Athiests

[RND]

I have four questions that I would want to ask anyone, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, on this thread:

The Four Questions…

1.) What if I told you that your youngest child was murdered? Would you want mercy or justice for the perpetrator?

2.) What if I told you that the murderer was your oldest child? Would you want mercy or justice for the perpetrator?

3.) What if I told you that you are guilty of the murder of the only begotten Son of God? Would you want mercy or justice as the perpetrator?

4.) What if I told you that you had a daughter, your only daughter, the apple of your eye, who has never given you a moment’s grief. Tonight, you have your tux hanging in the closet, because tomorrow you are scheduled to walk your daughter down the aisle and give her away to someone whom you approve? If you’re the mother, you have your new dress hanging next to the gown that you have been planning and preparing for since the first time she held her in her arms. But tonight, your daughter is at a bachelorette party with her peers and they talk her into having “one-for-the-road,†the first ever in her life. Two, three, four, five, six, seven (drinks) later, while on her way home, she wipes out a school bus full of little children on their way to camp. Everybody aboard the bus dies in a fiery inferno, but you daughter survives. Do you want mercy or justice for your daughter (?) and what do those that are related to those who were on bus want?

The moral of the story is…

The carnal heart has an ingrained sense of justice as long as it doesn’t apply to them or theirs. That is self-righteousness and hypocrisy! Furthermore, Satan knows that God will only forgive us according to our willingness to forgive others. The irony of the whole thing is – “we’re all family.â€

As we have received God’s mercy – so are we to bestow the same mercy towards others. “Freely you have received, freely give.†We can hate the sin, but we must love the sinner for “we war not against flesh and blood, but against powers and rincipalities in high places.â€

 

[AAA]

If a Naturalist/ Atheist claims that there is no god (s), then the burdon of proof is on them.

This burden is unreasonable. It is impossible to prove that god does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove that sasquatch, or Santa Claus, don't exist.

Besides, it really is a misconception that atheists claim that god does not exist. That's not to say that some do make that claim, but only that the majority of atheists, myself included, are technically agnostics, and only claim that belief in god is unjustified.

While we are technically agnostic, to call us agnostic really misrepresents our position on just how unjustified belief in god is. To be clear, I am an atheist in the same sense that I am an a-sasquatchist and an a-Santaist. I hold those positions merely because I am not aware of any good evidence of their existence, not because I have any proof that they don't exist.

Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, which is really the earliest example in place of Santa or sasquatch that I am aware of, takes care of this nicely I think.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

 

[dadof10]

This burden is unreasonable. It is impossible to prove that god does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove that sasquatch, or Santa Claus, don't exist.

Besides, it really is a misconception that atheists claim that god does not exist. That's not to say that some do make that claim, but only that the majority of atheists, myself included, are technically agnostics, and only claim that belief in god is unjustified.

While we are technically agnostic, to call us agnostic really misrepresents our position on just how unjustified belief in god is. To be clear, I am an atheist in the same sense that I am an a-sasquatchist and an a-Santaist. I hold those positions merely because I am not aware of any good evidence of their existence, not because I have any proof that they don't exist.

Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, which is really the earliest example in place of Santa or sasquatch that I am aware of, takes care of this nicely I think.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

The question is "what is the origin of the universe", not "is there a God". It is a more fundamental question with only two possible answers. Either the universe was created by Someone, or it randomly happened. I realize your answer is "I don't know", but which theory seems more reasonable?

 

[AAA]

The question is "what is the origin of the universe", not "is there a God". It is a more fundamental question with only two possible answers. Either the universe was created by Someone, or it randomly happened. I realize your answer is "I don't know", but which theory seems more reasonable?

I think you are using loaded terms in what might be a (somewhat) false dichotomy.

I would prefer, if we are going to employ a dichotomy, to use the terms "natural" or "supernatural".

Are you ok with those terms?

 

[Free]

The burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

Not if your name is Richard Dawkins or one who believes as he does. The burden of proof rests on him just as much as the theist.

 

[AAA]

The burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

Not if your name is Richard Dawkins or one who believes as he does. The burden of proof rests on him just as much as the theist.

