Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You are making the Claim that no Creator exist, atheism makes this claim. No one can present tangible and empirical evidence to deny the existence or presence of a Creator however what you can do is use deductive arguments and logical rational approach to present a case as to why a God does not exist.

It depends on whether the atheism being talked about is hard or soft.
Soft atheism is merely the rejection of someone's claim "There is a god". If you walk up to me and say that phrase, I, a soft atheist agnostic, will reject your claim, primarily because you don't substantiate it well enough.
Again, like the court-room analogy, I'm finding your claim not guilty. This is NOT the same as me finding it innocent (or saying There are no gods). By voting Not Guilty, or rejecting your god claim, I'm merely saying that whenever someone presents their god claim to me, they have (all of them so far) failed to substantiate it.
Defender, the part that you quoted is technically true, in that for a typical god claim, science cannot disprove it, but you're heading down the wrong road there. Like with others I can name, you're saying that you believe in something merely because it hasn't been disproved. If this is how low you set the bar in order for you to believe, you now have two options
1) Be consistent and also believe all sorts of other things that have, as of yet, not been disproven by science. This ends up with you believing simultaneously contradictory things
2) Be inconsistent, say you believe in Allah only and not other things that haven't been disproven. This then means you're committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Why is a lack of proof enough to allow the Allah claim to be something you believe, but not others? Why is a lack of proof a good thing, something to be looked for and considered when you wonder as to whether you believe something or not?

In an argument about the existence of God, it is an incredibly stupid thing to walk up to someone who doesn't believe what you believe and say "I believe in God, because science cannot disprove him!" as if that's somehow a point in your favour. You're intentionally ignoring that that very reason you gave can be used for all sorts of other things. Why would "science can't disprove it!" change my mind, make me a believer? Why your god specifically?

Defender OF Faith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Eh, in a word no.

As for atheism supporting it's claim with evidence - it doesn't make any claims. You don't require evidence to prove the claim you're not making - in fact it is actually impossible to prove the non existence of anything (as I'm sure you know).

You are making the Claim that no Creator exist, atheism makes this claim. No one can present tangible and empirical evidence to deny the existence or presence of a Creator however what you can do is use deductive arguments and logical rational approach to present a case as to why a God does not exist.

Science is based on a theory of knowledge called Empiricism. Empiricism stems from the idea that you can only have knowledge of something from experience based on direct or indirect observation.*1) An empirical rejection of God is impossible as it requires evidence from observation to form conclusions. To deny something that cannot be observed, by using the theory of knowledge that can only form conclusions based on observations, is absurd. The scientific world can never deny God’s existence because science can only deal with things that you can observe. This is why the philosopher of science Elliot Sober, in his essay Empiricism asserts that science is limited to questions which observation can explain,
“At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”*
God is not observed. How can you use the observed world to deny that which cannot be observed? It’s impossible. This is why science can never directly reject God’s existence. It can only do one of two things:
1. Stay silent on the matter
2. Suggest some evidence that can be used to infer His existence
*1:Elliot Sober “Empiricism” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Edited by Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd. 2010, p. 129.
*Ibid, pp. 137-138

Edit: Actual text Quoted from: http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/denying-god-denying-reality-dont-need-evidence-gods-existence

sbsquarepants

Festus wrote: »

is this not essentially atheism? or some form of Satanism or occultism. Seems a lot like what Aleister Crowley was about.

Eh, in a word no.

As for atheism supporting it's claim with evidence - it doesn't make any claims. You don't require evidence to prove the claim you're not making - in fact it is actually impossible to prove the non existence of anything (as I'm sure you know).

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Hmm...Tommy, I might word what you're saying a bit differently. I would say that we are a piece of the universe that is conscious, a piece of the universe that is able to observe itself.

And I would say, that consciousness is what makes us partners with God! God like if you will. Not mere subjects but citizens in His creation.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Atheism is a position on a claim.

If that is true then atheism can support its claim with evidence and proof.

