Critics of atheism please come forward.

[Alex_G]

Interesting, the whole idea of God being the universe is as close to a God-concept as i come myself, but i find no distinction now between saying God is the universe, and the universe is just itself. So i dont think of it in terms of God. (in a nut shell - the best type of shell lol).

maybe i will start a thread on this

 

[PureX]

If god is a supernatural character, then there are ways of determining the probability of his actuality.

First, I'm not saying that God is supernatural. I'm saying that God is omninatural. And secondly, even if I were claiming that God is supernatural, there would be no natural quantifiers by which we could determine a supernatural state. EVERY natural test for the existence of a supernatural state would come up negative. It's like trying to quantify a sunset with a ruler.

We can test the validity of other alleged supernatural events to make determinations.

OTHER alleged supernatural events would be irrelevant.

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?

Not if they were reasonably intelligent. What would Joe's ability to levitate have to do with God's existence? And anyway, as has already been stated, the existence or non-existence of "supernatural" phenomenon neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. You're arguing an irrelevant tangent.

Why does the concept of god being infinite restrict our ability to assess the probability of his actuality?

Because we cannot quantify infinity. If God exists and is infinite in nature, then we finite beings would have no means by which to test that assertion. How would you test for infinity?

Is your god not to be classified as a supernatural character?

I do not believe that God, or anything else is "supernatural". I would define "God" as omninatural.

Is your god's creation of the universe not to be classified as a supernatural event?

Why would it be? The universe is itself, natural. Why should it's creation be considered anything but a natural 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?

It doesn't matter. I'm discussing the existence of "God", not the existence of supernatural phenomena. God is not a supernatural phenomena.

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

Not my God, because my concept of God is not "supernatural".

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

I don't know. But since human beings can "create" other human beings without breaking the laws of physics, I don't see why a God couldn't create a universe in a similar way.

Keep in mind that all that exists, is energy, and we have no real idea what energy is, or what governs it. All we know is that under certain conditions energy expresses itself in certain ways. Sometimes it expresses itself as matter. Sometimes as motion. Sometimes as space. Sometimes as light. Sometimes ... who knows what? We know very little about the nature of existence, how it works, how it originated, or how it ends.

This universe appears to have come into existence in a "Big Bang", but we don't really have any idea what that means. Nor what existed before it.

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?

God is not hiding. God is all around you, IN you, even. That you refuse to recognize this is neither God's doing nor mine.

 

[Storm]

Interesting, the whole idea of God being the universe is as close to a God-concept as i come myself, but i find no distinction now between saying God is the universe, and the universe is just itself. So i dont think of it in terms of God. (in a nut shell - the best type of shell lol).

maybe i will start a thread on this

The diference to my mind is that I see it as a living, sapient being.

 

[PureX]

Interesting, the whole idea of God being the universe is as close to a God-concept as i come myself, but i find no distinction now between saying God is the universe, and the universe is just itself. So i dont think of it in terms of God.

"God" is just a word represeting an idea. That idea is somewhat different for each of us. My idea of God tends to be left somewhat undefined and mysterious, because it involves concepts like infinity and perfection that I can't fully grasp as a limited and finite human being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Fair enough. I seized on the "theo" in "theophany", I think.

>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.

I'd disagree with your definition in the first paragraph here. I don't think that one necessarily needs invalidating evidence to be ignored for a belief to be a delusion.

At the risk of peeving you more, consider a schizophrenic who believes that demons are giving inaudible messages to him. There's no more invalidating evidence for his claim than there is for any person who claims to have witnessed a deity, but we consider schizophrenia to be delusional, right?

As for "neurotheology", I have to admit that I don't know that much about it beyond the controversy around studies where researchers claimed that religious experiences were the result of brain physiology and chemistry. What revelations are you referring to?

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.

Evidence of what, though?

That Jesus appears to Christian believers? The "evidence" from the Hindu and Muslim faithful who have experienced their deities would indicate this isn't the case.

That the Hindu pantheon works miracles on Earth? The Catholic Church has compiled centuries of accounts that contradict that idea.

Even in the larger sense that theophonic events could all be considered to be from the same deity (or mutually compatible group of deities) that wants to make itself known... does the evidence, both that from the believing witnesses and other evidence in the world at large, really support this idea?

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.

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?

Yes, but in the story, we the readers had the advantage of knowing that the creature in question was an elephant.

An elephant's trunk may feel like a snake, but so does a snake. It's important to realize the limits of our knowledge, but it's just as important to realize the implications of that same knowledge.

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.

Hmm. I'd take it as a virtual certainty that at least some claims of experiencing God are incorrect.