His only burden is to point out the inadequate support for theistic beliefs. So let me be clear:

Burden of proof for the theist: to show that their particular god (and everything they believe about it) is real ... to justify all of their particular beliefs about their particular god.

Burden of proof for the atheist: to show how whatever the theist comes up with is insufficient.

If you think there is a greater burden for the atheist, ie. a burden to actually provide evidence that, the Christian god for example, doesn't actually exist, can you suggest how someone like Dawkins might go about doing that?

How could the invisible & omnipotent Christian god be falsified?

If I were to say that an undetectable, one-armed dragon named Theo was living in my garage and carrying on a "loving, personal relationship with me", can you suggest how you might go about indicating that Theo isn't actually there? I don't think so. All that one could do is come up with reasons why belief in a clandestine "loving, personal relationship" with an undetectable one armed dragon is preposterous. Accordingly, any extra burden that you seem to have implied in your post is also preposterous.

But then, perhaps you did not imply any extra burden for the Dawkins in your post ... maybe I misinterpreted you.

Perhaps you only meant that people like Dawkins have a burden because of the sheer prevalence of theistic beliefs already out there. This, I would agree with.

 

[RND]

The burden of proof lies squarely with the theist.

Not if your name is Richard Dawkins or one who believes as he does. The burden of proof rests on him just as much as the theist.

His only burden is to point out the inadequate support for theistic beliefs.

That sounds more like a chosen burden to bear. Evidence of course that God is a God of 'free choice.'

 

[dadof10]

The question is "what is the origin of the universe", not "is there a God". It is a more fundamental question with only two possible answers. Either the universe was created by Someone, or it randomly happened. I realize your answer is "I don't know", but which theory seems more reasonable?

I think you are using loaded terms in what might be a (somewhat) false dichotomy.

I would prefer, if we are going to employ a dichotomy, to use the terms "natural" or "supernatural".

Are you ok with those terms?

Of course not. Talk about your loaded terms. You are assuming your premise is true, that randomness is "natural" and creation is not. I think Creation is natural and randomness is an unreasonable theory. This is where we disagree.

It's simple. If there is no Creator, the only other option that we know of is randomness. Either Someone created the universe or not, in which case all matter existed and everything became ordered by random chance. Unless you can come up with a third option, those are the only two that are before us. All I'm asking is which one of these two theories is more reasonable?

 

[AAA]

You are assuming ... that randomness is "natural" and creation is not. I think Creation is natural and randomness is an unreasonable theory. This is where we disagree.

I think our disagreement hinges on our definitions: the alternative to "natural" is not "unreasonable".

I mean "natural" in the sense of "forces and laws of nature or the universe": physics/chemistry, selection pressures, etc. basically. For example: "Polio is not caused by supernatural demon possession, but a natural virus that infects the nervous system."

I think you mean natural in the sense of "what makes sense, or is reasonable". For example: "it is un-natural for a parent to want to murder their child, and perfectly natural for a parent to want their child to be happy."

If I've got this wrong, given how I use the words natural and supernatural as described above, can you still show me how they are loaded terms?

Creation by Someone: This is an attractive intuitive possibility because we are all "someones" and we can all create things: its a familiar notion. I'm just not sure that this type of reasoning applies at the level of the origins of everything, especially when cosmologists talk about things like the beginning of time itself (ie. how can we intuitively imagine how a "Someone" might operate in the absence of time so as to create time), or space-time having a beginning, but no edge or boundary, so that it is, despite having a beginning, infinite. There are countless scientific observations that escape our intuition, and I feel strongly that we must be humble about the limitations of our imagination and intuition in discussions about the greatest questions. Besides, I am sure you will agree that "Creation by Someone" is an incredibly loaded term.

Randomness: I tried to demonstrate how deflationary this concept is in previous posts. Do snowflakes and crystals develop randomly? Did the Grand Canyon develop randomly? Does antimicrobial resistance develop randomly? There are natural forces, like gravity, electromagnetism, etc, that influence matter and energy, and these natural forces can lead to the "creation" of many incredible and complex items and conditions on micro and macroscopic scales. Do you consider these to be examples of randomness?

There was a time when humanity thought that lightening required a god (Zeus) for its creation. Zeus stood outside the laws of nature and could create with special powers. We now understand the origins of lightening in terms of the forces that operate in our universe, without need to resort to a supernatural creator of lightening.

