Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Which positive reason? I've not seen one.

A number of the 2009 arguments hold up, and haven't been addressed thoroughly on boards.ie. One or two weren't as good as they could have been. The rest however, still stand as far as I can tell. I would say if I were to change any of them, I would only change 3, and adapt it to be better.

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

The thing is. For atheism, even if they did claim that Christianity is wrong. There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

This question makes no sense and should not be asked if you actually understand what atheism is.
Atheism is not a positive belief, it's a lack of a belief. It's the null hypotheses, the default logical position you should hold until convincing evidence or argumentation is provided.

Take an example of something you don't positively believe exists such as fairies or Russell's Teapot.
Can you please provide the positive evidence you are using to support you Afairyism and your Ateapotism?

And then lets say you find a way to disprove Blue fairyism or Blue teapotism can you please explain then why we should choose Afairyism or Ateapotism over other versions of fairyism or teapotism such as ones where the teapots/fairies are red?

Is your question is a fair, sensible one you should then easily provide answers to the above questions which are based on ideas that are patently false.
But if you can't answer them (which my money's on) how can you honestly expect atheists to answer them?

King Mob: You of all people should know that atheists in the past did present positive arguments for their position. The philosophy course that we studied at university (for others - King Mob and I studied philosophy together at university) went quite extensively through a number of them in the Philosophy of Religion modules in particular. The new-atheist movement has rejected this however, which is a loss to that position.

That's why I believe my POV to be fair.

joseph brand wrote: »

Your 'need for a god' overrides the importance of having 'proof of a god'?

Debating with you is about as useful as putting on a great movie for my shoes to watch, while I go out.

Assuming you are a male, Islam might be a decent alternative. You can treat women however you please. Potentially you could have a couple of wives. Happy days.

So many assumptions and veiled insults, you must be either a new variation of torment or just plain thick.
1 It is about my need for God, thats what a faith is. Deal with it.
2 What? you want to debate but you don't listen, so whats the point.
3 Oh for fu**s sake. What has my attitude to women to do with it? How do you even know what my attitude to women is and why would the number of wives be the deciding factor in choosing a faith? If it were fundamental Mormon would be better I wouldn't need to be circumscribed to join. (I'm practically countersunk as it is

)

OK I'v gotten a warning, and take note;
If I am to be insulted and you think I wont respond... get a life
**** *** can you catch that one?

Andrewf20

ISAW wrote: »

If you create a parallel universe in every action you make and you can actually travel to all of them - a bit like the TV show sliders- could you not argue that morality is meaningless because in another universe you became a despot or criminal? What is the "best" if there are infinite ways and even if you pick a "good" way there will exist a myriad "bad " ways?

Another example- If Marty Mc fly changed the past and emerged in a different parallel future in Back to the Future II then dint the parallel universe dictate his subsequent actions?

Apologies but im not 100% clear on your question but I think I see what you are getting at. I think you are asking - how do we know what is good or bad? Its certainly a tricky subject.

- I think Dawkins has done studies on the behaviour of religious and non religious people in relation to moral predicaments and found that the actions / responses were often independent of their belief system (a rough example - a run away train is heading straight towards 5 young people on a track. Would you switch the line if it meant killing 6 older people?). Apologies, I need to dig up a source. It may be in the God delusion book.

- As humans are estimated to be around for 100,000+ years, we wouldnt have got this far if it wasnt for some level of empathy, compassion and a willingness to helps others.

- The is still alot of doubt for some people that the bible was man made. As long as that exists, the concept of it being an absolute moral reference crumbles.

- Wiki says, and I am inclined to agree with it: "Good is a broad concept but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love, and prosperity. Evil is typically associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence that are not legitimate acts of self-defense but aggressive and designed to cause ill-being to others." For some people religon and their preachings seem to fall into the good category alot but also can be associated with falling into the "evil" side also.

philologos wrote: »

Which positive reason? I've not seen one.

A number of the 2009 arguments hold up, and haven't been addressed thoroughly on boards.ie. One or two weren't as good as they could have been. The rest however, still stand as far as I can tell. I would say if I were to change any of them, I would only change 3, and adapt it to be better.

Would you like to counter any of my points in my post that I made in response to your post?
I think many of your points are repeated from your 2009 post so I will refrain from addressing it directly for now.

