Do atheists have an achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No thats fine again that would be futile, you must be mistaking me for somebody who actually respects Christianity enough to do that.

So you're willing to accept that you have confirmation bias and are unwilling to see what the other side of the fence has to propose?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No that would be changing the argument.

It clearly wouldn't be since Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible forms Christian belief.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Of course it is but when I said story I mentioned nothing about the bible.

So Christians have another creation narrative not in Genesis?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So when consciousness starts children are aware of the question of god?
I'm afraid we could never agree on that one and I'm still insulted.

Why are you insulted just because we disagree?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So your belief is completely based in rationality[sic]? No faith involved?

Part reason, part faith. Just as much as atheism is part reason and part faith. I believe that Christianity can be explained by reason as well as by faith along the lines of the thinking of Aquinas.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

So you're willing to accept that you have confirmation bias and are unwilling to see what the other side of the fence has to propose?

Jakkass come on of course I'm not going to accept I have a confirmation bias. Why would I do that? Your also assuming I haven't seen the other side of the fence. You also fail to see that the other side of the fence despite its layers of literature when exposed has nothing to offer in a proposal. Christianity is what it is? No?

Jakkass wrote: »

It clearly wouldn't be since Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible forms Christian belief.

Funny I thought it was God and Jesus and the bible was product support document.

Jakkass wrote: »

So Christians have another creation narrative not in Genesis?

Again never once mentioned Genesis or the bible, just taking Christianity on a religious/purpose level like I would Shinto or a Native American religion they all in a way try however poorly to show us purpose or why we're here. I'm going to bail out of this conversation if you think I'm going to get into a debate about the bible and creationism because it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. I also get the impression you think that I have something against Christianity as a belief system specifically but thats not the case. I treat all religions equally. Religion is religion is religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why are you insulted just because we disagree?

No that you would think I would consider faith.

Jakkass wrote: »

Part reason, part faith. Just as much as atheism is part reason and part faith. I believe that Christianity can be explained by reason as well as by faith along the lines of the thinking of Aquinas.

Now you know thats just opinion and has plenty to do with bias right? You need to atheism to be part reason and part faith (which is stupid) to validate your belief. I could be blue in the face telling you otherwise but there is no point really.


Ps you don't have reply to any of my questions. In fact would you please take the last word I'd rather not do this any more.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Funny I thought it was God and Jesus and the bible was product support document.

What we know of God and Jesus comes from the Biblical text mainly, and what else comes from spiritual encounters and what we can discern from the world around us.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Again never once mentioned Genesis or the bible, just taking Christianity on a religious/purpose level like I would Shinto or a Native American religion they all in a way try however poorly to show us purpose or why we're here. I'm going to bail out of this conversation if you think I'm going to get into a debate about the bible and creationism because it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. I also get the impression you think that I have something against Christianity as a belief system specifically but thats not the case. I treat all religions equally. Religion is religion is religion.

Again if we are to discuss Christianity, reference to the Bible would make sense considering it is the basis of our understanding of God.

As for creationism, I actually see it as more probable that God was behind the evolutionary process, however I am open to all views on it to be honest with you.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Now you know thats just opinion and has plenty to do with bias right? You need to atheism to be part reason and part faith (which is stupid) to validate your belief. I could be blue in the face telling you otherwise but there is no point really.

Well actually I've explained my reasoning for this before. Theism and atheism both deviate from the current objective view "There may well be a God but there may well not be a God", to move any further from this viewpoint and to believe that God doesn't exist or that God does requires faith. I consider it a rather fair viewpoint as I view Christianity in the same respect.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ps you don't have reply to any of my questions. In fact would you please take the last word I'd rather not do this any more.

If you don't want to reply, just don't. You didn't have to for any of these posts yet you obviously wanted to do so.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

If you don't want to reply, just don't. You didn't have to for any of these posts yet you obviously wanted to do so.

