Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

We are all like in the Matrix dude.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Its kind of a silly kerfuffle. A common aphorism states that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But that's certainly not always correct. If I state that there is an elephant on the corner of State and Maine Streets, and you look and see no elephant, then the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Its certainly true that we can construct truth claims for the existence of God that rely on no evidence. But we'd have to accept the premise that an omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe would leave no evidence for His existence. Fair enough, I guess, but I still don't think it's equally rational to believe or not believe in such a thing. Any more than its equally rational to believe in any other truth claim specifically constructed to be impervious to evidence-based analysis (such as whatever version of Russell's Teapot you prefer).

This is why I find the semantic distinctions strong and weak atheism completely silly. If we're going to be sticklers for words, there's no conflict between agnosticism and atheism. Because agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge and atheism is about a lack of belief. I have no knowledge of the existence of any gods (because I don't find any credible evidence for it) and thus I don't believe in the existence of any Gods. I suppose that makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but I don't think the agnostic label really has much significance. I don't have any knowledge about the existence of lots of fanciful things, but I don't describe myself as agnostic about them.

 

[joffer]

Its kind of a silly kerfuffle. A common aphorism states that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But that's certainly not always correct. If I state that there is an elephant on the corner of State and Maine Streets, and you look and see no elephant, then the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Its certainly true that we can construct truth claims for the existence of God that rely on no evidence. But we'd have to accept the premise that an omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe would leave no evidence for His existence. Fair enough, I guess, but I still don't think it's equally rational to believe or not believe in such a thing. Any more than its equally rational to believe in any other truth claim specifically constructed to be impervious to evidence-based analysis (such as whatever version of Russell's Teapot you prefer).

This is why I find the semantic distinctions strong and weak atheism completely silly. If we're going to be sticklers for words, there's no conflict between agnosticism and atheism. Because agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge and atheism is about a lack of belief. I have no knowledge of the existence of any gods (because I don't find any credible evidence for it) and thus I don't believe in the existence of any Gods. I suppose that makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but I don't think the agnostic label really has much significance. I don't have any knowledge about the existence of lots of fanciful things, but I don't describe myself as agnostic about them.

well said

 

[tonydead]

Do you just walk around in your life saying "maybe" about everything? I'm certain that fiction isn't real, by its very definition.

On a scale of 1 to 100 let's say you are 100% sure the Abrahamic God does not exist. Would you still rank the existence of a God (defined as a conscious unbound by nature and science) as the origin of the universe at 100?

Is that what the definition of a "god" is? I don't agree. I will concede that I'm not 100% sure that there's no "conscious unbound by nature and science" involved in the origin of the universe, though I'm not really sure what that means or what the implications would be. I am only 100% sure that any "god" as put forth by human religion does not exist. They are all easily, and thoroughly debunked.

The deeper question is the nature of life, and how that came about. I don't believe in any divine creator - again, it's a completely human construct - but won't say with any level of certainty that LIFE is some random occurrence. Why and more importantly HOW does organic life start to happen once the proper conditions allow it? That's the fascinating thing to me. But the concept of a creator goes out the window when you start talking about who created the creator, and it's not an idea that I even entertain.

I 99.99% agree with that!

Every one of these debates ends up in the realm of your second paragraph at some point though and theists love the "you can't prove God isn't real either" argument. We don't have that burden of proof if we haven't claimed "there is no God".

 

[JZilla]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language. Yes, I am certain in what I know, and I no longer let other people's imaginations cloud my reality. If you think it's possible on any level whatsoever that dragons and hobbits and gods and the Jabberwocky are real, then we're not coming from the same place.

 

[JZilla]

Do you just walk around in your life saying "maybe" about everything? I'm certain that fiction isn't real, by its very definition.

On a scale of 1 to 100 let's say you are 100% sure the Abrahamic God does not exist. Would you still rank the existence of a God (defined as a conscious unbound by nature and science) as the origin of the universe at 100?

Is that what the definition of a "god" is? I don't agree. I will concede that I'm not 100% sure that there's no "conscious unbound by nature and science" involved in the origin of the universe, though I'm not really sure what that means or what the implications would be. I am only 100% sure that any "god" as put forth by human religion does not exist. They are all easily, and thoroughly debunked.

The deeper question is the nature of life, and how that came about. I don't believe in any divine creator - again, it's a completely human construct - but won't say with any level of certainty that LIFE is some random occurrence. Why and more importantly HOW does organic life start to happen once the proper conditions allow it? That's the fascinating thing to me. But the concept of a creator goes out the window when you start talking about who created the creator, and it's not an idea that I even entertain.

I 99.99% agree with that!

Every one of these debates ends up in the realm of your second paragraph at some point though and theists love the "you can't prove God isn't real either" argument. We don't have that burden of proof if we haven't claimed "there is no God".

I don't feel like I need to prove anything, or convince anybody either. There is no God. I don't place any burden of proof on anyone, since believers give no credence to the idea of proof at all, when it comes to their faith.. what place does it have in a conversation with them?