As for a positive reason it is essentially unnecessary as a lack of evidence is sufficient.

But from a personal perspective what you might call a positive indicator that atheism matches reality is what hardened my own atheism.

I went from a "We don't know if gods do or do not exist, there is no evidence for them so I'll fall to the default lack of belief agnostic atheist"
to my current
"the gods are a man made illusion and are most likely non existent agnostic atheist"
by learning of verifiably false gods springing up due to human nature as explained by Cognitive Neuroscience. This is robust evidence that gods are a made up human invention.

Good definition I found:

Let us say that a positive argument directly supports a conclusion, while a negative argument undermines an opposing conclusion.

What arguments do you have that support atheism in its own right?

I'm going to come back to your points. Your post is a bit meaty and there's a bit to think about.

The lack of evidence argument is not sufficient. I've explained already why. If Christianity is wrong, it does not mean that atheism is right.

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: You of all people should know that atheists in the past did present positive arguments for their position. The philosophy course that we studied at university (for others - King Mob and I studied philosophy together at university) went quite extensively through a number of them in the Philosophy of Religion modules in particular. The new-atheist movement has rejected this however, which is a loss to that position.

Yes, but those arguments are not why I, and many others are atheist, nor are those arguments very good since there is a difference between a positive belief in there being no God and a lack of a belief in God.

Since most atheists are of the more reasonable option, it is not a positive position and can't really be supported by positive evidence.

philologos wrote: »

That's why I believe my POV to be fair.

That's great, so then please answer the same questions regarding stuff you don't believe in (fairies and teapots). As you claim the questions are fair and since these two concepts are obviously false you should have no problem showing us exactly what you are looking for.

So again, what positive evidence do you have to support your afairyism and ateapotism and why should we choose those over some other forms of teapot/fairy belief?

philologos wrote: »

Good definition I found:

What arguments do you have that support atheism in its own right?

I'm going to come back to your points. Your post is a bit meaty and there's a bit to think about.

The lack of evidence argument is not sufficient. I've explained already why. If Christianity is wrong, it does not mean that atheism is right.

Lack of evidence is completely sufficient for a lack of belief in gods, which is what atheism is. Just as it is sufficient for aunicornism. A lack of evidence makes this position right.

Myself, I have a belief that there are no gods, but that is just me. I justify this position with what I said in my last post about cognitive neuroscience.
I'm unsure if my particular position has a name in itself (AwesomeAtheism maybe:)) but it is different than regular old atheism.
It would make sense to ask me for a positive argument in support of my AwesomeAtheism but not for regular lack of belief atheism.

No worries, I'll keep an eye out for your reply to the other post.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

There is no positive reason as to why one would be an atheist rather than anything else.

I've since realised, faith comes by hearing in the word of God. If you don't want to listen to it, you won't believe. It's really as simple as that. I can present lofty arguments, but ultimately they will fall flat if you refuse to acknowledge anything to do with Him.

I think your 1st point above is an interesting one and it got me thinking a little. I think different people will go for the blanket they get most comfort from so to speak. The problem though is that alot of non believers, it seems, dont like to be told how to live their lives from a very suspect and tenuous basis (as they see it).

Just on your second paragraph above, I dont think its an issue in relation to wanting to listening to the word of God. Listening wont necessarily make someone believe. You could say the prayers, read the gospels, go to mass etc but if you having a list of nagging doubts for whatever reason, you cant make yourself believe. In much the same way as if you were to be engrossed in the preachings and stories of an alternative religion, it wont necessarily make you believe in them.

philologos wrote: »

If Christianity is wrong, it does not mean that atheism is right.

Agreed. I think dogma from either side is potentially harmful.

Penn

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you mind answering my question and telling me what you think religion is?

Apologies, I wanted to take some time to formulate an answer. Rather than give a general definition type answer, I want to give a more personal viewpoint on it. I'd just like to point out that I'm not really interested in people breaking my post down line by line and querying everything, this is simply my viewpoint on it.

In my opinion, religion is hope. Hope that death is not the end. Hope that there is a reason for bad things. Hope that living a good life will lead to good things.

To me, the number one advantage to following a religion (namely Christianity/Catholicism as that's the faith I was raised in and know the most about), is the concept of Heaven. To know that if you live a good life, follow the religion and just generally be a good person, that when it comes to the darkest period of your life and you are faced with death, leaving behind wife/children/brothers/sisters etc, the comfort of knowing that you will go to this amazing place, where you will experience eternal happiness... I'm sure it's an extremely comforting thought, and would certainly help people to somewhat accept death and that they would find peace in their final moments.

