hypothesis if it is not supported by evidence.

If there is no current evidence for his existence, then no one is justified in believing that such a being exists. That is not to say that the opposite is true. I already said that the Big Bang theory is the best scientific explanation at this time. There are also other less accepted hypothesizes such as the multi-verse hypothesis.

We've gone a long way without actually defining what God is...anyone willing to give theirs?

- Well I'll ask you again, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism? They're distinct concepts.

- The universe is expanding. Entropy is increasing. These two alone suggest that the universe must have a starting point.

- Hmm, maybe if we created our own isolated "universe", or showed how existence could arise out of non-existence. I don't really know because I can't predict the future.

- About the "burden of proof" (SP read here): I agree that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The only ones here not making claims are the pure agnostics... not the agnostic atheists. When you say you're any kind of atheist, it means you believe, to some extent, that God doesn't exist. That's what atheism IS... A (not) + Theos (God).

- Well I define God as the uncaused cause. The Big Bang and multiverse theories don't disprove God. In fact, they are great evidence against the "eternal universe" theory, which says that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. Also, there are quite a few arguments for God's existence, just Google it. I personally don't know if God has been proven yet, but they are interesting and definitely tip the scales a bit in favor of God.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Atheists - don't believe

agnostic - don't know, don't care

 

[john!]

Agnostics don't believe either. And most atheists will tell me that they don't know whether God exists. So according to your definitions, they're basically the same.