You see this quite a bit on all the forums. Its just someone trying to trump you, disguised as a blasé 'I don't really care'. Its quite funny actually:) I often wonder if people actually believe them.

Dave!

I believe him.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

You see this quite a bit on all the forums. Its just someone trying to trump you, disguised as a blasé 'I don't really care'. Its quite funny actually:) I often wonder if people actually believe them.

Well this is my second time doing it I did it once before to you I think. Its not a case of I don't care but I don't think it wise to keep banging my head of a brick wall figuratively speaking. I really don't know what else to say after that which helps my case.

cavedave

I'm always impressed by people's behavior during massive panics. They rarely believe or admit that they are panicked. Instead they assure one another that at last the wool has been lifted from their eyes. They are seeing the clear daylight of rationality after years of delusion.

weirdly enough Bruce Sterling has a list very similar to mine of stuff secular people have faith in that might very soon look hollow.

Taleb says that anyone who is an atheist but believes int he stock market is a hypocrite.

The atheist Achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments is that we have faith in a lot of things just as nebulous as God.

Overblood

cavedave wrote: »

The atheist Achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments is that we have faith in a lot of things just as nebulous as God.

Like what? Higgs bosons n' stuff?

cavedave

Overblood

Like what? Higgs bosons n' stuff?

Well no. Whether electorns actually exist (or the number 1, and are not just mathematical concepts) are interesting arguments but I'm talking about non philosophical things we put our faith in.

Sterlings list includes
2. Intellectual property
3. National currencies
4. Insurance and building codes
5. The elderly (particularly their dependance on the stock market and constnat economic gropwth shares etc)
6. Military power
7. Science

To take money. Money is just what other people think is money. The bits of paper or gold or whatever are just what people will accept for stuff (labour, capital etc). It is as much a faith based system as the idea that prayers will heal the sick*. But without money society would not work? Religious people make similar claims for god.

*edit. But what about the scientific evidence prayer does not work? There is plenty of evidence money can cease working too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation

Goduznt Xzst

cavedave wrote: »

To take money. Money is just what other people think is money. The bits of paper or gold or whatever are just what people will accept for stuff (labour, capital etc). It is as much a faith based system as the idea that prayers will heal the sick. But without money society would not work? Religious people make similar claims for god.

No, this is not faith, it's reasonable confidence in a given outcome. All of the items you have listed have been proven to be trustworthy on previous occasions, more than likely in all of our lifetimes.

If the brakes in my car worked on the way to work this morning, are you saying I now have the same faith as a Christian because I imagine that they will still work when I drive it home tonight?

It is a spurious argument that tries to blur the lines between reasonable expectation and blind faith. No Christian knows that God exists, or what will happen to them when they die, in fact the jury seems to be out as to whether they even think they will be walking around on Earth or floating around in heaven.

To say that someone who trusts the stockmarket has the same faith as a religious person is downright absurd. For they have witnessed first hand their trust being, tangibly, vindicated. I will admit that people who work on the stockmarket and believe in ideas such as luck are hypocrites, I'd imagine however that a lot of the more successful individuals are firm in their opinion that they make their own luck.

Also, it is a weak point to compare labour and payment to prayers and healing the sick. It falls apart because regardless of whether a person prays or not the individual can still get better. Show me a job that will pay me regardless of if I show up to work or not and I'll be sending in my CV to it first thing monday.

Dades

cavedave wrote: »

To take money. Money is just what other people think is money. The bits of paper or gold or whatever are just what people will accept for stuff (labour, capital etc). It is as much a faith based system as the idea that prayers will heal the sick.

What a crock of rhetoric.

I believe if I go into a shop and produce legal tender that they will exchange it for food to feed my family, and that's the equivalent of believing prayer will heal you? I don't think so.