But you're right, it doesn't imply that God does not exist. It does, however, imply that a person's subjective experience is not proof of that existence.

However, since all that we have to go on as humans is our own subjective experience, I understand why the experience of directly encountering a deity would be compelling for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The diference to my mind is that I see it as a living, sapient being.

Interesting... sort of a large-scale version of a Boltzmann brain, perhaps?

However, that leads to one of my peeves: defining God/god/gods to be whatever the theist/deist wants it to be. When someone defines God/god/gods to be the universe, or to be "love"... well, since the universe, love, and many other things that people use as definitions for the Almighty do exist, it's impossible to present any logical argument against them. The question then becomes one of whether it's appropriate to define God/god/gods in those terms.

 

[Storm]

I'd disagree with your definition in the first paragraph here. I don't think that one necessarily needs invalidating evidence to be ignored for a belief to be a delusion.

It's straight out of the dictionary.

At the risk of peeving you more, consider a schizophrenic who believes that demons are giving inaudible messages to him. There's no more invalidating evidence for his claim than there is for any person who claims to have witnessed a deity, but we consider schizophrenia to be delusional, right?

Ah, neurological malfunction, a symptom of an illness which affects the brain. Theophany occurs commonly in healthy brains, and to me, that makes all the difference.

As for "neurotheology", I have to admit that I don't know that much about it beyond the controversy around studies where researchers claimed that religious experiences were the result of brain physiology and chemistry. What revelations are you referring to?

Well, I'm no neurologist, but as I understand it the key distinction is altered functioning in the occipital parietal lobe, which regulates one's sense of the spatial boundaries and orientation of the body.

I'm afraid I'm lmited to a layman's understanding. If you're interested in the field, I recommend Why God Won't GO Away for a vastly superior explanation.

Evidence of what, though?

Of God's existence. Not it's nature or goals, just that there's "something out there." A stimulus to which we are responding.

That Jesus appears to Christian believers? The "evidence" from the Hindu and Muslim faithful who have experienced their deities would indicate this isn't the case.

That the Hindu pantheon works miracles on Earth? The Catholic Church has compiled centuries of accounts that contradict that idea.

And we're back to the cultural framework. These are the symbols that we project onto the reality in an attempt to comprehend it. The conflict only comes when we forget that they are symbols.

Even in the larger sense that theophonic events could all be considered to be from the same deity (or mutually compatible group of deities) that wants to make itself known... does the evidence, both that from the believing witnesses and other evidence in the world at large, really support this idea?

I think that what little, admittedly inconclusive evidence there is supports the idea that there is an actual stimulus as opposed to a mass delusion. No more.

Yes, but in the story, we the readers had the advantage of knowing that the creature in question was an elephant.

I fail to see how that's relevant to the message of the parable...

An elephant's trunk may feel like a snake, but so does a snake. It's important to realize the limits of our knowledge, but it's just as important to realize the implications of that same knowledge.

You just summed up my point beautifully.

Hmm. I'd take it as a virtual certainty that at least some claims of experiencing God are incorrect.

Ah, we've been talking past one another. I've been referring to a very specific neurological event, whereas you're talking about all experiences attributed to God, yes?

But you're right, it doesn't imply that God does not exist. It does, however, imply that a person's subjective experience is not proof of that existence.

ITA

However, since all that we have to go on as humans is our own subjective experience, I understand why the experience of directly encountering a deity would be compelling for you.

Thank you.

 

[Hope]

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.

That's a decent analogy, but somewhat limited. Because "largeness" and "heaviness" are strictly physical definitions, whereas we are talking about a Being who isn't defined by a physical universe. He is outside the physical universe, as well as outside of space and time. He doesn't need to be supported like turtles do.

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

Well, you have a point there. Why does God exist? I don't know. Neither science nor religion are able to really answer that. I'm just glad He does exist.

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.

And I would agree. But we're not arguing over whether Christianity, or Islam, or any other specific expression of theism is rational. We are simply arguing that a belief in God, in its most general sense, is not irrational, as so many atheists claim it is.

 

[Hope]

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.

The not knowing doesn't really bug me. I guess, unlike atheists, I just accept that my finite mind will never know the answer to everything, at least while in this life.

But I admire atheists' curiosity.

 

[Storm]

Interesting... sort of a large-scale version of a Boltzmann brain, perhaps?

Hmm, I've never encountered that idea before.

However, I don't think they're really similar.

However, that leads to one of my peeves: defining God/god/gods to be whatever the theist/deist wants it to be.

My desires have nothing to do with it. Honestly, I'd prefer to believe in a loving omnimax deity looking out for me, but that doesn't make sense to my mind.

