Critics of atheism please come forward.

[Storm]

You don't think the claim that God has just always been there requires support as well?

They both do. The problem is that some naturalists apply a double standard.

Same with theism; it just postpones the big questions one extra step... and then often ignores them entirely.

They're in the same boat. So long as the naturalist accepts that, rather than assuming he has a superior stance to the theist, I have no complaint.

That doesn't mean that "I don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but the range of alternatives presented by theism seem very unlikely" isn't a reasonable position.

Nor is "I don't know where God came from."

 

[darkpenguin]

You've provided no new "food for thought" for me. You're not belittling my statement either----rather you're revealing the weakest "link" in the argument for belief in atheism. Those who believe in God do not make the claim that God has to come from anywhere. He is simply eternally existent, and the ultimate cause for the universe.

Atheism, on the other hand, has nowhere to ultimately turn to to explain how the universe came into being from nothing. Your only resort is to say the universe, or matter, is eternally existent just as we claim God is eternally existent. But, then, that doesn't really work either, when current theories show that the universe had a definite beginning sometime in the very distant past.

Ah touche, you have me there lol.
Doesn't the not knowing bug you though? Or maybe thats the point us atheists miss, we seem to question everything and demand explanations, even when, as you pointed out we don't get them or they are just theories.
I don't know religion still confuzzles me lol.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Atheism canbegood or bad. One side says that Atheism generates no morals, religion only cando that, but then some say that without religion there is no friction between walks of life. I think religion is here for a good reason. I doubt humans can live withought religion.

 

[darkpenguin]

Atheism canbegood or bad. One side says that Atheism generates no morals, religion only cando that, but then some say that without religion there is no friction between walks of life. I think religion is here for a good reason. I doubt humans can live withought religion.

I wouldn't go so far as to say religion only can generate morals, I'd like to think that we have more humanity in us than just treating each other with respect because books tell us to.
Or maybe I'm wrong and a hopeless optimist.

 

[camanintx]

Nope. Because ultimately, like I said before, something, or someone, has to have eternal, uncaused existence. Otherwise you have infinite regression. I could say ok, someone created God----but who created that someone who created God? And then who created him/her? Get my drift? So those of us who believe in God simply say He is the end all, and be all. The buck stops with Him. Not that complicated really, and very logical.


I didn't say it wasn't reasonable---it merely has its weaknesses. And this is good to point out, especially when so many atheists claim belief in God is unreasonable or irrational. Theism is no more unreasonable or irrational than atheism. I would even venture to say theism is more rational, and more reasonable.

But isn't theism more pessimistic than atheism? The whole God as the first cause argument rests on the assumption that effects cannot be greater than their cause in which case our potential is limited. Believing that the universe started with a big bang implies that order and complexity can increase and that our potential is thereby limitless.

 

[Storm]

But isn't theism more pessimistic than atheism? The whole God as the first cause argument rests on the assumption that effects cannot be greater than their cause in which case our potential is limited. Believing that the universe started with a big bang implies that order and complexity can increase and that our potential is thereby limitless.

Depends. Are you using "theism" to represent all God-belief, or the belief that God is a supernatural deity?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

A lot of people run their life by books. These books can prevent us from being tainted by horrific life experiences. That why i think only religion can generate proper morals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. Because ultimately, like I said before, something, or someone, has to have eternal, uncaused existence. Otherwise you have infinite regression. I could say ok, someone created God----but who created that someone who created God? And then who created him/her? Get my drift? So those of us who believe in God simply say He is the end all, and be all. The buck stops with Him. Not that complicated really, and very logical.

So, effectively, this is (borrowing one mythological idea for what supported the world) like saying, "if the world's on the back of a turtle, which is on the back of a turtle, and so on, you can't have an infinite series of turtles... so, somewhere at the bottom, you need to have a turtle that is SO big and SO heavy that he doesn't need to be supported at all", ignoring that largeness and heaviness are the reason why all the previous turtles needed support.

See above answer.