 

[mr roboto]

As a Christian with doubts I don't begrudge anyone for their atheism or agnosticism. They are not irrational in any meaningful use of the term. I also don't believe anyone can be persuaded purely by evidence to go from theism to atheism or the other way around. I do believe Christians in particular suffer from an Enlightenment-based need to prove their worldview.

 

[Steve Tasker]

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

David Berlinski

glwat

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language. Yes, I am certain in what I know, and I no longer let other people's imaginations cloud my reality. If you think it's possible on any level whatsoever that dragons and hobbits and gods and the Jabberwocky are real, then we're not coming from the same place.

Agree. But the Jabbawockeez on the other hand are off the chain, bruh.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

As a Christian with doubts I don't begrudge anyone for their atheism or agnosticism. They are not irrational in any meaningful use of the term. I also don't believe anyone can be persuaded purely by evidence to go from theism to atheism or the other way around. I do believe Christians in particular suffer from an Enlightenment-based need to prove their worldview.

Lots of us here have been persuaded from theism to atheism based on evidence.

I agree, though, that it would be a rare thing the other way around.

 

[(HULK)]

Its kind of a silly kerfuffle. A common aphorism states that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But that's certainly not always correct. If I state that there is an elephant on the corner of State and Maine Streets, and you look and see no elephant, then the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Its certainly true that we can construct truth claims for the existence of God that rely on no evidence. But we'd have to accept the premise that an omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe would leave no evidence for His existence. Fair enough, I guess, but I still don't think it's equally rational to believe or not believe in such a thing. Any more than its equally rational to believe in any other truth claim specifically constructed to be impervious to evidence-based analysis (such as whatever version of Russell's Teapot you prefer).

This is why I find the semantic distinctions strong and weak atheism completely silly. If we're going to be sticklers for words, there's no conflict between agnosticism and atheism. Because agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge and atheism is about a lack of belief. I have no knowledge of the existence of any gods (because I don't find any credible evidence for it) and thus I don't believe in the existence of any Gods. I suppose that makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but I don't think the agnostic label really has much significance. I don't have any knowledge about the existence of lots of fanciful things, but I don't describe myself as agnostic about them.

I think the hard/soft distinction exists to differentiate between the lack of the belief and the active disbelief. Its really not a subtle difference in practice, although it sounds stupid written out like that.

 

[Steve Tasker]

One other note, this from Sam Harris.

Harris argues that 9 million children die under the age of 5 annually, many of these children have parents who pray that their children will be spared and the Prayers are not answered. Harris uses this to illustrate the Problem of evil, arguing that a god who can't prevent these deaths is impotent while a god who doesn't want to is evil.

This is something that I've always been skeptical of as well. I know the common line from Christians is how God is testing them, testing their faith, taking their child (or whoever) "to a better place". There's usually a follow-up about how God has given free will and didn't "create" evil, but that has always seemed so damn hollow to me. I've never been able to reconcile this with the construct of some kind of "intelligent", pseudo-sentient, benevolent creator. We know of evolution and at the very least a rough sketch of the history of earth and the universe itself (though there will always be many mysteries). Why would the creator God, as we see in the Bible, create death and evil and cancer and rape and <insert horrible thing here> like we see every day? And, further, if we assume that the creator God did intentionally create/allow this....what compelling reason is there for me to worship him/her? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

One other note, this from Sam Harris.

Harris argues that 9 million children die under the age of 5 annually, many of these children have parents who pray that their children will be spared and the Prayers are not answered. Harris uses this to illustrate the Problem of evil, arguing that a god who can't prevent these deaths is impotent while a god who doesn't want to is evil.

This is something that I've always been skeptical of as well. I know the common line from Christians is how God is testing them, testing their faith, taking their child (or whoever) "to a better place". There's usually a follow-up about how God has given free will and didn't "create" evil, but that has always seemed so damn hollow to me. I've never been able to reconcile this with the construct of some kind of "intelligent", pseudo-sentient, benevolent creator. We know of evolution and at the very least a rough sketch of the history of earth and the universe itself (though there will always be many mysteries). Why would the creator God, as we see in the Bible, create death and evil and cancer and rape and <insert horrible thing here> like we see every day? And, further, if we assume that the creator God did intentionally create/allow this....what compelling reason is there for me to worship him/her? It just doesn't make sense.

Link

 

[The Commish]

This is a great post, and a potential thread-ender. Logically, we should all be agnostics. There's no way to definitively prove the existence or the absence of god(s). So, we each either need to give up and accept agnosticism, or rationalize one way or the other to the point that we can sleep at night.

I'm with MT. There is way more evidence supporting the idea that there are no god(s) than there is that there are. I'm ok with leaving it at that.

It's frequently pointed out that the only position of "logic" in these "debates" is the one of agnosticism. At that point the fun begins with the ever changing definitions of atheist etc. Never really understood why that happens, but it's far from a thread ender in the FFA.