I'm sure it's also very comforting where, in times of great personal struggle, knowing that God has a plan for you and that there is a reason for everything God does, even if we can't yet see it. Whether it be the death of a relative, financial troubles, health problems etc., the idea of there being light at the end of the tunnel and that everything will be okay if you have faith in God... Well, who wouldn't want that?

However, to me, religion is also oppression. It is a system with such arbitrary rules where so much is open to interpretation. It is an excuse to discriminate against others for believing differently, or living their life in a different way.

Then we come to Hell. Why is there such a place, with everlasting torment for those who sin? Why not have it where if you die a sinner, you simply die. You don't get to have everlasting happiness in Heaven, but you simply just die. Fear, that's why. The fear of going to Hell is used to keep people following the faith, because if they don't, they will suffer everlasting torture and torment.

Why is it not enough to just live a good, moral life? Why do you have to worship God? Praise him, thank him, go to church, follow these rules which can somehow change in accordance with the times. Why?

Fair enough, God created the Earth, he gave us life, he looks after us, loves us etc. Maybe we should worship him. Maybe we should praise his name. But according to the religion, it's not a choice. You HAVE to worship him. You HAVE to praise him. Religion means worshipping a deity, and yet to me, religion means HAVING to worship a deity. Perfect example, the first three commandments are all about worshipping God, and these commandments came directly from God. Why? Why place these rules? Why is it not enough to just be a kind, caring, selfless person?

I've been typing this for about 45 minutes because I keep going back over what I wrote and changing it, or even just spent some time thinking, so I'll stop for now anyway. But in the meantime, may I ask a question:

If the afterlife was not a part of religion, if there was no Heaven and Hell, no reward for living a good life and no punishment for sinning, do you think religion would be as prominent today? I'm not saying people suddenly became immoral or people didn't still live good lives, but if there was no afterlife, would religion have survived to the modern day? If the religion just consisted of worshipping a deity, simply because you wanted to and not because there was some type of reward, and there was no punishment for not worshipping the deity, would there be religion?

muppeteer: Sufficient for you. Not sufficient for us if you want to convince us of atheism.

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. If we find that what we've received about God, correlates with reality, then that is a valid piece of indicatory evidence. If the world operates in a certain way that the Bible addresses. That gives me confidence in it as a reliable document.

Why would that give you confidence in it as a reliable document, given that it was written by people in this reality.

If someone said My god made the Sun, pointing at the sun and saying See, my religion explains the Sun perfectly would be silly.

As you say why would it be any different for Christianity. The Bible presents explanations for things like human behavior that fall some where been best guess and hilariously wrong. Or to put it another way, it is what you would expect people a few thousand years to come up with.

Pointing as something like evil behavior and saying that the Bible explains why people are evil, or pointing at people in love and saying that the Bible explains why people fall in love is rankly ridiculous.

It certainly does present an explanation for these things, but anything could be an explanation for these things. The people who wrote the Bible knew about evil and they knew about love and they simply stuck a drawn out "God did it" in front of all of them.

The only times the Bible actually attempts to explain things the ancient people actually knew nothing about (such as the finer points of biology or the history of the Earth) it gets it completely wrong, the Christian excuse being that it isn't a science book it is not trying to be accurate.

philologos wrote: »

The world operates in many ways that the Bible addresses, and the world contains evidence that demonstrates that many Biblical events are true, and that what the Bible says about historical figures is true. There's archaeology to demonstrate that the Bible is true.

Even if it did it wouldn't be evidence for God, just evidence that people believed in God. But your statement is also completely untrue. It is difficult to find any historical support for significant portions of the Bible, from the escape from Egypt to the Kingdom of David, with plenty of historical evidence contradicting them. Few historians take the Biblical versions of these stories as an historical record.

And that is before you get to the ridiculous claims of the Bible, like saying God wiped out all life in a world wide flood, or that all humans spoke the same language until God confused them. You find something that is completely ridiculous from a historical point of view then you just dismiss it as not being literal. Which makes the claim that the Bible is historically support laughable.

