Critics of atheism please come forward.

[Smoke]

The highest estimates I have seen for death tolls is 11,500,000. so 11,500,000 over 30 years is an average of about 384,000 deaths a year. Now The Cultural Revolution began after the Great Leap Forward in 1966, and it ended in 1976 at the latest. Death tolls over 10 years: about 4,000,000, which is 400,000 a year.

I can well believe 11,500,000 is the highest estimate you've seen. It's far higher than any figure I've seen. Nevertheless, you could use that figure, or triple it, and my point would still stand. Please look up the word "percentage."

What difference does it make whether it's called a religion or not? It's still atheism, correct?

However, it's not rational. Atheism just means you don't believe in god; it doesn't say anything about what you do believe. The fanciful beliefs of Communists are as objectionable to me as the fanciful beliefs of theists.

Russia and China both saw their communist ideals as scientific. Their country WAS science to them. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all saw that Darwin and the theory of evolution was central to their ideals.

Nevertheless, they were not scientific.

As for Islamic science and "creation science"...I can't think you really believe it's as idealogical as Russia and China's mass murders of those who opposed their views.

Certainly they are. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, a nation that attacks another usually has more of a reason than "they think differently", and usually is about land, power, and money. Religion is a great way for popes and kings to inspire their underlings to die for them, but something else was the motivator for those popes and kings. Again, land, power, money, etc. There are exceptions, but not very many.

So... when theist leaders kill people, they're perverting or mis-using theism, but when atheists kill people, it's somehow representative of atheism?

I included the qualifier because a country that kills it's own gains nothing but dead citizens, and showcases how very little these countries care for their own, and how little human worth is to them.

And somehow you think atheists are more predisposed to place a low value on human life than theists?

What proportion of the combatants in the US Civil War do you think were atheist?

In my own family history, there were three major events of wholesale human suffering. Two of them (the Highland Clearances and the Irish Potato famine) were brought about under a government that has its own state-sanctioned denomination of Christianity. The other (the American Revolution) occurred in a predominantly Christian country.

Also, your qualifier neatly gets rid of one of the great reasons why theists murder people: because "God is on their side".

I am aware of the past offenses of colonial Europe, and the Middle Age church, but in the last century, in this age of enlightenment, who is still doing the slaughtering?

- Muslims (Darfur)
- Muslims (Iraq)
- Buddhists and Hindus (Sri Lanka)
- Sikhs and Hindus (Punjab and elsewhere)
- Christians and Muslims (Kosovo)
- Christians (Rwanda)
- Christians (East Timor)
- Christians (South Africa)
- Jews and Muslims (Israel)
- etc.
- etc.

Apologies for the Wikipedia links; I'm sure if you want to research the topics in depth, you'll find a source that's more trustworthy on controversial topics like these.


Agreed, whole-heartedly.

What is the "naturalistic worldview" of the Brights?

To quote their web site, "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements."

What's the specific mindset?

Worship of a particular person (or persons) and/or a political ideal as mandated by the authorities in power.

Atheism is defined as "disbelief in God, or gods." Just because Kim Jong-Il has raised himself to the highest authority doesn't make it incompatible with atheism.

Not as a concept, no; the worship of Kim Jong-Il is definitely not theism, so it's quite possible that it can be described as "without theism" and hence be within the realm of atheism... but my point was that "Kim Jong-Il worship" is likely incompatible with the beliefs of every atheist who hasn't been heavily indoctrinated to worship him. Holding up Kim Jong-Il or Stalin as an example of atheism is as misrepresentative as holding up David Koresh or Armand-Amaury, the Abbot of Citaux* as examples of theism.



* who, in 1209, when asked by the Crusaders what to do about the people who were a mix of Catholic and Cathar, responded "tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens", or "Kill them all; God will know those who are His."

Ahh! Good point! Frubals!

Thanks.

Such as?

Most political beliefs held by atheists in the United States, for example.

 

[Hope]

If you worship things other than god, is it really accurate to say that you are a Christian? Wouldn't that make you some sort of idolator instead?

Worshipping God is not the first requirement for being a Christian. Belief is the first requirement. Worship is what folllows naturally from belief. I do believe, and I do worship God. Therefore, I am a Christian.

However, you are right....anything we worship more than God is an idol. So, yes, I humbly admit I have idols in my life, that I'm striving to eradicate. But having them does not mean I'm not a Christian. It just means I'm as sinful and flawed as the next person.

