A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[Mock Turtle]

I would be in the 'mostly atheist' category, given that I don't accept the many versions of God and such posited by the various religions - since there are plenty of reasons for them just being human constructs - the God(s) and the religions. I am slightly agnostic as to the possibility of a Creator though, given that I do recognise my lack of knowledge, the possibility of such, and perhaps for all humans too. The fine-tuning argument I'll leave to the scientists who know so much more than I will ever know, but I think this argument could be applied to many other things too - the inevitability, that is. Hence why it doesn't bother me that much.

As to accepting miracles - well these tend to fall into the 'why should I accept this religion rather than another' category - that is, they seem to be part and parcel of inducements to accept the particular religious belief, and as such often coincide with what other religions believe too. There being a limited supply of such inducements for humans - such as Heaven and Hell, Angels, Saints, Messengers, etc. Since we continually arrive at new knowledge, it is quite possible that so-called miracles (when they can be substantiated, which is not that often if ever) will be explained so as to become evidential - just like the placebo effect was once unknown.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Choose God? You mean I can pick the god of my own choosing and with the same morals as me?
Where do I sign?

Of course you are free to choose your own concept of God. The important thing is to recognise that who or whatever God is, it isn't you.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Part 1 is garbage. Why would an atheist believe god is like anything?

Part 2 is superfluous befause part 1 is nonsense.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The funny thing about this list is that science is the alternative. The fine tuning idea is a religious explanation. The origin of the universe has a natural explanation, and numerous theoretical models, all based on plausible processes. Morality is explained as an evolutionary and cultural phenomenon. Free will is not really a thing as the cognitive sciences have revealed. And miracles, well, they typically have more plausible explanations.

Well no, actually. You will come across this concept if you read widely on cosmology. Stephen Hawking refers to it in A Brief History of Time. So do Chris Ferrie and Geraint Lewis in Where Did The Universe Come From?

 

[firedragon]

Which god are we taking about?

I know this is like a mantra repeated by evangelical atheists, but the answer is, basically a God who can do it.

Maybe a God like Brahman can.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Excuse me, but I heard it said that faith does not require proof, blessed are those that believe without seeing, and besides, once I choose and formulate a religious belief, nothing will shake my faith and it will be you that will have to prove me wrong.

I can't prove you wrong. That is magical thinking. If I were to say "You are wrong", then it is a case of magical thinking to believe that you become wrong, because I say "You are wrong". That same with prove. No matter how I think as prove that can't cause you to be wrong.

It would seem, that you are using standard folk magic in that, it would seem that, you believe that, someone becomes wrong, just because someone else claims so.

 

[Clara Tea]

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 Santa Claus--obviously fictional

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

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

The problem is that many atheist compare God with Santa Claus, 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

Science can't prove everything (yet....maybe never). Theists use that "gap of knowledge" to assert that God exists.

Substitute the words "Santa Claus" for the word "God" and make the same argument. That is, we don't know what created the universe, therefore Santa exists.

Now lets substitute the words "tooth fairy." We don't know what created the universe, therefore the tooth fairy exists.

Since it would be foolish to believe in everything (such as believing that Fred Flintstone is real), we should limit our beliefs to only those things (or beings) that we can prove.

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

There is a difference between disbelieving (that is, believing that someone doesn't exist) and not believing (not having proof that someone doesn't exist).

 

[Clara Tea]

I can't prove you wrong. That is magical thinking. If I were to say "You are wrong", then it is a case of magical thinking to believe that you become wrong, because I say "You are wrong". That same with prove. No matter how I think as prove that can't cause you to be wrong.

It would seem, that you are using standard folk magic in that, it would seem that, you believe that, someone becomes wrong, just because someone else claims so.

I can definitively say that he is wrong because his logic is flawed.

The lack of scientific proof about what created the big bang doesn't prove that God exists.

 

[Clara Tea]

Evidence, please.

Universe created God, and God created the universe....QED.

Or, more simply....universe created itself (cut out the middle man).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can definitively say that he is wrong because his logic is flawed.

The lack of scientific proof about what created the big bang doesn't prove that God exists.

Yeah, you can say it. But that doesn't make him wrong.

 

[Nimos]

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

My answer would be number 2 and have no issues with giving miracles a fair shake, I will however hold the default position that I don't believe them to exist due to the lack of evidence.

 

[Colt]

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

The test itself if proof of the existence of creative mind in the universe. Mind is creative because it was created by a creative mind like the one that asked these questions which transcend constraints of the purely material facts of the physical universe.

"If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual." UB 1955

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

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

All the evidence suggests there is not a God.
Science has been building that case with the objective scientific method establishing empirical evidence for hundreds of years.
I don't get the point of this thread. There are explanations and theories for all of the things historically attributed to God, you just have to look.