Overblood

cavedave wrote: »

Sterlings list includes
2. Intellectual property
3. National currencies
4. Insurance and building codes
5. The elderly (particularly their dependance on the stock market and constnat economic gropwth shares etc)
6. Military power
7. Science

To take money. Money is just what other people think is money. The bits of paper or gold or whatever are just what people will accept for stuff (labour, capital etc). It is as much a faith based system as the idea that prayers will heal the sick*. But without money society would not work? Religious people make similar claims for god.

Oh jeeeeesus.

There is NO WAY this can be compared to having faith in the bible, believing in a talking firey bush, a 6000 year old earth, resurrection, a guy living in a fish, and many more aspects of christianity.

By the way, the f*ing ELDERLY??!!! HAHAHA wtf

cavedave

Dades

I believe if I go into a shop and produce legal tender that they will exchange it for food to feed my family, and that's the equivalent of believing prayer will heal you? I don't think so.

You may not think the comparison is apt but the way fiat currencies keep ending p in hyperinflation (loss of faith) indicates money is not the gaurantee of wealth many people think it is.

By the way, the f*ing ELDERLY??!!! HAHAHA wtf

Have you read the article? The point is that the elderly had faith in the stock market and in the continued expansion of GDP. A belief that they were going to be taken care of due to the economic "rules". Its not that different to the belief that you are going to be taken care of because you have an imaginary friend.

There is NO WAY this can be compared to having faith in the bible, believing in a talking firey bush, a 6000 year old earth, resurrection, a guy living in a fish, and many more aspects of christianity.

And i suppose there is no way that say the loaves and fishes story can be compared to the over leverage of debt making us think house prices would keep going up forever?

If the brakes in my car worked on the way to work this morning, are you saying I now have the same faith as a Christian because I imagine that they will still work when I drive it home tonight?

No. There is not that i'm am aware a series of falsifying hypothesis about car brakes not working. There is a good theory with plenty of data to why they work. There is no such one for fiat currencies pensions and house prices eternally going up.

Goduznt Xzst

cavedave wrote: »

You may not think the comparison is apt but the way fiat currencies keep ending p in hyperinflation (loss of faith) indicates money is not the gaurantee of wealth many people think it is.

JimiTime

Dave! wrote: »

I believe him.

That answers my question so. Some people do believe it.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well this is my second time doing it I did it once before to you I think. Its not a case of I don't care but I don't think it wise to keep banging my head of a brick wall figuratively speaking. I really don't know what else to say after that which helps my case.

Well, you say it in such a derogatory fashion which places you atop of the high horse. The dignified response to someone you've been engaged in discussion with would be that you can't see this going any further, as your opinions differ so much or whatever. Your response, and others like it, are merely to undermine the poster its aimed at. No biggie, those who believe it, believe it, those who don't, don't.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, you say it in such a derogatory fashion.....

I did?

JimiTime wrote: »

which places you atop of the high horse....

Well actually I feel humbled in my inability to articulate what I need to say so much so that Jakkass doesn't get it.

JimiTime wrote: »

....Your response, and others like it, are merely to undermine the poster its aimed at...

Really?

Dades

cavedave wrote: »

And i suppose there is no way that say the loaves and fishes story can be compared to the over leverage of debt making us think house prices would keep going up forever?

Correct!

Only people completely ignorant of economics have "faith" that property prices will continue to rise indefinitely. Everyone else just hopes they will, while knowing that the cyclical nature of every economy guarantees this won't be the case.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Really?

Yip. But go ahead, have the last word, I'd like this conversation to end.:pac::D

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Only people completely ignorant of economics have "faith" that property prices will continue to rise indefinitely. Everyone else just hopes they will, while knowing that the cyclical nature of every economy guarantees this won't be the case.

With a possibly unwanted lecture on economics...

Thanks to inflation, it is quite possible that the numerical value of price can continue to rise indefinitely for as long as one wants. The lads in Zimbabwe have been at it for years. What i think you meant to say is that the ratio of property cost to disposable incomes cannot rise indefinitely, which is generally true (though circumstances can be created that will cause this to be false). But that's a separate hair-splitting argument.