 

[rct]

Once upon a time, people didn't know why the sun moved across the sky, vanished every night, and returned each morning. So, since science couldn't explain what was happening, it was god. Specifically, it was Helios, the sun god, chasing his lover across the sky each day, desperate to reach her.

Just because you can't answer a question about something today doesn't mean that god is the answer to said question.

nice fallacy

I am crying from laughter here.... god dammit em.

Hey man, I just hope you have the courage one day to speak out in person the way you do online. Until then I find it hard to respect what you say since you don't believe in it enough to get out of the shadows.

Em, most here find it hard to respect someone who stays in the shadows and posts under an alias.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

One other note, this from Sam Harris.

Harris argues that 9 million children die under the age of 5 annually, many of these children have parents who pray that their children will be spared and the Prayers are not answered. Harris uses this to illustrate the Problem of evil, arguing that a god who can't prevent these deaths is impotent while a god who doesn't want to is evil.

This is something that I've always been skeptical of as well. I know the common line from Christians is how God is testing them, testing their faith, taking their child (or whoever) "to a better place". There's usually a follow-up about how God has given free will and didn't "create" evil, but that has always seemed so damn hollow to me. I've never been able to reconcile this with the construct of some kind of "intelligent", pseudo-sentient, benevolent creator. We know of evolution and at the very least a rough sketch of the history of earth and the universe itself (though there will always be many mysteries). Why would the creator God, as we see in the Bible, create death and evil and cancer and rape and <insert horrible thing here> like we see every day? And, further, if we assume that the creator God did intentionally create/allow this....what compelling reason is there for me to worship him/her? It just doesn't make sense.

If God is omnipotent, why does he allow evil to exist?

- Evil exists because we have free will

Is there evil in heaven?

- Of course there's no evil in heaven

Is there free will in heaven?

- Yes... No... well...

 

[CowboysFromHell]

This is a great post, and a potential thread-ender. Logically, we should all be agnostics. There's no way to definitively prove the existence or the absence of god(s). So, we each either need to give up and accept agnosticism, or rationalize one way or the other to the point that we can sleep at night.

I'm with MT. There is way more evidence supporting the idea that there are no god(s) than there is that there are. I'm ok with leaving it at that.

It's frequently pointed out that the only position of "logic" in these "debates" is the one of agnosticism. At that point the fun begins with the ever changing definitions of atheist etc. Never really understood why that happens, but it's far from a thread ender in the FFA.

I am actually agnostic about the existence of thread enders in the FFA.

 

[mr roboto]

As a Christian with doubts I don't begrudge anyone for their atheism or agnosticism. They are not irrational in any meaningful use of the term. I also don't believe anyone can be persuaded purely by evidence to go from theism to atheism or the other way around. I do believe Christians in particular suffer from an Enlightenment-based need to prove their worldview.

Lots of us here have been persuaded from theism to atheism based on evidence.

I agree, though, that it would be a rare thing the other way around.

Oh I agree that evidence plays a part. I've known non-religious people who've converted to Christianity based in part on arguments and evidence but it also comes with an experiential component as well. At the risk of inviting ridicule I will tell you where I'm at... I would not be a Christian based solely on apologetics or 'proof'. I have several strong intellectual doubts that I don't believe will ever be satisfied. Yet my experience and the experiences of those around me who have had truly incredible transformations are what keep me firmly believing. And I'm not intellectually satisfied with any of the alternatives either.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's too bad that Daniel Ratcliff is such a strong atheist. If ever there was someone who could start their own religion and be remembered as a god who walked amongst the people 200 years from now, it's that guy.

 

[(HULK)]

I love it when someone wins a Superbowl or an Oscar and then thanks god. Like god personally intervened some this person could achieve this professional achievement which is actually completely meaningless in terms of what makes life important.

When they lose the following year, do they hold god accountable for that as well? For hurricanes and famine too?

 

[(HULK)]

Also, watched Talladega Nights last night. Big fan of praying specifically to Baby Jesus only.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

On my path to atheism some of the reinforcement came from trying to teach my kids about God. Kids are very innocent and honest that way and there was something very poetic in having them help me understand what I do or don't believe. In a way its the first time I got challenged on my faith.. Hearing myself tell them this stuff just highlighted for me the mental gymnastics required to believe.

Examples..some literally from my youngest daughter.. but just stuff along the lines of.. Where is heaven? Who gets to be God or the tooth fairy? What does God look like.. God is both the father and the son? etc etc.

Reminds me of the genius Joe Rogan bit about Noah's Ark as well.

 

[JZilla]

If the "word of God" was anywhere near as flawless as it purports to be, I think we'd all have a much different way of looking at these things.

 

[Steve Tasker]

As a Christian with doubts I don't begrudge anyone for their atheism or agnosticism. They are not irrational in any meaningful use of the term. I also don't believe anyone can be persuaded purely by evidence to go from theism to atheism or the other way around. I do believe Christians in particular suffer from an Enlightenment-based need to prove their worldview.

Lots of us here have been persuaded from theism to atheism based on evidence.

I agree, though, that it would be a rare thing the other way around.

