A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[leroy]

First off: thank you. It took effort to translate the video's argument into writing. A lot of people would have just posted a link to the video and said "hey, atheists - what do you think of this?"

That out of the way, my atheism is like that of Laplace:



So I'm a step removed from either of your options: I see the idea of God as useless, irrelevant, and not worth serious consideration.

It's not so much that I think God has been proven false as that I don't think God is worth the effort to even try to prove him true or false.

What "type of atheist" do you think that is?

I think there is a word for that “Apatheist” (or something like that) which means that you feel apathy to this topic, (you don’t care) pretty much like you probably don’t care who will win the next elections in Mexico or any other country different from yours

 

[leroy]

You say that Santa Claus is obviously fictional? Sounds like you have a burden of proof.

Care to make your case for why you think Santa isn't real?

You say that Santa Claus is obviously fictional? Sounds like you have a burden of proof.

Care to make your case for why you think Santa isn't real?

Sure I can show with a high degree of certainty for example that the cause of “gifts in the Christmas tree is “parents” rather than Santa Clause and the same is true for all the stuff commonly attributed to Santa Clause. I can accept the burden proof and explain why is my explanation better

If you whant to make an analogy you would have to provide an alterative expalantion for say the fine tunning of the universe, and show that your explanation is better than “God did it”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
If you whant to make an analogy you would have to provide an alterative expalantion for say the fine tunning of the universe, and show that your explanation is better than “God did it”

Well, no, I don't. I just stop doing metaphysics in the end.

 

[leroy]

Clearly the comparison with Santa. By a wide margin.

The reason is that a consciously invented character (is he, by the way?) does not demote it to less likely than non invented ones. Scientology is shamelessly invented, and yet it counts as a religion with a lot of people believing it. On top of it, if we compare the sacred books with reality, we see a lot of evidence of an invented character also in case of vanilla Gods, like the God of the Bible.

Second, Santa and God have the same evidence to exist, while life is known to exist. And it takes therefore a much smaller leap of faith in believing in another instance of what we know to exist, versus believing in a supernatural reality for which there is no verifiable instance.

Third, most gods, except at most one, must have been invented. Since they are all mutually contradict themselves. So, we could logically say that the vast majority, at least, of all theism is based on an invented character. Which makes theism totally unreliable in any of its claims.




Well, I am not sure I must. Since claiming ignorance is still much better than inventing things, like all believers outside your belief bubble did (and they think you did too). But if challenged, I would have no problem to provide naturalistic explanations to all those points. Points that will have a bigger or equal amount of evidence to support them as your God, Apollo, or Whomever.

so, which one would you like me to address first?

ciao

- viole

The thing is that we have good positive reasons to think that Santa is not responsible for gifts in the Christmas tree so if you whant to make God analogous to Santa Clause you would have to provide good positive reasons for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God (origin of the universe, Ft of the universe, miracle claims, etc.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is a challenge for atheist that has been circulating on youtube, this chalenge has basically two parts

Part 1

Define what type of atheist are you

1 God is like Santacluase, a character that is obviously fictional , we know that he doesn’t excist

2 God is like Aliens, he may or may not exist, “we don’t know” there is no conclusive evidence on either side, so atheism is simply the default answer

Which one of these 2 options is closer to your view? (or do you suggest a third option?)

Part2

The second part of the challenge is to accept the implication of your selection

1 If you go for option “1” you do have a burden proof, you are expected to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe, fine tuning, morality, free will miracle claims and all the stuff comonly attributed to God, in the same way I can provide an alternative explanation for presents in the Christmas tree

2 if you go for option 2, you have to give miracle claims a fair shake, you can’t dismiss them by default.
You have to consider seriously the possibility of miracles. Or “god did it” answers.

For example if we ever find the ruins of an ancient city on an other planet, you will naturally conclude that Aliens build that city (because “Aliens are not so unlikely)…...... but the benefit is that you have no burden proof if you pick option 2, the theist has to provide his arguments. and only then you can ether accept them or reject them
---------------
so how woudl you answer this challenge?

The problem is that many atheist compare God with Santa clause, but they don’t what to have a burden proof, the point of the challenge is to show that you have to choose ether one or the other

I go with a third option. I never met any God. Ever.

I did meet a god puppet though. One of my own making back in the day. I also met other people's God puppets as well.

There is a real universe however. Obviously. So I'm resigned to the saying that that I don't own the land, but it's the land that owns me.

For all intents and purposes, the universe alongside the continuum suffices nicely instead, without all the need for embellishments and fabrications.