Festus wrote: »

is this not essentially atheism? or some form of Satanism or occultism. Seems a lot like what Aleister Crowley was about.

*Insert Facepalm JPG here* (I'm too lazy to actually do it)

As I'm pretty sure you've been told many a time, no that is not atheism. Atheism is a position on a claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for Crowley Satanism...kind of. What about it? That form of satanism doesn't have anything to do with the entity called Satan from christianity. The name is more of a middle finger to christianity, rather than an actual statement of worship of a supernatural entity.
My favourite line of all time, the core of my whole outlook on life is summed up in this line from Terry Goodkind

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it

Squandering that life, wasting the joys of this live merely because you think that squandering them somehow merits a pass to some nebulous other life makes a complete mockery of this life.

Hmm...Tommy, I might word what you're saying a bit differently. I would say that we are a piece of the universe that is conscious, a piece of the universe that is able to observe itself.

ScumLord wrote: »

How can we be partners in something that happened billions of years before the sun our planet would eventually orbit was even around?

I think if there is a god, we aren't the sole focus of all his work, I really don't think the universe was created for one particular ape that will probably be a flash in the pan by cosmic standards.

That's what I'm saying, this universe was not created for us anymore than it was created for sea urchins. As to how can we be partners in the process the universe was created for? Well if you assume as I do that it was created to give expression to God then the answer is simple, by being His expression in the world while we are here.
pretty much the same stuff we should do anyway tbh, caretakers for the planet!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Live for the present, the past is gone you can't change it, just accept that and let it go, the future is less set in stone but it may or may not exist for you, there's no way of knowing - you could get hit by a bus tomorrow! Being miserable while your alive so you can be happy once your dead is insane!
The present is where you need to concentrate your efforts - don't waste what you have by worrying about what you don't have anymore, or may or may not have at some point to come. Do your living now!

is this not essentially atheism? or some form of Satanism or occultism. Seems a lot like what Aleister Crowley was about.

ScumLord

tommy2bad wrote: »

We are not so far apart as you would think, I believe morality comes from people not God, I believe we are partners in creation, from my view God is the other partner, you might see creation as the other partner.

How can we be partners in something that happened billions of years before the sun our planet would eventually orbit was even around?

I think if there is a god, we aren't the sole focus of all his work, I really don't think the universe was created for one particular ape that will probably be a flash in the pan by cosmic standards.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Tommy, are you typing on a mobile device of some kind? If so, try to clean up your posts before actually posting them.

1) The vast majority of the planet Earth, never mind the universe, is hostile to human life. Go on, without the aid of technology, try living in the ocean or in outer space. You'll find you can't do it. We as humans need to breathe oxygen, which we can't do underwater or in space.
2) How so? I don't believe obviously in either of the two scenarios you posted there, yet I do learn from history (such as WW2). I try not to repeat the mistakes of the past, e.g. I'm not racist. So please, explain further, how a non-belief in intelligent design somehow leads one to repeating past mistakes. (Indeed, I can argue for the exact opposite - there are many ID proponents and creationists who don't care about maintaining the environment, saying something along the lines of "God will provide", thinking that they can repeat what was done in the past in terms of pollution without a care in the world)

There are bible verses that teach humans not to improve on their lot, such as the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, which when read, teaches not to despair of your poor lot in this life, don't bother trying to improve it, things will be a nebulous better in some nebulous other life with no supporting evidence.

Yep, using a tablet, bloody things are murder to write with, PC is down atm.
Funny how you read the sermon on the mount that way, I read it as council against dispare, keep on trying, never give up. Not that I blame you, it's been presented as a pie in the sky when we die argument for a long time.

We are not so far apart as you would think, I believe morality comes from people not God, I believe we are partners in creation, from my view God is the other partner, you might see creation as the other partner.
I don't see the bible as dictated by God but rather as a record of man's struggle to make sense of the world, himself and his relationship with God.
I don't read it literally or think it should be, you'llyou'll notice I disagree with most other posters who do go down this route.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Ah, seems suspiciously like stalking

What a Paranoid statement Festus!