Oh I agree that evidence plays a part. I've known non-religious people who've converted to Christianity based in part on arguments and evidence but it also comes with an experiential component as well.At the risk of inviting ridicule I will tell you where I'm at... I would not be a Christian based solely on apologetics or 'proof'. I have several strong intellectual doubts that I don't believe will ever be satisfied. Yet my experience and the experiences of those around me who have had truly incredible transformations are what keep me firmly believing. And I'm not intellectually satisfied with any of the alternatives either.

If you don't mind me asking, can you provide some examples of the "truly incredible transformations"? Just wondering what you mean by that.

 

[mr roboto]

As a Christian with doubts I don't begrudge anyone for their atheism or agnosticism. They are not irrational in any meaningful use of the term. I also don't believe anyone can be persuaded purely by evidence to go from theism to atheism or the other way around. I do believe Christians in particular suffer from an Enlightenment-based need to prove their worldview.

Lots of us here have been persuaded from theism to atheism based on evidence.

I agree, though, that it would be a rare thing the other way around.

Oh I agree that evidence plays a part. I've known non-religious people who've converted to Christianity based in part on arguments and evidence but it also comes with an experiential component as well.At the risk of inviting ridicule I will tell you where I'm at... I would not be a Christian based solely on apologetics or 'proof'. I have several strong intellectual doubts that I don't believe will ever be satisfied. Yet my experience and the experiences of those around me who have had truly incredible transformations are what keep me firmly believing. And I'm not intellectually satisfied with any of the alternatives either.

If you don't mind me asking, can you provide some examples of the "truly incredible transformations"? Just wondering what you mean by that.

My brother was always a very angry guy. He and his first wife had a very rough marriage, she was pretty much crazy in a manic depressive way and he was a former Marine who would get angry and explode at the smallest things. She pretended to be religious and holier than everyone but was basically a pathological liar. She left him for another man and we all found out she had been cheating on him for several years. They had three kids.About three months before he found out she was cheating he had decided to get involved at a church locally. He had what you would call a conversion experience where he prayed and felt a change in his heart and his mind. I remember seeing him after that but before his wife left him and I had never seen him more peaceful and calm and kind to his children and I did not know that he had had this religious experience. When he found out that his wife was leaving him and had been cheating on him I was sure that he would absolutely go off the handle, yet he remain composed and mature and focused his energy on his children and divorced her without animosity.

Since then he has remarried to a very sweet woman and is a completely different man from who I knew him as growing up. It's hard to explain but folks that knew him before and after his conversion have all said the same thing that they are completely surprised at the man he is now versus the way he had been for his first 35 years of life.

Now obviously people change for many reasons and I'm not claiming that the conversion to Christianity or any other religion is the only way for somebody to change but in this instance it was truly remarkable. He went from being an angry drunken husband and father to a guy who had to raise his two daughters and son by himself for four years and was the most tender and loving single father I've ever known. If you asked him what changed him he would tell you that it was when he finally accepted that God loved him and he allowed God to change his heart.

I had a much less dramatic experience personally but suffice it to say I was very selfish and cocky and immature kid in high school and college and when I examined my life and decided to commit myself to God and to Christianity I changed drastically as well. It is very hard to explain and I'm sure nonreligious people will either scoff at the stories or provide some other explanation but my family has changed over the years in large part because my brothers and mother and I have all had religious conversion experiences that have led to truly long-term changes in heart and attitude.

 

[mr roboto]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

I am an atheist and I think that's beautiful mr roboto. I suffer from depression and have been trying to find the type of motivational experience you describe for some time now. Your family is better for it so I say congrats, and to each his own.

 

[mr roboto]

Thanks Buck. I hope you find a path that heals.

 

[shader]

For example, in this thread during all the banter back and forth, how many times has the atheist side made the assertion "no god exists"? I'm guessing not many if any.

No gods exist, and I still live my life in endless wonder of nature.

No gods exist, and the best thing that ever happened to me was breaking the debilitating shackles of religion that I was burdened with early in life

Living as if no gods exist makes more sense than living as if there are.

Claiming with certainty they don't exist makes no more sense than claiming with certainty they do.

It actually makes about a billion times more sense, if we're speaking in terms of likelihood

Making a claim with certainty you remove any spectrum of likelihood.

I agree with you on the likelihood argument (utter lack of evidence), I don't understand how you can make the claim certain.

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

OJ's lawyers provided lots of evidence that he didn't kill two people and the jury bought it. They believed all the evidence that the defense team presented. Perhaps I would have said "that glove is a big crock" and decided that I didn't agree with the evidence. But the evidence was there.

A christian could write 100 reasons why he/she believes in God, things that are "evidence". You would quickly dismiss them with an or some other disparaging comment. But don't say there isn't any evidence. Just say you don't believe the evidence that a Christian believes, because in the long run it's a simple as that.

You guys throwing out lines like "utter lack of evidence" is just a ploy to try and establish that you have the upper ground, the rational one...despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with you.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I love it when someone wins a Superbowl or an Oscar and then thanks god. Like god personally intervened some this person could achieve this professional achievement which is actually completely meaningless in terms of what makes life important.