If I were to think about the origins of the universe in terms of dichotomous possibilities, this is the way I would ask the question. Can there be a natural explanation dictated by the forces and laws of the universe (a "grand unifying theory of everything"), or must the explanation of our origins include an agent outside of nature ("supernatural").

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Burden of the theist: to show that their particular god (and everything they believe about it) is real ... to justify all of their particular beliefs about their particular god.

I just wanted to be clear on this one thought. I have no such burden even in the slightest. I have no obligation or "burden" to prove anything to anyone. Everyone on this planet must find their own way and determine what they feel to be compelling and true. I leave it to them. If they ask me what I believe, I will share it with them and let them decide. This presents no burden for me.

 

[AAA]

Burden of the theist: to show that their particular god (and everything they believe about it) is real ... to justify all of their particular beliefs about their particular god.

I just wanted to be clear on this one thought. I have no such burden even in the slightest. I have no obligation or "burden" to prove anything to anyone. Everyone on this planet must find their own way and determine what they feel to be compelling and true. I leave it to them. If they ask me what I believe, I will share it with them and let them decide. This presents no burden for me.

Of course. I should have written "burden of proof for the theist" (in fact, I'll edit the post right now to reflect that). Sorry about any confusion my friend (if I may call you that).

 

[AskTheA]

I have four questions that I would want to ask anyone, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, on this thread:

The Four Questions…

1.) What if I told you that your youngest child was murdered? Would you want mercy or justice for the perpetrator?

2.) What if I told you that the murderer was your oldest child? Would you want mercy or justice for the perpetrator?

3.) What if I told you that you are guilty of the murder of the only begotten Son of God? Would you want mercy or justice as the perpetrator?

4.)Daugter question

1,2 4. Today, I want mercy. I want to separate this person from society. I don't want this to happen to families. Now, would I be able to to do that? Of course not. I'd be wild with anger and grief. This is why we don't let the family of the victim be the judge of the case and we have a legal system.

3. If that happened, I'd probalby just laugh at you. I don't beleive that there is any god, much less God, or his son. And I am not guilty. Christ died for his own sins in the immortal words of Crass.

The question is "what is the origin of the universe", not "is there a God". It is a more fundamental question with only two possible answers. Either the universe was created by Someone, or it randomly happened. I realize your answer is "I don't know", but which theory seems more reasonable?

Again, "seeming reasonable" isn't enough. Much of things we know aren't immediately intuitive. Centripidal force, quantum mecahnics, even a round earth. To me, God seems infinitely more improbably than a "random-it-just-happened" universe. I think a rapid expansion of space time is much simplier than an all knowning benevolent being. Again, even if I concede this point. It takes a looong time to get from "a force that created the universe" to "Yahweh who wrote the original texts of the bible AND the King James version is the most correct modern version" or any variant of that.

Also a note to all Christians. If you are discussing the origins, us atheists, scientists and sceptics tend to associate the word "creation" with "change in allele frequencies in in populations over time does not happen".

 

[AAA]

I have four questions that I would want to ask anyone, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, on this thread:

I found these questions interesting.

What do you mean by "justice"? Do you perhaps mean "successfully prosecuted to the full extent of the law"?

By "mercy", do you mean leniency (ie. "get off easy", or "get away with it")?

The carnal heart has an ingrained sense of justice as long as it doesn’t apply to them or theirs. That is self-righteousness and hypocrisy! Furthermore, Satan knows that God will only forgive us according to our willingness to forgive others. The irony of the whole thing is – “we’re all family.â€

As we have received God’s mercy – so are we to bestow the same mercy towards others. “Freely you have received, freely give.†We can hate the sin, but we must love the sinner for “we war not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities in high places.â€

By the above, do you mean to imply that the response to all of your questions ought to be "mercy"?

 

[AAA]

If you are discussing the origins, us atheists, scientists and sceptics tend to associate the word "creation" with "change in allele frequencies in in populations over time does not happen".

FIrst of all, I suspect you may want to edit the end of that sentence.

Secondly, I flatly disagree with you. "Change in allele frequencies over time" refers specifically to the theory of evolution, which only addresses the diversity of life on the planet. It does not address how life started, nor the origins of the universe as we know it, and both of these issues would be included under the rubric of "creation".