BTW, property prices here in Moscow have crashed around 40% since October while mortgage interest rates have jumped from around 12% to around 15% (and are expected to jump much further). Since august, the central bank here has spent one third of its entire exchange reserves, around $200billion, propping up the rouble to avoid it crashing against the dollar and pushing interest rates (tied to international lending) sky-high and crashing the economy. Which seems to be crashing violently anyway. Ireland's getting away very lightly in comparison - I hope everybody's sincerely thanking Cowen and the boys.

BTW^2, paper cash is the penultimate faith-based system. Electronic cash is the ultimate one.

BTW^3, the study of economics is fascinating and at least as much fun as evolutionary biology

sink

cavedave wrote: »

Well no. Whether electorns actually exist (or the number 1, and are not just mathematical concepts) are interesting arguments but I'm talking about non philosophical things we put our faith in.

Sterlings list includes
2. Intellectual property
3. National currencies
4. Insurance and building codes
5. The elderly (particularly their dependance on the stock market and constnat economic gropwth shares etc)
6. Military power
7. Science

To take money. Money is just what other people think is money. The bits of paper or gold or whatever are just what people will accept for stuff (labour, capital etc). It is as much a faith based system as the idea that prayers will heal the sick*. But without money society would not work? Religious people make similar claims for god.

*edit. But what about the scientific evidence prayer does not work? There is plenty of evidence money can cease working too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation

I think you are mixing faith in a religious sense and faith in terms of 'trusting in social contracts'. Ever more advanced societies require ever more advance societal structure to support their increasing complexity and specialisation. At it's most basic level it's all to do with co-operation, we place a certain amount of trust in one another to carry out separate functions in co-operation so that we all might benefit. The scientist trusts the farmer to provide him with food, the farmer trusts the doctor to keep him healthy, the doctor trusts the banker to manage his accumulated resources, the banker trusts the IT technician to keep his financial network running, the technician trusts the scientist to develop new technology, etc, etc.

Now although everyone has faith in these societal structures most also recognise their shortcomings. After all they are systems created by man and operated by man and mankind is liable to failure, so these systems with mankind at their foundations must be also.

Overblood

We have gone way off topic. I'm confussed. What's the date? WHAT YEAR??!!

I'm really disappointed that we haven't found an answer to the original question yet. Maybe I should have asked over in the christianity forum, I would have gotten more colourful replies.

From reading over the last few pages it seems that "Confirmation Bias" has become a new weapon for want of a better word in these discussions.

cavedave

sink

Now although everyone has faith in these societal structures most also recognise their shortcomings. After all they are systems created by man and operated by man and mankind is liable to failure, so these systems with mankind at their foundations must be also.

It is a fair point well argued.

I would point out that you may be mixing faith in a religious sense and faith in terms of 'trusting in social contracts'. There is a reason religions have all the weird rules and needless surgery attached to them. It is to bind you into a social group, one that consists of people of that religion. There is a fair amount of evidence that religion (as a social thing) helps with survival. for example your less likely to get divorced and divorced men live much shorter times (i can come up with proper evidence citations etc if needed). Religion may be more of a social contract then people like to admit.

Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?

Ath: I have read "the god delusion" and laugh at your strange beliefs.
Religious person: I have read a number of books called "the X delusion" and laugh at your strange beliefs.

X could be: Stocks, house prices,money, nations, tulip bulbs...loads of other things i believe so cannot see they are delusions.

Well if i cannot convince people we all have faith in various decidedly dodgy conventions at least ill try a joke

This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

Douglas Adams

"Rule of thumb: Be skeptical of things you learned before you could read. E.g., religion."
-- Ben Casnocha

dvpower

Overblood wrote: »

I'm really disappointed that we haven't found an answer to the original question yet.