When they lose the following year, do they hold god accountable for that as well? For hurricanes and famine too?

Russell Wilson thanked god profusely after the NFC Championship game. I wonder what he thought he did to tick god off for the Super Bowl.

It's not really just that. It's selfish. I mean what exactly do they think is going on here. "Yo God, I know you didn't have time to save that 5 year old from dying of cancer, but I really appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to help me throw that TD pass instead!".

But then again, "I'm special" is at the root of all this stuff. "I'm so blessed", aka "God likes me better than those hungry kids in Somalia so he makes my life better than theirs".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language.

That's by necessity. It makes no sense to argue about the existence of gods until we specify exactly what it means for someone (or something?) to be a god. A clear definition of god -- i.e., a specified list of attributes someone must have in order to qualify as a god -- is seldom forthcoming from theists in these sorts of discussions, so I use my own definition. To me, a god is an entity that merits our worship.

Suppose Yahweh exists, pretty much as described in the Old Testament. Suppose further that he uses his considerable powers to present irrefutable evidence to us of his existence.

In that situation, it would be silly to sit around arguing about whether Yahweh exists. But whether any gods exist would still be a rather controversial topic. Yahweh, IMO, does not satisfy my definition of a god. There's no way around the fact, however, that it's an argument over semantics.

 

[The Commish]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I'd submit that there are churches and followers of Christ that need a guy exactly like you to be leading them.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

For example, in this thread during all the banter back and forth, how many times has the atheist side made the assertion "no god exists"? I'm guessing not many if any.

No gods exist, and I still live my life in endless wonder of nature.

No gods exist, and the best thing that ever happened to me was breaking the debilitating shackles of religion that I was burdened with early in life

Living as if no gods exist makes more sense than living as if there are.

Claiming with certainty they don't exist makes no more sense than claiming with certainty they do.

It actually makes about a billion times more sense, if we're speaking in terms of likelihood

Making a claim with certainty you remove any spectrum of likelihood.

I agree with you on the likelihood argument (utter lack of evidence), I don't understand how you can make the claim certain.

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

OJ's lawyers provided lots of evidence that he didn't kill two people and the jury bought it. They believed all the evidence that the defense team presented. Perhaps I would have said "that glove is a big crock" and decided that I didn't agree with the evidence. But the evidence was there.

A christian could write 100 reasons why he/she believes in God, things that are "evidence". You would quickly dismiss them with an or some other disparaging comment. But don't say there isn't any evidence. Just say you don't believe the evidence that a Christian believes, because in the long run it's a simple as that.

You guys throwing out lines like "utter lack of evidence" is just a ploy to try and establish that you have the upper ground, the rational one...despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with you.

Pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence", but maybe you can share some examples (like Mr Roboto did)? Is it all anecdotal, personal experiences?

 

[The Commish]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language.

That's by necessity. It makes no sense to argue about the existence of gods until we specify exactly what it means for someone (or something?) to be a god. A clear definition of god -- i.e., a specified list of attributes someone must have in order to qualify as a god -- is seldom forthcoming from theists in these sorts of discussions, so I use my own definition. To me, a god is an entity that merits our worship.

Suppose Yahweh exist, pretty much as described in the Old Testament. Suppose further that he uses his considerable powers to present irrefutable evidence to us of his existence.

In that situation, it would be silly to sit around arguing about whether Yahweh exists. But whether any gods exist would still be a rather controversial topic. Yahweh, IMO, does not satisfy my definition of a god. There's no way around the fact, however, that it's an argument over semantics.

Believers in almost all religious sects will tell you a god is something that IS worshipped. This is probably a severe disconnect in communication now that I think about it.

 

[JZilla]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language.

That's by necessity. It makes no sense to argue about the existence of gods until we specify exactly what it means for someone (or something?) to be a god. A clear definition of god -- i.e., a specified list of attributes someone must have in order to qualify as a god -- is seldom forthcoming from theists in these sorts of discussions, so I use my own definition. To me, a god is an entity that merits our worship.

Suppose Yahweh exists, pretty much as described in the Old Testament. Suppose further that he uses his considerable powers to present irrefutable evidence to us of his existence.

In that situation, it would be silly to sit around arguing about whether Yahweh exists. But whether any gods exist would still be a rather controversial topic. Yahweh, IMO, does not satisfy my definition of a god. There's no way around the fact, however, that it's an argument over semantics.

In this case I was referring more to the hairsplitting over "certain"

When one argues that you can't be "certain" dragons don't exist, because they can't be effectually disproved, I have no time for that conversation. But I don't like talking about Schrodinger's cat either.

 

[tonydead]

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

OJ's lawyers provided lots of evidence that he didn't kill two people and the jury bought it. They believed all the evidence that the defense team presented. Perhaps I would have said "that glove is a big crock" and decided that I didn't agree with the evidence. But the evidence was there.