 

[Titopoet]

I have a good friend who is a Christian Reform which is similar to Presbyterian/Calvinism I beleive. I, however am an Athiest. I've read Christian forums before where there is an "Ask the Athiest" thread. Most ofen it's the athiest trying to A: deconvert the Christians, or B: act rudely or make the look silly so the Athiest can say "look how smart I am".

I intend to do neither of those things; I think that's a waste of time. I just want to foster some understanding. I don't use rude language nor will I say mean things about your beleifs or your god. Feel free to ask me any question, whether or not it is even diretly related to religion. I'm knowledgable about athiesm and have a decent understanding of religions of the world.

The Question I have is bit more philosophical, as I have noticed most of the new Atheists, like Harris, Dawkins and Dennett seem to ignore it. How do you reconcile modern Logic with your proposition "God does not exists." without ending in logical nonsense. (I use Logical nonsense the way Wittgenstein meant) What I mean is how slippery the term exists really is. Example is Harris saying God doesn't exist then latter claims God is a Iron age myth. Either God is or God is not, by saying God is an Iron Age myth then he grants existence thus invalidating his proposition. The minute Harris says God is a projection, a bad idea or any other of his accounting for God, he is granting God existence. I can understand why Harris and many of the current popular Atheist do not want to go there as it would turn the debate to what is the nature of "God" and then they would be force to defend a position, it is better to be able to attack with out having to defend, but I cannot see how "God does not exists" leads to anything but logical nonsense.
In other words, how would you answer Wittgenstein and formal logic's claim that Atheists are misusing language? (Confusing the map with the mountain?)

 

[AAA]

Harris saying God doesn't exist then latter claims God is a Iron age myth. Either God is or God is not, by saying God is an Iron Age myth then he grants existence thus invalidating his proposition....
In other words, how would you answer formal logic's claim that Atheists are misusing language?

Harris is first and foremost concerned with reality.

One of the definitions of "myth" is: a person or thing having only an imaginary existence

According to this definition, Harris is not misusing language, as a mythical god does not exist in reality. That is to say that there is a world of difference between the existence of a myth about god and the existence of god.

 

[Titopoet]

Harris saying God doesn't exist then latter claims God is a Iron age myth. Either God is or God is not, by saying God is an Iron Age myth then he grants existence thus invalidating his proposition....
In other words, how would you answer formal logic's claim that Atheists are misusing language?

Harris is first and foremost concerned with reality.

One of the definitions of "myth" is: a person or thing having only an imaginary existence

According to this definition, Harris is not misusing language, as a mythical god does not exist in reality. That is to say that there is a world of difference between the existence of a myth about god and the existence of god.

Actually you are running into the epistemological problem, which none of the new Atheist deal with. Example, take the foundation of Science, the verifiable principle: All proposition have to validated in order to be excepted. The problem is that the verifiable principle cannot be itself verified so it must be rejected. I am saying nothing new. So by saying Harris, Dennett and the rest are dealing with reality, without establishing what reality is, then it fails its own test.
I do admire how Harris forms his propaganda, it is master work, but it it is not very logical or scientific and ignores all modern linguistics.

 

[AskTheA]

I have a good friend who is a Christian Reform which is similar to Presbyterian/Calvinism I beleive. I, however am an Athiest. I've read Christian forums before where there is an "Ask the Athiest" thread. Most ofen it's the athiest trying to A: deconvert the Christians, or B: act rudely or make the look silly so the Athiest can say "look how smart I am".

I intend to do neither of those things; I think that's a waste of time. I just want to foster some understanding. I don't use rude language nor will I say mean things about your beleifs or your god. Feel free to ask me any question, whether or not it is even diretly related to religion. I'm knowledgable about athiesm and have a decent understanding of religions of the world.