You can deflect this argument on me all you want---I could care less. I merely wanted to clarify that all humans worship something or someone. And you are not excluded, simply because you are an atheist.

There are all kinds of theoretical possibilities. Suppose that you are correct and that the universe was created by an uncaused deity. It doesn't automatically follow that that deity is eternal. It may have had both a beginning and an end.

Whether the deity I believe in has a beginning or an end has no effect whatsoever on the logical necessity of some type of eternal, self-subsistent, self-existent entity outside of the physical universe. I simply believe my God is that eternal, self-subsistent, self-existent entity. Could I be wrong? Certainly. That's where faith comes in. But your argument stands on one foot, because you can no more explain with certainty what this eternal, self-existent entity is either.

But the whole idea is problematic. Does time as we know it exist outside the universe? Whatever caused the universe, whether it was a deity or an instanton or whatever, is it meaningful to talk about whether the deity or the instanton is caused? Is it possible for us to understand "causes" that occur outside of time? If we say that the deity or instanton is uncaused, what are we really saying? Understanding how the cause of the universe came to be may be something that's just beyond us.

That's a very unsatisfying reply, I'm afraid. You are falling back on the same type of argument theists use. Understanding how God came to be may be something that's just beyond us as well.

For starters, I don't have any reason to believe that God exists in the first place, much less any reason to believe that he has the attributes ascribed to him by believers.

Ah, the standard tactic of so many atheists. If all else fails, attack the attributes of God, and use that as your reason for not believing. That's a purely emotional response and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I am not specifying the existence of the Christian God at all. I am merely pointing out the plausability of the existence of a God.

It seems to me that what your argument comes down to is that theism is "better" because it provides answers; however, you don't provide any reason for thinking that those answers are correct.

Because that is not the point of this debate. Not unless you want it to be.

Suppose we ask who your 50th-great-grandmother in the female line was. (That is, who was your mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother?)

We know that such a woman must have actually existed. We can reasonably suppose that she was born between 600 and 2600 years ago, most likely in the 5th or 6th century of the common era. Unless she was a member of a royal family, it's unlikely that her name is known or, at this point, knowable. Mitchondrial DNA might give us a few clues about her, but basically, she's likely to remain unknown. If someone claimed to know through revelation that her name was Pamela Quinn and that she kept a tavern at Tullamore, it would be reasonable to reject that claim as completely baseless. It would be absurd to claim that the Pamela Quinn theory was superior because it had "solved" the question of your 50th-great-grandmother's identity.

The things theists claim to know about their deities are equally implausible, and unlike your 50th-great-grandmother, deities aren't even known to exist.

I'm not sure where this type of argument fits in?? Again, I am not at all discussing the attributes of the specific God I believe in, or why I believe in the specific God I do. If you'd like to discuss this in greater length, I'd be more than happy to in another thread. But it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

 

[Hope]

A wonderful argument for the plausability of the existence of God, from scholar Dallas Willard, in the book Does God Exist?. He explains much better than I ever could some reasons that belief in God is just as rational, if not more so, than non-belief. He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle’s well-known four “causes.” Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it contains. This means that for any given state---for example, Voyager II being past Triton----all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of “efficient” causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.

Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed, and it specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds its place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. There is in it at least one “cause,” one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.

If this were not so, Voyager’s passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, an incompletable series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never “get to” it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent.

 

[Hope]

More from Dallas Willard:

This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or “natural” world. It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe, if by that we mean an all-inclusive totality of entities and events of the familiar or scientific physical variety.

Finally, it will be objected by some that, though the series of causes for any physical state is finite, the first physical event or state in the series could have come into existence without a cause----could have, in short, originated “from nothing.” Many discussions today seem to treat the “Big Bang” in this way, though of course that would make it totally unlike any other “bang” of which we have any knowledge. “Big Bang” mysticism is primarily attractive, I think, just because “the bang” has stepped into a traditional role of God, which gives it a nimbus and seems to rule out the normal questions we would ask about any physical event. That “bang” is often treated as if it were not quite or not just a physical event, as indeed it could not be. But what then could it be? Enter “scientific mysticism.” And we must at least point out that an eternally self-subsistent being is no more improbable than a self-subsistent event emerging from no cause. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, “An egg which came from no bird is no more ‘natural’ than a bird which had existed from all eternity.” (God in the Dock, 211)

 

[Smoke]

You can deflect this argument on me all you want---I could care less. I merely wanted to clarify that all humans worship something or someone. And you are not excluded, simply because you are an atheist.