A christian could write 100 reasons why he/she believes in God, things that are "evidence". You would quickly dismiss them with an or some other disparaging comment. But don't say there isn't any evidence. Just say you don't believe the evidence that a Christian believes, because in the long run it's a simple as that.

You guys throwing out lines like "utter lack of evidence" is just a ploy to try and establish that you have the upper ground, the rational one...despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with you.

Pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence", but maybe you can share some examples (like Mr Roboto did)? Is it all anecdotal, personal experiences?

More direct than circumstantial would be nice too.

 

[The Commish]

For example, in this thread during all the banter back and forth, how many times has the atheist side made the assertion "no god exists"? I'm guessing not many if any.

No gods exist, and I still live my life in endless wonder of nature.

No gods exist, and the best thing that ever happened to me was breaking the debilitating shackles of religion that I was burdened with early in life

Living as if no gods exist makes more sense than living as if there are.

Claiming with certainty they don't exist makes no more sense than claiming with certainty they do.

It actually makes about a billion times more sense, if we're speaking in terms of likelihood

Making a claim with certainty you remove any spectrum of likelihood.

I agree with you on the likelihood argument (utter lack of evidence), I don't understand how you can make the claim certain.

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

OJ's lawyers provided lots of evidence that he didn't kill two people and the jury bought it. They believed all the evidence that the defense team presented. Perhaps I would have said "that glove is a big crock" and decided that I didn't agree with the evidence. But the evidence was there.

A christian could write 100 reasons why he/she believes in God, things that are "evidence". You would quickly dismiss them with an or some other disparaging comment. But don't say there isn't any evidence. Just say you don't believe the evidence that a Christian believes, because in the long run it's a simple as that.

You guys throwing out lines like "utter lack of evidence" is just a ploy to try and establish that you have the upper ground, the rational one...despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with you.

Pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence", but maybe you can share some examples (like Mr Roboto did)? Is it all anecdotal, personal experiences?

It should really read "scientific evidence" and yes....you two will disagree....you will with any believer.

ETA: This is usually because when believers are talking about theology they understand "belief" to be a position beyond what science requires. So they will never be able to give scientific examples required.

 

[matuski]

Its kind of a silly kerfuffle. A common aphorism states that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But that's certainly not always correct. If I state that there is an elephant on the corner of State and Maine Streets, and you look and see no elephant, then the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Its certainly true that we can construct truth claims for the existence of God that rely on no evidence. But we'd have to accept the premise that an omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe would leave no evidence for His existence. Fair enough, I guess, but I still don't think it's equally rational to believe or not believe in such a thing. Any more than its equally rational to believe in any other truth claim specifically constructed to be impervious to evidence-based analysis (such as whatever version of Russell's Teapot you prefer).

This is why I find the semantic distinctions strong and weak atheism completely silly. If we're going to be sticklers for words, there's no conflict between agnosticism and atheism. Because agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge and atheism is about a lack of belief. I have no knowledge of the existence of any gods (because I don't find any credible evidence for it) and thus I don't believe in the existence of any Gods. I suppose that makes me an agnostic and an atheist, but I don't think the agnostic label really has much significance. I don't have any knowledge about the existence of lots of fanciful things, but I don't describe myself as agnostic about them.

Good post. Plus you used "kerfuffle".

 

[shader]

For example, in this thread during all the banter back and forth, how many times has the atheist side made the assertion "no god exists"? I'm guessing not many if any.

No gods exist, and I still live my life in endless wonder of nature.

No gods exist, and the best thing that ever happened to me was breaking the debilitating shackles of religion that I was burdened with early in life

Living as if no gods exist makes more sense than living as if there are.

Claiming with certainty they don't exist makes no more sense than claiming with certainty they do.

It actually makes about a billion times more sense, if we're speaking in terms of likelihood

Making a claim with certainty you remove any spectrum of likelihood.

I agree with you on the likelihood argument (utter lack of evidence), I don't understand how you can make the claim certain.

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

OJ's lawyers provided lots of evidence that he didn't kill two people and the jury bought it. They believed all the evidence that the defense team presented. Perhaps I would have said "that glove is a big crock" and decided that I didn't agree with the evidence. But the evidence was there.

A christian could write 100 reasons why he/she believes in God, things that are "evidence". You would quickly dismiss them with an or some other disparaging comment. But don't say there isn't any evidence. Just say you don't believe the evidence that a Christian believes, because in the long run it's a simple as that.

You guys throwing out lines like "utter lack of evidence" is just a ploy to try and establish that you have the upper ground, the rational one...despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with you.

Pretty sure we disagree on what constitutes "evidence", but maybe you can share some examples (like Mr Roboto did)? Is it all anecdotal, personal experiences?

No, I don't care to share any examples. I haven't been a part of this thread, and have no desire really to read it. Just popped in, saw the usual garbage, and made a quick statement.

The evidence is quite vast, but again, we just interpret the evidence differently. Which is why there are atheists and there are believers, as Commish pointed out.