All of the answers you need are here.

http://www.catholic.ie/

Honestly!

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Teleological arguments involve purpose, not progress.

In effect, such arguments assert that the universe and our existence in it certainly does have a purpose and as such, these arguments are almost universally rejected by most atheists.

Well, arguments that invoke progress surely point to the way that things should be. The "progress" is the movement towards that ideal state. Thus, progress is teleological.

On the religious side, however, it is the solemn job of priesthoods to say that a purpose exists, and then to develop and deliver this purpose-driven message to whomever wants one. Unsurprisingly, most "purposes" imply that the priesthoods who provide them must be, er, provided themselves with prestige, power and preferential access to resources.

Cicero's wry Cui bono? is worth bearing in mind here.

I'm not sure how this critique of religious elites fits in to the discussion. I agree; power corrupts.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Well, arguments that invoke progress surely point to the way that things should be. The "progress" is the movement towards that ideal state. Thus, progress is teleological.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Things change. They always have and probably always will. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad. Whether or not you want to call any of these changes "progress" is a value judgment that you can only do for yourself.

Húrin wrote: »

I agree; power corrupts.

No. Power can corrupt. With good governance models, corruption can be all but eliminated -- see Sweden and Denmark, where it is no coincidence that the non-models provided by religion are almost universally rejected.

Overblood

dvpower wrote: »

All of the answers you need are here.

http://www.catholic.ie/

Honestly!

That's the best website I've ever seen. Ever. Thanks for that!

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Things change. They always have and probably always will. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad. Whether or not you want to call any of these changes "progress" is a value judgment that you can only do for yourself.

Yes, and to label a change as progress is to claim that the change has moved things closer to an ideal state. The word implies that it is the way things are meant to be. If not, it's just a personal aspiration, kind of like how you might want your career to improve. When atheists use the term it is usually to comment on a change that implies that we are as a society moving to a religion-free state. Which leads to the next point:

No. Power can corrupt. With good governance models, corruption can be all but eliminated -- see Sweden and Denmark, where it is no coincidence that the non-models provided by religion are almost universally rejected.

So what's the relevance to the discussion? You seem to be jumping, for no reason, from one topic to another (religious corruption, to Scandinavian atheist paradise mythology in this case).

Are you trying to claim that all countries outside Scandinavia are corrupt because they're quasi-theocracies? Power nearly always corrupts. Scandinavians are not a morally superior race; they're just as human and flawed as the rest of us.

The reason why Scandinavian culture is the way it is (and thus why money is spent so efficiently there) is because of the Protestant ethic that has dominated their cultures until recently. Especially the 19th century temperance movement.

Obni

Sorry to disrupt this thread by bringing up the original subject matter, but on googling the thread title, I found this earnest spewtube video, and if the poster is less than convincing in his arguments, at least has the integrity to put his arguments boldly and succinctly.
Of more interest was this reponse which I found rather interesting. In particular, the section from 4:00 (for those people as lazy as myself), dealing with the argument from incoherence.

nobodythere

IMO a word like 'god' is so loaded with different meanings that it's impossible to argue in those terms

CDfm

An atheist really can only talk about their own reasons for not believing with any credibility and say "well this did it for me".

Some atheists are often unsure about who they are debating with ,so (God belief to oneside) a Catholic ,may very well agree more or less with an atheist on certain issues and have more common ground with them then a Catholic might have with a Creationist.

Others will have certain concerns about certain philosophical issues that are of concern to them. They might be under the delusion that all Christian belief is generic. That again is not the case. So if Jehovah witnesses are anti blood transfusions it does not follow that a Methodist will be. Nil points for arguing a theological position of one religion with a Christian of a different denomination.

Mistaking certain cultural or philosophical beliefs with religous beliefs is another. The classic is abortion as some Atheists that post on boards will tell you they are against abortion and are Pro-life in the way we understand it in Ireland and which many Catholics agree with.