Actually, I am, and your completely nonsensical definition of "worship" doesn't change that.

Whether the deity I believe in has a beginning or an end has no effect whatsoever on the logical necessity of some type of eternal, self-subsistent, self-existent entity outside of the physical universe.

Why do you think that's a logical necessity?

That's a very unsatisfying reply, I'm afraid. You are falling back on the same type of argument theists use. Understanding how God came to be may be something that's just beyond us as well.

If there were a God, his origin would presumably be beyond our understanding. That doesn't necessarily mean there he would have no origin.

Ah, the standard tactic of so many atheists. If all else fails, attack the attributes of God, and use that as your reason for not believing. That's a purely emotional response and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I am not specifying the existence of the Christian God at all. I am merely pointing out the plausability of the existence of a God.

It's very much to the point. It's meaningless to say that one believes in any god unless one is able to say what attributes such a god might have. What is it that makes God, God? A god with attributes is a fantasy; a god without any known attributes is nothing.

 

[Hope]

Actually, I am, and your completely nonsensical definition of "worship" doesn't change that.

It's not at all non-sensical. Only to you perhaps. Believe whatever you want.

Why do you think that's a logical necessity?

See my two previous posts.

If there were a God, his origin would presumably be beyond our understanding. That doesn't necessarily mean there he would have no origin.

Huh???

It's very much to the point. It's meaningless to say that one believes in any god unless one is able to say what attributes such a god might have. What is it that makes God, God? A god with attributes is a fantasy; a god without any known attributes is nothing.

Not at all meaningless. Another over-used ploy of atheists, that is, in itself, "meaningless." I'll provide a more in-depth response to that charge later. I gotta go now.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

What if at the end of the day atheism was right?

 

[Yerda]

What if at the end of the day atheism was right?

We'll never know.

 

[rojse]

And their communism/country is atheistic, so whether you qualify it as a religion or not is fine, but moot.

I would call it religion. Their Karl Marx was mummified, and millions of people went to visit him. They religiously read communist books, and everyone believed in the communist ideology.

My point is that they used communism as a religion, although it does not contain everything that we consider religious in nature. If I qualify it as a religion, you cannot say that it is both fine and moot.

Why has there been oppression and genocide in Iraq? South Africa's people are indeed mostly Christian, but is the oppression/genocide coming from them? No...in fact, it's communist factions opposed to christianity and other religions. Fancy that.

I believe that one religious majority killed another religious minority, in the Iraq situation.

And you have your facts the wrong way around, I believe that the communist parties were the ones that were opressed.

The South African Government passed the "Suppression of Communism" act in 1950, which is hardly the act of a reigeme that is an opressive communist country.

Admittedly, there were some white communism supporters within South Africa, but these hardly formed a majority, nor did they influence the racial segregation laws that passed. Their goals also differed vastly from the government's, considering that the supporters of communism wanted a one-person, one vote system, quite contrary to the South African government ideals of racial segregation and removal of rights, particularly political.

Would you live in any countries of state atheism?

I would, but not any of those currently available.

And you neglect the fact that many countries have written in their laws the separation of state and religion, so in that sense, they are atheist countries that allow religious worship, even to the extent that they allow religious people in office.

 

[logician]

A wonderful argument for the plausability of the existence of God, from scholar Dallas Willard, in the book Does God Exist?. He explains much better than I ever could some reasons that belief in God is just as rational, if not more so, than non-belief. He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

There are many theories about the origin of the universe, both scientific and theistic or at least not scientific. You just mention one of many. Check out the lastest issue of Skeptic magazine for a good synopsis of all the major theories.

 

[Yerda]

He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

Sounds like he ripped off Thomas Aquinas. I've been led to believe that this stuff has been tidily discredited as far back as Hume.

Nevertheless, an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe and God are not synonymous symbols.

Further, how would you differentiate between an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe and simply an uncaused event outside of our physical universe or any other universe?

 

[UnTheist]

He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

Which could be Zeus, Shiva, or Allah for all we know.

I guess you're stuck, then.

And everything else Jaiket said

 

[Hope]

Sounds like he ripped off Thomas Aquinas. I've been led to believe that this stuff has been tidily discredited as far back as Hume.

Nevertheless, an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe and God are not synonymous symbols.

Further, how would you differentiate between an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe and simply an uncaused event outside of our physical universe or any other universe?