I believe that humans are incapable of truly understanding God, but I am compelled to try anyway. My current beliefs are merely my best guess at an unsolvable puzzle.

When someone defines God/god/gods to be the universe, or to be "love"... well, since the universe, love, and many other things that people use as definitions for the Almighty do exist, it's impossible to present any logical argument against them.

Not my problem.

The question then becomes one of whether it's appropriate to define God/god/gods in those terms.

What is inappropriate about my brand of panentheism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's straight out of the dictionary.


Ah, neurological malfunction, a symptom of an illness which affects the brain. Theophany occurs commonly in healthy brains, and to me, that makes all the difference.

But my point is that you do not need to present a schizophrenic with evidence that demons are not actually talking to him to characterize his belief that they are as a delusion, do you?

Of God's existence. Not it's nature or goals, just that there's "something out there." A stimulus to which we are responding.

Still, though: many people (myself included, occasionally) experience feelings of dread when we go into a dark basement. Is that evidence that there actually is something lurking in the shadows?

And we're back to the cultural framework. These are the symbols that we project onto the reality in an attempt to comprehend it. The conflict only comes when we forget that they are symbols.

Which implies a certain type of universalism that many would disagree with.

I think that what little, admittedly inconclusive evidence there is supports the idea that there is an actual stimulus as opposed to a mass delusion. No more.

However, every person who experienced that stimulus shares one characteristic: he or she had a human brain, whose function we do not fully understand.

I fail to see how that's relevant to the message of the parable...

Because you're characterizing the knowledge we have as the elephant, when there's no reason to think that it's not a separate tree, fan, wall, snake and rope... or that it is an elephant, and the one blind man has ahold of an actual snake.

You're assuming facts not in evidence in order to characterize the situation at hand in a certain way.

Ah, we've been talking past one another. I've been referring to a very specific neurological event, whereas you're talking about all experiences attributed to God, yes?

I'm not about "all", but no, I wasn't limiting things to a particular event in the occipital parietal lobe, though I think doing so would make me start to look for physiological, biochemical and other natural factors that effect that part of the brain specifically.

ITA

ITA? Don't know that one.

 

[Storm]

ITA = I Totally Agree

As for the rest, I need a break. Will get back to you later.

 

[Kungfuzed]

My point is that atheism is the disbelief of the theist's proposition. To believe there is no God is a contradiction of terms. If there is no God, then beliefs regarding gods is irrelevant. Once the theist's proposition vanishes, atheism becomes moot. Atheism only exists as a reaction to theism. Without it's antagonist, theism, it has no content of it's own.

This is why if I ask an atheist to define the God he claims not to believe in, he must use a theist's definition. Because without the theist's idea of God, the atheist has no god to disbelieve in. In fact, his position has no content whatever. Even the label "atheist" depends on "theist" for it's content.

That makes sense. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God. You can't expect someone to define something that doesn't exist. Even theists can't agree on a definition of God.

Although Atheism is defined by a lack of belief in God, I hope people don't think that Atheists are beliefless people. We do believe in many things, just not God.

 

[rojse]

Religions does not generate morals. We watch the news, about priests who have abused their positions (it is a small minority) but this goes to prove that religion does not dictate morals.

On the other hand, despite my atheism, I have done a lot of charity work, for a variety of organisations (not involved in court sentencing, either), and if religion dictated my morals, why was I working so hard for groups that I did not benefit from?

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

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.

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814


Good morals did not come by religion alone, philosophy played its role also. I would venture to say that we would not enjoy some of the personal freedoms we have today (such as freedom of religion). If it where not for these original/freethinkers that deviated from some of the flaw ethical teaching of holy script. If your only reason to do the ethical right is because you where told to. Than that is not morality at all, that is just obedience.

Here is a list of Athiest philosphers some very influential.

Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I think we all can tell right from wrong by ourselves if we put our minds and hearts to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Not really that different for an atheistic POV. We just simply say the buck stops here. The eternal is right at out feet and right in front of our eyes; let&#8217;s go explore it.

In concept it really is not that different.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that atheism is the disbelief of the theist's proposition. To believe there is no God is a contradiction of terms. If there is no God, then beliefs regarding gods is irrelevant. Once the theist's proposition vanishes, atheism becomes moot. Atheism only exists as a reaction to theism. Without it's antagonist, theism, it has no content of it's own.

This is why if I ask an atheist to define the God he claims not to believe in, he must use a theist's definition. Because without the theist's idea of God, the atheist has no god to disbelieve in. In fact, his position has no content whatever. Even the label "atheist" depends on "theist" for it's content.