 

[Jayrok]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I have also seen the way that Christian fellowship has exceptionally positive effects on many people that are close to me. Thoughtful prayer and submitting one's self to the teachings of Christ and being a light, if you will, to those around you has an observable effect on many people in terms of internal peace and stability in their lives.

Those experiences are not invalid. On the contrary, they help build the foundation that many believers rest upon in a tumultuous world. I would submit that these feelings, however, can be achieved whether Christ and God are real or not.

Enter faith. It is the simple faith in those things that can give the believer the peace and stability you describe. I would imagine there are a vast number of muslims who feel the same peace and stability in their own faith, and they do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God. Ditto buddhists, Taoists, and so forth.

 

[mr roboto]

^^^ I don't necessarily disagree, but I still can't fully agree. I think you know where I'm at. Maybe more like 10/25ths.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

These conversations, particularly between the nonbelievers, always devolve into hairsplitting over language.

That's by necessity. It makes no sense to argue about the existence of gods until we specify exactly what it means for someone (or something?) to be a god. A clear definition of god -- i.e., a specified list of attributes someone must have in order to qualify as a god -- is seldom forthcoming from theists in these sorts of discussions, so I use my own definition. To me, a god is an entity that merits our worship.

Suppose Yahweh exist, pretty much as described in the Old Testament. Suppose further that he uses his considerable powers to present irrefutable evidence to us of his existence.

In that situation, it would be silly to sit around arguing about whether Yahweh exists. But whether any gods exist would still be a rather controversial topic. Yahweh, IMO, does not satisfy my definition of a god. There's no way around the fact, however, that it's an argument over semantics.

Believers in almost all religious sects will tell you a god is something that IS worshipped. This is probably a severe disconnect in communication now that I think about it.

And under that definition, there's no doubt that many gods exist. Evidence for the existence of the sun, for example, is overwhelming; and many cultures have worshipped the sun.

That's not a very good definition, IMO, but either way, the point is that semantics really do matter.

 

[JZilla]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I have also seen the way that Christian fellowship has exceptionally positive effects on many people that are close to me. Thoughtful prayer and submitting one's self to the teachings of Christ and being a light, if you will, to those around you has an observable effect on many people in terms of internal peace and stability in their lives.

Those experiences are not invalid. On the contrary, they help build the foundation that many believers rest upon in a tumultuous world. I would submit that these feelings, however, can be achieved whether Christ and God are real or not.

Enter faith. It is the simple faith in those things that can give the believer the peace and stability you describe. I would imagine there are a vast number of muslims who feel the same peace and stability in their own faith, and they do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God. Ditto buddhists, Taoists, and so forth.

When you look around the world and see people having the same experiences no matter what the belief system, as positive as those experiences are and as happy as you want to be for folks like roboto and his brother, and shader and Commish and every other Christian in here.. the natural conclusion is that religion is a hell of a drug. I chalk it up to being a part of a like-minded congregation, and just feeling like you're part of something bigger than your measley little random life. And I completely understand.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Believers in almost all religious sects will tell you a god is something that IS worshipped.

Along these lines, by the way, I very highly recommend Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett. (It's the thirteenth book in the Discworld series, but it works perfectly fine as a standalone novel.)

You won't think about gods the same way again.

 

[tonydead]

No, I don't care to share any examples. I haven't been a part of this thread, and have no desire really to read it. Just popped in, saw the usual garbage, and made a quick statement.

The evidence is quite vast, but again, we just interpret the evidence differently. Which is why there are atheists and there are believers, as Commish pointed out.

If it's so vast you would think you could provide something to support your pop in statement. You say you don't have the desire yet you're posting.

A criminal lawyer can submit all types of things and call it evidence. What really matters if it's direct and enough to convince. If it doesn't then it can easily be said there was "utter lack of lack of evidence". It can't, however, be said there was "no evidence". But Mat didn't say that, you did.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

No, I don't care to share any examples. I haven't been a part of this thread, and have no desire really to read it. Just popped in, saw the usual garbage, and made a quick statement.

The evidence is quite vast, but again, we just interpret the evidence differently. Which is why there are atheists and there are believers, as Commish pointed out.

If it's so vast you would think you could provide something to support your pop in statement. You say you don't have the desire yet you're posting.

A criminal lawyer can submit all types of things and call it evidence. What really matters if it's direct and enough to convince. If it doesn't then it can easily be said there was "utter lack of lack of evidence". It can't, however, be said there was "no evidence". But Mat didn't say that, you did.

I couldn't find my underwear this morning = evidence that underpants gnomes exist according to shader.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I have also seen the way that Christian fellowship has exceptionally positive effects on many people that are close to me. Thoughtful prayer and submitting one's self to the teachings of Christ and being a light, if you will, to those around you has an observable effect on many people in terms of internal peace and stability in their lives.

Those experiences are not invalid. On the contrary, they help build the foundation that many believers rest upon in a tumultuous world. I would submit that these feelings, however, can be achieved whether Christ and God are real or not.