It makes perfect sense that ancient people in an attempt to understand why different cultures has developed different languages, and with no understanding of the evolution of human culture, would have invented supernatural stories to explain these events.

The idea though that this some how still makes sense to us and demonstrates the validity of the Bible in the modern age when we know all about the evolution of language, is frankly ridiculous.

philologos wrote: »

However, that's irrelevant entirely to your position. Even if it is another God, then atheism is still wrong. This is why I ask for positive arguments for atheism rather than simply lobbing pot-shots at Christianity or whining that there is no evidence.

Atheism is the rejection of theism, theism being a human cultural belief in the existence of a described deity.

I've no idea if a super powerful being made the universe. I don't see any reason to think it did, but hey anythings possible.

But that isn't what atheist is about. Atheism is about the claims humans make about these things. Do humans know a god did something. Do humans know which god it was. Why do they believe what they believe.

Once you find a good reason to reject the claims humans make about supernatural gods (and there are plenty of good reasons) you are an atheist by definition. You don't have to know anything about what actually started the universe or makes the sun shine, people have been atheists for thousands of years simply by saying "No, sorry that seems to be made up nonsense" when presented with religious stories.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It is an interesting quote though considering the symbolism involved.
Condemned by Jeremiah but yet strangely echoing the crucification.

Would it echo a crucification if you had never heard of the story of Jesus' crucification?

These vague passages can echo anything you want once you have been given a context to interpret them by. Basically how horoscopes work.

Originally Posted by Penn ;
If the afterlife was not a part of religion, if there was no Heaven and Hell, no reward for living a good life and no punishment for sinning, do you think religion would be as prominent today?

Strangely one of the things that Jesus cemented into the faith he started was the afterlife concept. It was not fully accepted as part of the Jewish faith in his time.

Why is it not enough to just be a kind, caring, selfless person?

Indeed love one another should be enough.

Why not have it where if you die a sinner, you simply die.

Thats fairly orthodox actually, I don't think it an option thats ruled out.

Not breaking down your excellent post but many of the things you mention are exactly what I find objectionable about religion. I blame people, we are innately disposed to dominant hierarchies...or just bad.
I gave up on the whole thing for a long time but it didn't stick, their seems to be a 'god shaped hole' that needs filling so I went with it, tried wica, atheism-the anti religious kind and so I could laugh at the fools read a bit. What I found surprised me. Read from the point of view of unbelief the bible makes more sense. The rules and regulations were just that a way of regulating people but the character of God stayed the same and He didn't make any of the rules TBH he doesn't do much, its mostly people telling us He did this, said that but for those who stayed true to the ideal that God represents or came back to that ideal, they achieved and they found a peace and strength that the rest lacked.
So what if theirs no God? Where the tree falls it rots, what matter if God is how you lived this life. Proof of the pudding is in the eating, this life is the eating part.
Thank you for your honesty.

ISAW wrote: »

Really? Okay then care to give us a list list these psychological reasons and theories and how they are plausible?

Sure.

Humans have evolved brains where a primary function is to process human to human interaction. As social creatures this is very important to humans from a survival point of view. It is very important that we can understand and predict the behavior of others, that we have methods of imagining what they are doing or will do, even if they are not there.

These abilities of the human brain (often grouped under terms such as theory of mind) to processes these interactions provides the primary advantage to humans. We have not developed brains that are well suited to processing natural events, which often involve chaotic series of parallel systems, some visible and some invisible.

Or to put it another way, our brains are adapted to understand why you are violently annoyed at me cause I slept with your wife not where does snow come from or when is there going to be another Earthquake.

Because so much of our mental capacity is given over to these issues of humans interaction when attempting to process the natural world we co-opt these abilities. We assign human like agency to actions in nature, because our brain is so adapt at modeling human agents. This has worked good enough from an evolutionary point of view, it allows basic ability to cop with natural events. From a survival point of view the important thing is to stay away from lightening, not whether you think it is Thor's wrath or an electrical storm.

So when we suffer in say a flood our instinctive response is to try and attribute this violent action against us to some mind that has some motivation to harm us. We search for a reason why this happened that fits with how our brains are mostly evolved to think. These detached "minds" that are doing good or bad things to us become the supernatural agents humans have always imagined existed throughout history, be they all powerful gods or simply supernatural creatures, or simply just mother nature herself.