Even if the guy supposedly "ripped off" Thomas Aquinas, the argument remains very sound. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could discredit it. And this particular argument was merely trying to show that the plausability of an uncaused entity such as God was as equally valid as the plausability of an uncaused event. I didn't include the next parts of the argument that go into detail about the likelihood of an uncaused entity as opposed to an uncaused event.

 

[Hope]

Which could be Zeus, Shiva, or Allah for all we know.

I guess you're stuck, then.

And everything else Jaiket said

Why do I keep having to repeat myself? :banghead3

I am not arguing for the existence of the Christian God. I am arguing for the existence of a God. I don't understand why people keep going back to the lazy argument of, "well, this doesn't prove that it's your God." Duh.

It was my understanding that this was a debate between atheists and theists, not atheists and Christians.

 

[Yerda]

Even if the guy supposedly "ripped off" Thomas Aquinas, the argument remains very sound. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could discredit it.

I'm sceptical, but I'll take your word for it 'til I can look into it further.

And this particular argument was merely trying to show that the plausability of an uncaused entity such as God was as equally valid as the plausability of an uncaused event.

OK. A logical possibility is not necessarily a plausible one.

While your God (any god apparently) hypotheses remains open to possibility as far as I can tell it is no more plausible than any other number of supernatural possibilities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A wonderful argument for the plausability of the existence of God, from scholar Dallas Willard, in the book Does God Exist?. He explains much better than I ever could some reasons that belief in God is just as rational, if not more so, than non-belief. He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

This statement:

Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed, and it specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds its place.

Contradicts this statement:

Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. There is in it at least one “cause,” one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.

Effectively, it is saying "no effects occur without a cause, therefore there must exist one effect without a cause." The first part contradicts the second.

It's a long-winded example of the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

[Hope]

Effectively, it is saying "no effects occur without a cause, therefore there must exist one effect without a cause." The first part contradicts the second.

It's a long-winded example of the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I don't see any contradiction at all if the entire argument is read. Picking out two statements and arbitrarily placing them side-by-side, while ignoring the "connecting dots," is also pleading. Such a method could debunk many an argument.

 

[Jeremiah]

A wonderful argument for the plausability of the existence of God, from scholar Dallas Willard, in the book Does God Exist?. He explains much better than I ever could some reasons that belief in God is just as rational, if not more so, than non-belief. He explains very well the logical necessity of an uncaused, eternal, self-existent entity outside of our physical universe.

I don’t see how this is relevant criticism of Atheism

Take for example.

Say we come up to a blue rubber ball in the middle of the road. Then for topic of discussion I told you my theory of how the ball arrived at that spot.

“Well there is a factory about 400 miles west of here that makes balls like this. So I think that one of the workers as they where walking by the conveyor belt trip on their untied shoelaces. Stumbling backwards they fell into the side of the conveyor belt with abruptness. The jolt caused serval balls to fly off the conveyor belt and bouncing balls shot off in all directions. One of the balls bounced in a slight upward tilt towards a closed door. Before the ball hit the door another worker coming in from break opened it. The ball flew through the opened door hit the paved road and bounced down the road to the intersection. Where at a stop sign a tuck waited. The ball bounced under that truck, up into the bumper and got stuck there. The truck on route drove with the ball stuck in its bumper for 350 miles. Than the vibration caused by a mechanical vehicle wiggled the ball loose. The ball bounced off the road and from the top of a gravel up rise rolled down into a rest area. Where a family of four (mom dad and two boys) were heading back to their car to continue the drive. On seeing the ball one of the boys picked it up and took it along for the ride. After about 49 miles the boys, with car windows rolled down began to throw the ball around in play. Due to lack of coordination one of the boys missed the ball and it flew out the window. Where it bounced and rolled from that intersecting road. At last came to a halt at this spot.”

Does that seem realistic? Is it possible?

We could probably spend the next 2000 years arguing over the logic of the bouncing blue ball. But with out any empirical evidence it remains an unprovable theory. So while supernatural theories may be demonstrated to be a very reasonable. It would still mean nothing to an atheist without empirical evidence to back it up. Until we can confirm any supernatural theories with empirical evidence they will stay theories.

 

[rojse]

Why do I keep having to repeat myself? :banghead3

I am not arguing for the existence of the Christian God. I am arguing for the existence of a God. I don't understand why people keep going back to the lazy argument of, "well, this doesn't prove that it's your God." Duh.

It was my understanding that this was a debate between atheists and theists, not atheists and Christians.

If this is true, why do you believe in the Christian God, then? If you argue for the existence of any God to create the universe, you could just as easily explain it with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.