Festus wrote: »

The evidence suggests otherwise but I'll take your word for it that it is mere coincidence.

Perhaps it might help if you put me on your ignore list.

What evidence? To my knowledge, I've only ever talked to you on this thread, and maybe one or two others, all of them relating to religion. Apart from that, I have no interest at all in you.
You're already on my ignore list, but I ignored that for a little while. Perhaps I shouldn't, if I'm getting completely unfounded accusations like this from you.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...except it's not. It's simply me reading and replying to threads I've been on and am still interested in. For it to even attempt to rise to the level of stalking, I'd have to be following you around on any other threads you've been on, which I haven't. I restrict my conversations with you strictly to the religious related threads.

The evidence suggests otherwise but I'll take your word for it that it is mere coincidence.

Perhaps it might help if you put me on your ignore list.

Festus wrote: »

Ah, seems suspiciously like stalking

...except it's not. It's simply me reading and replying to threads I've been on and am still interested in. For it to even attempt to rise to the level of stalking, I'd have to be following you around on any other threads you've been on, which I haven't. I restrict my conversations with you strictly to the religious related threads.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Am I attempting to continue it here? Nope, I just didn't realise which thread I was on. I just clicked on whichever thread had most recently been updated without reading the title, read your response and thought we were still on the sex abuse thread.

Ah, seems suspiciously like stalking

Festus wrote: »

The question has no relevance to the thread title.

Or are you trying to continue the sex abuse discussion here?

Am I attempting to continue it here? Nope, I just didn't realise which thread I was on. I just clicked on whichever thread had most recently been updated without reading the title, read your response and thought we were still on the sex abuse thread.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of that question.

Hmmm, Interesting reply Festus!

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Given that there have been many catholic orders implicated in the sex abuse scandals, it's obvious that a cry of innocence or an attempt to deflect attention away from the real issues from a member of one of those orders would be treated very skeptically.

The question has no relevance to the thread title.

Why are you trying to continue the sex abuse discussion here?

Festus wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of that question.

Given that there have been many catholic orders implicated in the sex abuse scandals, it's obvious that a cry of innocence or an attempt to deflect attention away from the real issues from a member of one of those orders would be treated very skeptically.

Safehands wrote: »

Oui, vous êtes Catholic, and don't we know it, are you a member of a religious order by any chance?

I fail to see the relevance of that question.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so marianbad is allow to throw mud but I'm not even allow to rebut. Why am I not surprised.

Je suis Catholic

Oui, vous êtes Catholic, and don't we know it, are you a member of a religious order by any chance?

ScumLord

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In my case it isn't. Anyone else?

It could be argued that the human brain is hardwired for religious thought, we do have a part of the brain that seems dedicated to it. I don't think that's surprising and I'd wonder if the part of the brain that lights up in a religious persons brain when they think of god would be the same part of my brain that lights up when I think about the universe. By that I mean it's a kind of blue sky thinking part of the brain.

Tommy, are you typing on a mobile device of some kind? If so, try to clean up your posts before actually posting them.

Unless we accept that this universe is not designed as a test or designed with our needs in mind we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

1) The vast majority of the planet Earth, never mind the universe, is hostile to human life. Go on, without the aid of technology, try living in the ocean or in outer space. You'll find you can't do it. We as humans need to breathe oxygen, which we can't do underwater or in space.
2) How so? I don't believe obviously in either of the two scenarios you posted there, yet I do learn from history (such as WW2). I try not to repeat the mistakes of the past, e.g. I'm not racist. So please, explain further, how a non-belief in intelligent design somehow leads one to repeating past mistakes. (Indeed, I can argue for the exact opposite - there are many ID proponents and creationists who don't care about maintaining the environment, saying something along the lines of "God will provide", thinking that they can repeat what was done in the past in terms of pollution without a care in the world)

neither is turning our back on the deep human desire for a better world.