I look up. Thats all the God I need.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The thing is that we have good positive reasons to think that Santa is not responsible for gifts in the Christmas tree so if you whant to make God analogous to Santa Clause you would have to provide good positive reasons for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God (origin of the universe, Ft of the universe, miracle claims, etc.)

Yeah, but reasons in themselves are in the mind and says nothing about objective reality in itself. Read some philosophy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

First off: thank you. It took effort to translate the video's argument into writing. A lot of people would have just posted a link to the video and said "hey, atheists - what do you think of this?"

That out of the way, my atheism is like that of Laplace:



So I'm a step removed from either of your options: I see the idea of God as useless, irrelevant, and not worth serious consideration.

It's not so much that I think God has been proven false as that I don't think God is worth the effort to even try to prove him true or false.

What "type of atheist" do you think that is?

The type who spends all day on something called “Religious forums”?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I go with a third option. I never met any God. Ever.

I did meet a god puppet though. One of my own making back in the day.

There is a real universe though. Obviously. So I'm resigned to the saying that that I don't own the land, but it's the land that owns me.

For all intents and purposes, the universe alongside the continuum suffices nicely without the need for embellishments and fabrications.

What does a real universe look like?

 

[Ostronomos]

Technically I'm an igtheist, not an atheist but I am indeed a non-believer. So I provide the following third option:

3. There is no coherent concept of a god with objective existence, hence no definition that would serve, if we found a real candidate, to determine whether it was God or not.

This is consistent with the observation that God never appears, never says, never does, and is only known to exist as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain.

Not applicable.

Of course, anyone can refute my position by giving ─

a. a satisfactory definition in terms of my point 3 above (one that, for instance, doesn't rely on imaginary qualities like 'omnipotence', 'omniscience', 'eternal', 'perfect' &c) and

b. a satisfactory demonstration of this being in reality.

As for my burden of proof, note that ─

─ no one, as far as I'm aware, has provided this definition and demonstration already;

─ the multiplicity of gods and supernatural beings ─ I'd guess millions ─ over time and around the world and its many cultures, shows that supernatural belief does not suggest anything with objective existence is observed;

─ the world behaves just as you'd expect if gods existed only as conceptual / imaginary entities;

─ we have not even one authenticated instance of magic (the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality).

(And of course there's more, but that's a start.)

your unbelief in miracles is based strictly on the appearance of a strictly classical world.

 

[leroy]

And what, precisely, does it mean to give miracles a fair shake?

?

It simply means that you have to include miracles within your poll of options of possible explanations (rather than dismiss them by default) you have to compare all your alternatives according to criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, less adhoc, etc.

For example if I claim have a near death experience and an “OUT OF BODEY” experience where I went out of the room in the hospital then flew to the room above and to the roof and then to the sky and then went back to my bodey you would have to consider all alternatives

1 The experience was real , my soul really went out of my body

2 I am lying

3 It was an illusion or a dream or a hallucination

Given the evidence you would have to consider all 3 alternatives , and select the best

For example if I accursedly and with detail describe the room above and the roof then you can reject the possibility of hallucination.

If before the experience I had no way of knowing about the stuff in the room above and the roof + if I have nothing to win by lying, + if my testimony is consistent you can reject the possibility of lying.

So unless you have good and conclusive evidence against possibility “1” you should go for it

 

[Polymath257]

It simply means that you have to include miracles within your poll of options of possible explanations (rather than dismiss them by default) you have to compare all your alternatives according to criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, less adhoc, etc.

And what explanatory power do miracles actually have? Absolutely none. THAT is the problem.

For example if I claim have a near death experience and an “OUT OF BODEY” experience where I went out of the room in the hospital then flew to the room above and to the roof and then to the sky and then went back to my bodey you would have to consider all alternatives

1 The experience was real , my soul really went out of my body

2 I am lying

3 It was an illusion or a dream or a hallucination

Given the evidence you would have to consider all 3 alternatives , and select the best

Absolutely. I agree. What does that have to do with miracles?

For example if I accursedly and with detail describe the room above and the roof then you can reject the possibility of hallucination.

That depends on the controls and how much was known previously.

If before the experience I had no way of knowing about the stuff in the room above and the roof + if I have nothing to win by lying, + if my testimony is consistent you can reject the possibility of lying.

So unless you have good and conclusive evidence against possibility “1” you should go for it

And it should be considered as a possibility. And, in subsequent situations, the variables should be figured out and controlled. We should then investigate when and how it happens, what sorts of information are obtained, the reliability of such, etc.

Then we can start to look at mechanisms, etc.

What does that have to do with miracles? More relevantly, what does this have to do with atheism?