It doesn't get rid of the problem, though, since it gives no reasoning as to the "why" of the matter.

I didn't say it wasn't reasonable---it merely has its weaknesses. And this is good to point out, especially when so many atheists claim belief in God is unreasonable or irrational. Theism is no more unreasonable or irrational than atheism. I would even venture to say theism is more rational, and more reasonable.

Hmm. While I may concede that theism in general can at least be logically consistent, I'd say a great many expressions of it are rather irrational.

They both do. The problem is that some naturalists apply a double standard.

I think a person can fall on the side of atheism without applying a double standard.

I have, IMO, the same amount of evidence for the existence of one or more deities as I do for the idea that Dustin Hoffman is in my backyard right now. I personally think that consistency dictates that I treat both contingencies as warranted by the evidence for them.

Nor is "I don't know where God came from."

Good point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't go so far as to say religion only can generate morals, I'd like to think that we have more humanity in us than just treating each other with respect because books tell us to.
Or maybe I'm wrong and a hopeless optimist.

I'd say that anyone who lives what they consider to be a moral life only because of the prospect of divine reward or the threat of divine punishment isn't actually a moral person.

 

[darkpenguin]

I'd say that anyone who lives what they consider to be a moral life only because of the prospect of divine reward or the threat of divine punishment isn't actually a moral person.

I can agree with that statement, I guess it's a bit like the 'if your not good father Christmas wont bring you any presents' thing which seems more like a bargaining tool than being moral naturally.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Not everyone though believes in the prospect of a divine reard. Anyway, iwouldnt care, at least everyone isnt trying to kill each other.

 

[darkpenguin]

Not everyone though believes in the prospect of a divine reard. Anyway, iwouldnt care, at least everyone isnt trying to kill each other.

Hmm somedays when I see the news I do wonder....

 

[Storm]

I think a person can fall on the side of atheism without applying a double standard.

Uncontested, which is why I said "some naturalists" instead of "atheists."

I have, IMO, the same amount of evidence for the existence of one or more deities as I do for the idea that Dustin Hoffman is in my backyard right now. I personally think that consistency dictates that I treat both contingencies as warranted by the evidence for them.

OK. What about those who have, like myself, experienced theophany? Do you accept that we have a valid reason to believe in God?

Good point.

Thank you.

 

[Storm]

I'd say that anyone who lives what they consider to be a moral life only because of the prospect of divine reward or the threat of divine punishment isn't actually a moral person.

I totally agree.

 

[LogDog]

However, most religions claim that God is the source of ALL that exists, and that the nature of existence itself is the "will of God". If this is the case, then there is no possible backdrop against which the effect of God could be quantified, because EVERYTHING is the effect of God.

If god is a supernatural character, then there are ways of determining the probability of his actuality. We can test the validity of other alleged supernatural events to make determinations. If it was found that an individual did indeed have the supernatural ability to levitate, would theists not use this finding to support their position?

Once our definition of "God" includes the infinite, our ability to quantify the effect of God's existence (so as to establish probability of that existence) is lost to us. And this is why I say that the probability that God exists is exactly the same as the probability that God does not exist: because such probability cannot possibly be established once we define God's existence as infinite, which almost all people do, these days.

Is this fact? Or is this assertion based on what you want to believe is fact? Why does the concept of god being infinite restrict our ability to assess the probability of his actuality?

Yes, you can successfully argue against claims of "supernatural phenomena" using reasoned probability. But this argument does nothing to support or deny the existence of "God". You can rattle a few religious believers, by poking at their irrational superstitions regarding God and their belief that God performs "supernatural" feats, but all you've done is argue against a minor aspect of religious idealizations of God. You will have done nothing to actually discredit the assertion that God exists.

Is your god not to be classified as a supernatural character? Is your god's creation of the universe not to be classified as a supernatural event? Since science has not come across a single falsifiable supernatural claim that could not be debunked why does this fact not shed light on the validity of a supernatural god hypothesis?