There are bible verses that teach humans not to improve on their lot, such as the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, which when read, teaches not to despair of your poor lot in this life, don't bother trying to improve it, things will be a nebulous better in some nebulous other life with no supporting evidence.

indioblack wrote: »

I don't think belief is a psychological flaw - my Christian friends probably think I am flawed with my present inability to believe!
And your last paragraph struck a chord in me.
It may be an anger shared by both sides in this debate - a reluctance to accept the harshness of existence - or maybe a willingness to accept it if there is a purpose to that acceptance.

Not a reluctance a defiance. As to a willingness to accept it if theirs a purpose, what purpose is served by dispair? Unless we accept that this universe is not designed as a test or designed with our needs in mind we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Casting God in our own imagdidn't the answer, neither is turning our back on the deep human desire for a better world.
weather you call that religion or secularism or atheism, the same mistakes keep being repeated. Imposition of one view over the others.

indioblack

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes, no evidence, I'm saying that belief comes before evidence, it seems to be hardwired into humans and not just a flaw in thinking either. People are born with a tendency to bebelieve in God. They lack any clarity as to the nature of characteristic of this being and project their own onto it. They don't choose, they come that way.
I doubt this is just true of religious types either, I've read some quite religious stuff from atheists as well, though they would claim it appreciation of the splendour of nature but at it's most basic, it's a religious feeling.
Why do I believe? Because that's the way I am.
Why do I want to believe? I don't. I just do.
Yout keep framing g this as though belife was a psychological flaw, something to be cured or corrected. I'm saying it's closer to having blue eyes or red hair.
What's in it for me? Not much tbh. I don't profit from it, I don't get comfort from it, it raises more questions than it answers but still I refuse to let go, possibly out of some kind of obsessive defiance. I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty, find no echo in this cold harsh universe.
So it just a mission statement, you say. OK, I can live with that.

I don't think belief is a psychological flaw - my Christian friends probably think I am flawed with my present inability to believe!
And your last paragraph struck a chord in me.
It may be an anger shared by both sides in this debate - a reluctance to accept the harshness of existence - or maybe a willingness to accept it if there is a purpose to that acceptance.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Features, the lack of these attributes in animals should give you pause for thought. If logic, met y, and justice are God given then surely all of his creation would carry some trait of these? None the less only humans have this god given morality. Which leads me to suppose these traits are traits of humans not God at all. After all what need has God for morality?

This is going to be fun *sits back and grabs a bucket of popcorn*

Festus wrote: »

Yes, because they were created by God and have a God given soul.

Animals on the other hand were also created by God but without souls and while I have seen animals learn I have yet to see an animal display any understanding of logic, mercy or justice.

However, you still have not explained how matter can give rise to logic, mercy and justice. All you have done is make a statement about humans and as humans are Gods creation you have added nothing.

Features, the lack of these attributes in animals should give you pause for thought. If logic, met y, and justice are God given then surely all of his creation would carry some trait of these? None the less only humans have this god given morality. Which leads me to suppose these traits are traits of humans not God at all. After all what need has God for morality?

it seems to be hardwired into humans

In my case it isn't. Anyone else?

People are born with a tendency to bebelieve in God.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by the word "God". If you mean the deity talked about in the three Abrahamic religions, then no, false. If you mean just a basic belief that there is something supernatural, with no detail...so what? In my view, it's a genetic hold over from our past, when those people who believed in the supernatural were more likely to procreate.

They lack any clarity as to the nature of characteristic of this being and project their own onto it. They don't choose, they come that way.

Even if true...so what? That doesn't indicate that the supernatural actually exists. If babies were born with a belief that the moon is made of cheese, does that indicate that the moon actually is made of cheese?

I'm saying that bbelief comes before evidence

Again, not in my case. I refuse to believe anything unless there's logic, data, reasoning or evidence in favour of it.

I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty, find no answer in a cold harsh universe.

In other words, you believe what you want to believe, instead of accepting what reality actually is and not imposing your own desires over it.