At this point, the evidence is against such events happening. Do you agree?

 

[leroy]

Scie

Scientists don't have to prove what created the universe to disprove God.

.

Agree, the claim is that you have to consider God within your poll of possible explanations to the origin of the universe and select the best explanation according to criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony etc.

Sure “I don’t know” is a valid conclusion, but you can’t say “I don’t know, but I know that there is a naturalistic explanation” unless you have good positive reasons to reject such possibility

 

[Polymath257]

Agree, the claim is that you have to consider God within your poll of possible explanations to the origin of the universe and select the best explanation according to criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony etc.

And we should also consider the possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn sneezed the universe out of her divine nostril?

The problem is that the 'God hypothesis' offers absolutely no actual explanatory power over the IPU.

Sure “I don’t know” is a valid conclusion, but you can’t say “I don’t know, but I know that there is a naturalistic explanation” unless you have good positive reasons to reject such possibility

All I want is a testable hypothesis with supporting evidence.

First question: how would you falsify the involvement of a deity?

 

[viole]

The thing is that we have good positive reasons to think that Santa is not responsible for gifts in the Christmas tree so if you whant to make God analogous to Santa Clause you would have to provide good positive reasons for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God (origin of the universe, Ft of the universe, miracle claims, etc.)

May I ask what you think of all claims concerning miracles coming from religions different from yours? Do you accept that Mohammed flew on a winged horse organized by God as shuttle service to Heaven?

I know Christians who believe only a fraction, if any, of miracles are true. For God does not need miracles, on account of His infinite foresight.

yet, they still believe in that God.

so, your argument does not obtain. Not believing that Santa jumps from home to home at Christmas, does not prevent from believing in the reality of Santa.

and again, just tell me what point you would like me to address. They are so many that I cannot possibly do that in one post. What do you like: the origins of the universe? morality? Piece of cake. It is so easy to provide naturalistic alternatives to that, that it is almost embarrassing.

So, what do you prefer? I can guarantee you I will provide arguments that have, at least, the same evidential support as Apollo. Or as whatever you believe in.

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think there is a word for that “Apatheist” (or something like that) which means that you feel apathy to this topic, (you don’t care) pretty much like you probably don’t care who will win the next elections in Mexico or any other country different from yours

I'd say it's very similar to your attitude to Santa Claus, though I think you misrepresented Santa in your OP:

- you can't actually prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
- in fact, Santa Claus may be unfalsifiable.
- nevertheless, you don't see it as reasonable to act as if there's a meaningful chance that Santa Claus is real.

Do you think that your attitude toward Santa Claus implies that you have a burden of proof?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure I can show with a high degree of certainty for example that the cause of “gifts in the Christmas tree is “parents” rather than Santa Clause and the same is true for all the stuff commonly attributed to Santa Clause. I can accept the burden proof and explain why is my explanation better

How would that be a disproof of Santa Claus?

I mean, how do you get from "a parent put presents under a Christmas tree" to "... therefore there is no immortal being living at the North Pole with elves and flying reindeer"?

Edit: bonus question: if someone made your argument against God, would you accept it as valid?

People pray to God to cure their cancer, but we can see many cases where cancer was caused by surgery and chemotherapy, not God... therefore God does not exist.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I’m a former atheist.

Let’s rephrase this.

“There is no higher or supreme intelligence in all the universes in existence” That is essentially what atheists are saying in relation to there being a God.

How would they know? Do they possess all the knowledge there is to know? Have they explored all existence?

So while atheists have no proof or evidence to back up their claims, religionists on the other hand can point to Persons, Prophets and Holy Books which no one in human history have been able to reproduce.

The challenge is always open to them. Produce a Bible or a Quran or a Bhagavad-Gita if you think these Books just came from ordinary men and not God. Can they do this? They run away from such a challenge because they know they can’t. Yet they claim there is no God but cannot account for the influence of Christ, Muhammad Buddha and so on. If They were ordinary men then it should be a no brainer to repeat Their feats.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m a former atheist.

Let’s rephrase this.

“There is no higher or supreme intelligence in all the universes in existence” That is essentially what atheists are saying in relation to there being a God.
...

Not me as an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m a former atheist.

Let’s rephrase this.

“There is no higher or supreme intelligence in all the universes in existence” That is essentially what atheists are saying in relation to there being a God.

How would they know? Do they possess all the knowledge there is to know? Have they explored all existence?

I've never heard an atheist make that claim.

Plenty of theists, but never an atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've never heard an atheist make that claim.

Plenty of theists, but never an atheist.

Well, we do have one gnostic atheist around here.