This indicates a very shallow understanding of atheistic philosophy. I don't just merely disbelieve claims of theism; it is so much more than that. I just used the idea that there is no God as a starting point. I seek the same fulfillment for life just as any other person. I define my understanding as to the nature of life and existence. Based off the idea that there is no God or supernatural forces (yes a belief). Perhaps if you would not define atheism by what you find in the dictionary (as I am sure if I did the same to theist it would annoy them) and pick up a book or two on atheistic philosophies. You might find enlightenment and practical methods to approach life.

Or maybe theism is just the disbelief of the atheistic proposition. I mean what came first the theist or the atheist? Atheism is not a new idea we have been here right along side the theist the whole time. It has a lot more thought and structure than you give it credit.

And...

I define God in my own terms no middle man needed.

The ideal perfect human that people strive to achieve a likeness of. Or that that can not be understood.

 

[Smoke]

Some people worship themselves, some their car, others their home, some people worship their spouse or children. You can even worship your government, your country, and your home city. Worship does not have to be done to only a deity, but to anything. Their must be something that is important to you, every person I have known has at least one thing that is important to them.

Why are Christians always saying that? It makes no sense at all. Just because something is important to you, doesn't mean you worship it. Ask yourself: Is there anything in the world, anything at all other than God that's important to you? Family, friends, anything at all? Do you worship everything that's important to you?

I always watch the Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort ones. They're always good for a chuckle.

They make my head hurt. What a couple of morons. I felt the same when I was a Christian.

The more prominent atheists of today such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are evangelizing.

So?

I'll grant you the whole banana thing was stretching it a bit, but the atheists' response to the origin of the universe is also laughable. Two objects collided?? But where did those objects come from?

Where did God come from?

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.

An eternally existent God makes absolutely no more sense than an eternally existent universe. However, I have never, ever heard a scientist claim that the universe is without beginning. They do admit to the difficulty of knowing what happened before the universe began. There is no shame in admitting that you don't know what you don't know, although people who believe in divine revelation seem to have trouble understanding that.

 

[Smoke]

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.

Actually, it's not at all logical.

P: Something or someone must have eternal, uncaused existence.
C: Therefore, God has eternal, uncaused existence.

I have to admit it's uncomplicated, though.

 

[kmkemp]

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814


Good morals did not come by religion alone, philosophy played its role also. I would venture to say that we would not enjoy some of the personal freedoms we have today (such as freedom of religion). If it where not for these original/freethinkers that deviated from some of the flaw ethical teaching of holy script. If your only reason to do the ethical right is because you where told to. Than that is not morality at all, that is just obedience.

It is a certainty that every person on this planet that is of age to show good moral judgment has, at some point, been taught right from wrong. Therefor all morality stems from obedience, which, is itself, moral.

Here is a list of Athiest philosphers some very influential.

Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I think we all can tell right from wrong by ourselves if we put our minds and hearts to it.

Not by ourselves, but through that little voice in our head that has always guided us.

Or maybe theism is just the disbelief of the atheistic proposition. I mean what came first the theist or the atheist? Atheism is not a new idea we have been here right along side the theist the whole time. It has a lot more thought and structure than you give it credit.

That is not logical. There cannot be a negative position to a position that does not yet exist. If there was an atheist some eons ago that said, "I don't believe in God", the next question would have to be, "What is God?". No matter how badly you want to classify atheism apart from theism, it cannot be done so in any meaningful way.

 

[matthew.william]

When religion goes bad and starts slaughtering and oppressing people, atheism is preferable.

Atheism is decidedly a step up from the sort of religious superstition that kills people for supposedly cavorting with demons, being "witches", daring to assert scientific observation over unnecessarily literal interpretations of scriptures, or simply being members of another religion.

Historically, atheistic countries are more likely to oppress and/or slaughter their own. North Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Cambodia, Albania, etc. If you look around the world today, Christians are being held in North Korea's Camp 22, simply for holding or professing a belief. Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China are all governments which oppose religion and are right now murderously opposed to people who simply have beliefs.

~matthew.william~

 

[Smoke]

Historically, atheistic countries are more likely to oppress and/or slaughter their own.

That statement reveals a very limited acquaintance with history.

North Korea, Vietnam, Russia, Cambodia, Albania, etc. If you look around the world today, Christians are being held in North Korea's Camp 22, simply for holding or professing a belief. Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China are all governments which oppose religion and are right now murderously opposed to people who simply have beliefs.

Not simply for having beliefs, but for having beliefs that are contrary to Marxism as those governments understand it. Arbitrary and dogmatic belief systems are just as repulsive when they're atheistic as when they're theistic.