Enter faith. It is the simple faith in those things that can give the believer the peace and stability you describe. I would imagine there are a vast number of muslims who feel the same peace and stability in their own faith, and they do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God. Ditto buddhists, Taoists, and so forth.

When you look around the world and see people having the same experiences no matter what the belief system, as positive as those experiences are and as happy as you want to be for folks like roboto and his brother, and shader and Commish and every other Christian in here.. the natural conclusion is that religion is a hell of a drug. I chalk it up to being a part of a like-minded congregation, and just feeling like you're part of something bigger than your measley little random life. And I completely understand.

I think fellowship is a hell of a drug (and in fact is a pretty universally good thing). I do not believe that theists, or any branch therof, are inherently more moral than atheists (nor do I believe the converse, BTW). But I do think there may be something to the idea that fellowship and participation in a community of common moral motivation may be a particularly good means of increasing human happiness.

I

 

[(HULK)]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I have also seen the way that Christian fellowship has exceptionally positive effects on many people that are close to me. Thoughtful prayer and submitting one's self to the teachings of Christ and being a light, if you will, to those around you has an observable effect on many people in terms of internal peace and stability in their lives.

Those experiences are not invalid. On the contrary, they help build the foundation that many believers rest upon in a tumultuous world. I would submit that these feelings, however, can be achieved whether Christ and God are real or not.

Enter faith. It is the simple faith in those things that can give the believer the peace and stability you describe. I would imagine there are a vast number of muslims who feel the same peace and stability in their own faith, and they do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God. Ditto buddhists, Taoists, and so forth.

Divinity questions aside, Jesus, or rather, what we know of him, was pretty awesome. Following his teachings usually isn't a bad thing.

Praying, which alternatively could be considered introspective thought and reflection, also good for people.

I don't think you necessarily need belief in a divine power to make those things work for you, but I do see them as positive symptoms of religion. Wish we could do away with many of the negative symptoms, like jihadists, people like the Greensboro Baptists, etc. Although I'd wager many believers share that sentiment as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is the biggest mistake atheists make. The claim of "no evidence".

There is plenty of evidence. You just don't accept it.

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I agree with shader, and I think mr roboto's post presents evidence in favor of Christianity. It's not very strong evidence, IMO, because there are a zillion alternative explanations that might explain why, in many cases, embracing Christianity is followed by good outcomes. But it is evidence.

Suppose, as a thought experiment, that embracing Christianity always resulted in terrible outcomes. Suppose that anyone who submits his heart to Jesus is immediately hit by a bus, or possibly a piano. That would be evidence against Christianity. So in Bayesian terms, the contrary observation must be evidence for Christianity.

 

[(HULK)]

This is the last point I will make regarding the reasons why I continue to be a Christian in the face of intellectual doubts. What I have observed with hundreds of people in my life is that when they truly submit their hearts and minds of the teachings of Christ and apply the New Testament principles of scripture to their lives these principles work.

I struggle with several doctrines including the inerrancy of scripture, literal interpretation of Old Testament events and the exclusivity of Christianity. My deep struggles with some of these doctrines caused me to leave seminary and decide to pursue a career outside the church rather than become a minister. I personally felt that I shouldn't try to lead a church or a congregation holding some of the struggles and doubts in my mind that I had. So I must appeal to a certain level of mystery regarding my faith that I will never feel 100% comfortable with intellectually. Yet when I pray and submit myself to the teachings of Christ and try to love as God loves and counsel others in the ways of God and worship with my family they provide a peace and a stability and a quality of life that I have not found in any other way. I believe Christ is real and I believe God exists. I believe this because there is no clear evidence to the contrary that I can find that will convince me that my experiences with God are completely invalid.

I have also seen the way that Christian fellowship has exceptionally positive effects on many people that are close to me. Thoughtful prayer and submitting one's self to the teachings of Christ and being a light, if you will, to those around you has an observable effect on many people in terms of internal peace and stability in their lives.

Those experiences are not invalid. On the contrary, they help build the foundation that many believers rest upon in a tumultuous world. I would submit that these feelings, however, can be achieved whether Christ and God are real or not.

Enter faith. It is the simple faith in those things that can give the believer the peace and stability you describe. I would imagine there are a vast number of muslims who feel the same peace and stability in their own faith, and they do not believe Jesus is God or the son of God. Ditto buddhists, Taoists, and so forth.

When you look around the world and see people having the same experiences no matter what the belief system, as positive as those experiences are and as happy as you want to be for folks like roboto and his brother, and shader and Commish and every other Christian in here.. the natural conclusion is that religion is a hell of a drug. I chalk it up to being a part of a like-minded congregation, and just feeling like you're part of something bigger than your measley little random life. And I completely understand.

I think fellowship is a hell of a drug (and in fact is a pretty universally good thing). I do not believe that theists, or any branch therof, are inherently more moral than atheists (nor do I believe the converse, BTW). But I do think there may be something to the idea that fellowship and participation in a community of common moral motivation may be a particularly good means of increasing human happiness.

I

Its a double edged sword imo. It can easily go sideways.