To successfully argue that God does not perform "supernatural" feats is not the same as successfully arguing that God does not exist.

If one can successfully argue the probability that god performs supernatural feats is slim to none, your god becomes impotent at best.

I believe in the existence of a "God", but I do not believe that God performs supernatural feats, defying physical laws and altering the course or flow of existence. And in fact it's exactly because God does not meddle in the flow of existence that we can't "detect God", and therefor can't quantify God's effect and establish a probability for God's existence.

How could your god create the universe if he didn't defy physical laws and utilize his supernatural powers to make it so?

The "evidence" for my God-concept is all of existence. Including science. Existence itself is the "body of God". The way existence expresses itself is "God's nature/will" and my part in this divine expression is my "relationship" with God. It don't get more "real" then that.

It could get way more real. Your god could reveal himself in a way that would satisfy my skepticism as well as the skepticism of other nonbelievers. Instead he chooses to withhold evidence that would cause me and my atheist friends to accept your claims. Why did your god provide you with the evidence you required to accept his actuality but he won't do the same for us nonbelievers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK. What about those who have, like myself, experienced theophany? Do you accept that we have a valid reason to believe in God?

As reasons for theism goes, I suppose it's one of the better reasons, though what you call "theophany", I reserve the right to call "delusion".

On its face, though, it's no evidence at all for me. You can find many people the world over that have experienced what they consider to be extraordinary divine evidence for belief... beliefs that are mutually exclusive with other people who claim similar support. Someone must be wrong. Once we've established that at least one devout, honest person can be completely certain of experiencing God but be completely wrong, what reason do we have to give other similar claims any more weight?

 

[Storm]

LogDog, you're once again making the mistake of assuming an omnimax, supernatural deity to be the only concept of God. It isn't.

My God-concept bears no resemblence to such a thing, and from what I've read, I'm guessing that PureX's doesn't, either.

 

[Alex_G]

What is your God-concept Storm?

 

[Storm]

As reasons for theism goes,

Please note, I am not a theist. I do not believe in the supernatural, and while I do believe in "deities" for lack of a better word, I do not believe that God is such a creature.

I suppose it's one of the better reasons, though what you call "theophany", I reserve the right to call "delusion".

>sigh< Delusions are false beliefs strongly held in the face of invalidating evidence. There is no invalidating evidence for any God-concept, therefore they are not delusions.

As for theophany specifically being a delusion, that's been proven false by science. Neurotheology revealed theophany and self-induced mystical experience to be a very real neurological event, distinct from hallucination or seizure.

Sorry, but the misuse of "delusion" in reference to God-belief is a pet peeve of mine.

On its face, though, it's no evidence at all for me.

Now this is something I've never understood. I don't expect you to take my (or any) subjective experience as objective proof, but the widespread occurance of such experience is evidence. Inconclusive, yes, but evidence nonetheless.

You can find many people the world over that have experienced what they consider to be extraordinary divine evidence for belief... beliefs that are mutually exclusive with other people who claim similar support.

Yes. The problem is that we have no point of reference for such experiences. Because of this, we filter them through our relative, preexisting cultural frameworks. It's sadly inevitable that in many - perhaps all - cases, this results in mystics mistaking their own cultural biases for those of God.

Someone must be wrong.

All of us, in my belief. And yet, we each have a portion of the truth as well. Ever hear the parable of the blind sages and the elephant?

Once we've established that at least one devout, honest person can be completely certain of experiencing God but be completely wrong, what reason do we have to give other similar claims any more weight?

I don't think that can be established. The fact that we do not understand God does not imply, much less prove that God does not exist.

 

[Storm]

What is your God-concept Storm?

Complicated. I'll try to answer without completely derailing the thread, but please bear in mind that I'm oversimplifying.

I believe in what has been called a "living Godiverse." I believe that the universe as we know it is the infinitely complex interaction of three elements: divine matter, divine consciousness, and divine life-force.

As previously stated, I do not believe in the supernatural. I believe that the laws of nature are vital to the well-being of God.