The Question I have is bit more philosophical, as I have noticed most of the new Atheists, like Harris, Dawkins and Dennett seem to ignore it. How do you reconcile modern Logic with your proposition "God does not exists." without ending in logical nonsense. (I use Logical nonsense the way Wittgenstein meant) What I mean is how slippery the term exists really is. Example is Harris saying God doesn't exist then latter claims God is a Iron age myth. Either God is or God is not, by saying God is an Iron Age myth then he grants existence thus invalidating his proposition. The minute Harris says God is a projection, a bad idea or any other of his accounting for God, he is granting God existence. I can understand why Harris and many of the current popular Atheist do not want to go there as it would turn the debate to what is the nature of "God" and then they would be force to defend a position, it is better to be able to attack with out having to defend, but I cannot see how "God does not exists" leads to anything but logical nonsense.
In other words, how would you answer Wittgenstein and formal logic's claim that Atheists are misusing language? (Confusing the map with the mountain?)

Fine. God exists. I'm a deist now.

All kidding aside athiests don't say "god does not exist" because that would lead to logical nonsense. I don't make any such claim. I don't say (positive) "there is no god". I say (negative) "I don't beleive in a god". Did you miss the few posts a while back about Russel's teapot?

How can you say "I don't beleive in Santa" without falling into logical nonsense.

 

[Titopoet]

All kidding aside athiests don't say "god does not exist" because that would lead to logical nonsense. I don't make any such claim. I don't say (positive) "there is no god". I say (negative) "I don't beleive in a god". Did you miss the few posts a while back about Russel's teapot?

How can you say "I don't beleive in Santa" without falling into logical nonsense.

Again, I am every familiar with Russell. The teapot example is a very good one to start, and I am using Russell's brilliant student, Wittgenstein's insights into the nature of language. First, I am using the idea of Language games as set if vocabulary with its own set of rules. The teapot is a very definite object with a specific meaning within a language game, a man made object designed to hold tea. To say there is one orbiting the sun is a violation of that language game. Same for Santa Claus, Santa Claus is a definite Language game, a jolly man who lives in the North Pole and passes out candy during Christmas. To say I don't believe in Santa is very much part of that language game. "God" on the other hand is a different sort of word. It has multiple uses and involved in multiple language games. When someone says "I don't believe in God."they rejects the common use of the word as God as the ground of being, (Technical term for a common usage) as examples, John's god is money. The almighty dollar. The God fame destroyed her in. In my case my relationship to Jesus is my ground of being and how my identity is generated, and every bit as real and measurable as anything in life. If you were a researcher, you can come and see how I pray, read scripture and live my life. God in my case is tied to an Orthodox view of the Trinity. I also know the term God is different for a Jewish believer, Muslim (Sunni, Shiite, Sufi etc.). As Richard Rorty has pointed out, you can look at the truth function of a proposition with a language system, but run into insolvable problems when you expand the truth function of a different vocabularies. I can see how you can reject a view of God for your own life, say not believing God is a Zeus, but to reject all forms and uses of God seems like at best a misuse of language.
You can see the problem with not understanding this fine point of logic with Dawkins when he gets mad at the Harry Potter books and wants to write Childrens books, based on Science, to combat what he sees as magical thinking. Yet, its he who has a limited idea of what magical thinking is.(I think the Gould's complaint that Dawkins and Dennett are fundamentalists at heart has some validity to it, but that is another converstation) Most of people who read the Harry Potter books know it is fantasy with its own rules and function. I guess my question becomes how can you reject Steven Jay Gould's concept of NOMA once this fine point of logic is understood?

 

[AAA]

Titopoet,

Your point about language is a very basic one that everyone intuitively understands and it is this one: we must be clear about what we mean.

It is impractical to constantly identify the specific definitions of the words we use, so we don't, except when the matter of the specific definition becomes specifically relevant. At that point, people ask for clarification.

I totally defused your original post when I provided you with the specific meaning of Sam Harris' use of the word 'myth'. You retorted by switching lanes to make a new epistemological assertion about Harris' work.

take the foundation of Science, the verifiable principle: All proposition have to validated in order to be excepted. The problem is that the verifiable principle cannot be itself verified so it must be rejected.

Science is about validating and verifying propositions. The spectacular and undeniable success of science as a method of learning about the world we live in is validation and verification enough of science.

So by saying Harris, Dennett and the rest are dealing with reality, without establishing what reality is, then it fails its own test.

Just because they might not have specifically defined what they mean by "reality" does not mean that their work is fallacious. That is a non sequitur.