All this is backed up by years of scientific research. It is pretty well established by now that we do this. Yes Christians (or any religious group) can argue that just because we as a species do this doesn't mean they are doing it when it comes to their beliefs in supernatural beings in the world.

But frankly that is a some what weak argument, like someone saying that yes they accept that schizophrenics can hear voices in their heads but that doesn't mean that in their particular case the ghost of Elvis isn't really telling them to burn down their local community centre.

Fanny Cradock

Penn wrote: »

Apologies, I wanted to take some time to formulate an answer...

Thanks for that. It may take me a while to get around to responding.

Zombrex wrote: »

Would it echo a crucification if you had never heard of the story of Jesus' crucification?

These vague passages can echo anything you want once you have been given a context to interpret them by. Basically how horoscopes work.

Yes it is and its how literature works. I wasn't saying "their that proves it" I was more admiring the layered and textured way that the bible is built from stories and histories.

philologos wrote: »

muppeteer: Sufficient for you. Not sufficient for us if you want to convince us of atheism.

Lack of evidence and hence lack of belief is sufficient for you too I suspect.
Sufficient for you when it comes to unicorns yes?
Sufficient for you when it comes to other gods such as Zeus?

You reject other gods such as Zeus and unicorns for lack of evidence and become by the fact of not having a belief in them an aunicorist and an azeusist.
Why should a lack of evidence not be sufficient when it comes to the Christian God?
Are you still maintaining that if you should become unconvinced of the evidence for Christianity and theism that you would not somehow become an atheist? Atheism is what is left over when you reject all the other gods, not something you start believing in that needs a convincing basis separate from the unconvincing nature of gods.

muppeteer ;
Atheism is what is left over when you reject all the other gods,

Or it could be where you start before you consider the possibility of Gods.
Is atheism necessarily a conclusion rather than a default position?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or it could be where you start before you consider the possibility of Gods.
Is atheism necessarily a conclusion rather than a default position?

I would think the "a" part is the default for all positions when we are presented with an explanation for something, be that gods, unicorns or electricity.
We only loose the "a" when we become convinced of something, hopefully through evidence and logic.

It's only a conclusion if you already believe. So I'd think of it as going back to the default for the believer.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or it could be where you start before you consider the possibility of Gods.

Well the problem with that is that the default position in humans is to simply make up or imagine gods (or more actually supernatural agents) even without external prompting, and from a young age.

muppeteer wrote: »

I would think the "a" part is the default for all positions when we are presented with an explanation for something, be that gods, unicorns or electricity.
We only loose the "a" when we become convinced of something, hopefully through evidence and logic.

It's only a conclusion if you already believe. So I'd think of it as going back to the default for the believer.

Thats how I see it too. Which is why a good christian education is nessary

Zombrex wrote: »

Well the problem with that is that the default position in humans is to simply make up or imagine gods (or more actually supernatural agents) even without external prompting, and from a young age.

Hmmmm, have to think about that. Are you sure that thees kids are making stuff up or just trying to explain the world as they understand it. Not so much asserting as questioning.
I understand the impulse to explain things in... whats the word anthropocentric ? terms but to assume that this is more than metaphor or a teaching aid? OK I see where this is going, I'll stop before I start to think people are completely stupid and take things literally all the time.

Anthropomorphic thats the word I was looking for!

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmmm, have to think about that. Are you sure that thees kids are making stuff up or just trying to explain the world as they understand it.

Isn't that the same thing?

Zombrex wrote: »

Well the problem with that is that the default position in humans is to simply make up or imagine gods (or more actually supernatural agents) even without external prompting, and from a young age.

+1
My idea of a tabula rasa human may have been a little too much of a blank rational actor.
I forgot to think of it as a blank social mammal first and foremost.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

1 Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. This is what the LORD says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter. (Jeremiah 10:1-4)

Anyone can see that this is talking about people who make and adorn idols that they install in their homes to worship.

So how many Christians do you know who get a craftsman to carve a Christmas tree with a chisel, put silver and gold on it, and then fasten it as a permanent fixture with hammer and nails in their homes? :rolleyes:

This thead gets stupider by the day.

Er! Excuse me! I'm not having that!

How can you validate with biblical text what RitchieC said and then refute with a glib aside?

Anyone can see that they are talking about Christmas trees! O Tanambaum! Or something.

I must admit that I am quite surprised at such open codswallop!