 

[Koldo]

I am like Koldo, a thorough atheist. I will reject miracle claims out-right. I do not know what Koldo means by specificity.

I meant that different miracle claims have different explanations.

Sometimes the miracle is just the sight of a rare natural event. Other times the work of a con artist or even a complete fabrication.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the evidence suggests there is not a God.
Science has been building that case with the objective scientific method establishing empirical evidence for hundreds of years.
I don't get the point of this thread. There are explanations and theories for all of the things historically attributed to God, you just have to look.

What axiomatic assumptions are you using for evidence? Or do you mean something else with evidence?
As for the historical versions of a metaphysical Creator God what has science to say about that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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:

Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.

Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

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?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

What axiomatic assumptions are you using for evidence? Or do you mean something else with evidence?
As for the historical versions of a metaphysical Creator God what has science to say about that?

If you want to get technical, this video has answers to your questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want to get technical, this video has answers to your questions.

I am an atheist. I know how there is no evidence for God using axiomatic assumptions as per methodological naturalism.
But I have yet to see a scientific method of good in regards if it makes sense to believe in God or not.

So no, I would not waste time on someone using first person what make sense in regards to God or not.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?)

I would say I am closest to "2," though I do believe any specific proposition of "god" to be highly unlikely - given that most often when a "god" is presented, the types evidence presented with it very strongly indicates that it is just a product of some people's minds. If a "god" were presented with quite substantial, strongly objective evidence, then the story would be different. For example, a thing calling itself a "god" appears on Earth, everyone who encounters this thing can see/experience it, and it begins performing some pretty amazing feats or can easily predict or control the future, or has some other property that we might attribute to something with "godlike" abilities. The interesting thing is, even in the case that this thing appeared and was "godlike" in aspect in some way, we still only have warrant to believe in this, particular thing. And we may call it a "god," but there is no actual way to be sure that it is a true "deity" except to allow our minds to accept that this thing we are witnessing fits our definition of what it means to be "deity." For example - let's say it swears up and down that it is the "God of Abraham." How would we go about the process of verifying this? I don't know that there is a way. Therefore we would be stuck in the position of having to just take its word for it. Which is a strange proposition when you think about it.

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

Why would I be expected to provide an alternative explanation? Why am I on the hook for that? Let's say all i did was provide enough evidence/proof to display to you that your theory/idea was incorrect. That's all I did. Am I then on the hook to provide the REAL explanation/theory/etc. that can't be refuted and completely models reality, and if I don't, your theory is somehow back on the table? No. That's not how it works. If it did, then something like this would be completely valid and acceptable:
Defense lawyer: The DNA evidence clearly shows that my client was NOT the perpetrator being sought after.
Prosecution: So, the DNA evidence has ruled your client out for directly committing the crime, sure sure... but his alibi is lacking. He can't account for his whereabouts during the time of the crime.
Defense lawyer: So? I just told you there is clear evidence that he didn't commit the crime!
Prosecution: So, because he can't provide the explanation for where he was, it means that he very well could have been at the crime scene, and therefore he is an accessory to the crime!

See there... the prosecution still just goes about the business of trying to implicate the defendant in the crime, even though there was evidence of one kind that cast into serious doubt that he could have committed some actual portion of the crime. That's what you would be doing - implicating "God" to have done something, just because the other side can't provide you with an exact description of how it did actually happen otherwise when you are presented with clear evidence that certain parts of your overall story about what God did don't match to observable reality.

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.

Not true. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something was a "miracle" or that "God did it." I don't have to entertain those notions for a second if the evidence is entirely lacking. If we don't know how something happened, and the evidence doesn't point us in a definitive direction, then we don't know. Full stop. We don't just start making up possible explanations that involve "miracles" and "gods" - two things that have very poor substantiation in the form of people just spouting their mouths of incessantly about them.

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

And here you seem to understand that someone making claims has a burden of proof... so I am not sure what you're doing here. Maybe some cognitive dissonance going on? On the one hand for your "option 2", you insist that a skeptic MUST give miracle claims and "god did it" explanations a "Fair shake" - but then in the next breath you state that you understand that your "option 2" alleviates the burden of proof from the skeptic, and puts it back into the hands of the claimant. So... the claimant must provide compelling evidence for their claim, right? Otherwise, we are completely justified in NOT giving miracle claims and "god did it" explanations a fair shake. Right?

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

In the end, it doesn't matter. I don't have to provide evidence that God doesn't exist in order to not believe you. All I have to do is look at your evidence, deem it insufficient to convince me, and that's that. And the real point to be made here is that this is exactly like the position we are in with regard to "Santa Clause"! I don't have to provide evidence that Santa Clause doesn't exist in order to say that I don't believe a claim that you make that he does. You must necessarily understand this if you are at all serious about this topic.

 

[viole]

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?)

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.

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

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