Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[raph]

Interesting post, and to a large extent I would agree. However, I think there is a line. When someone's faith in something impacts on someone else in a direct manner, then being unable to rationalise it is a problem (imho)

Yes. Faith should not affect other people.

Do you perceive atheism as an active stance that somehow demands a justification?

Imo it is an active stance. Atheists dont lack a belief about God. Atheists have a belief about God. You answet the question "is there a God or gods?" With no. You dont say "I cant answer"

Therefore you claim that my belief is false and I could demand a justification.

But I dont really care aslong as atheists dont claim, that it is somehow a true belief and others are false.

Morals fulfill a very obvious, practical purpose, and they can and must be judged for their value. I am not sure what you mean by the lack of an argument for them. Is anyone challenging their existence, or what?

That morals somehow exist in our heads or at least in mine, is a sure thing. But you cant argue which morals are better then others.

Can you prove that I shouldnt explode the earth?

That is an overused concept. It has no clear meaning at all, and as a matter of fact I don't think it can have any meaning whatsoever except as an attempt at providing an explanation to a certain logical contradiction of some conceptions of God.

Free will is complicated.

Free will for me: at least some of my actions are not bound by the world
Free will: my actions are bound by the world and a smart scientist could predict them.

"either of them is true", would be merely an unproven belief.

 

[Erebus]

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to?

So far, no atheist has managed to convince me that theism isn't worth my time. Theism being worth my time is probably the strongest argument there is for me to be a theist. Your mileage may vary. The arguments against theism tend to be centered on either theism being unreasonable (and also presumably, reason being somehow objective and inherently desirable) or some semi-mystical bull about atheists having "the truth." I've seen very few practical arguments in favour of atheism and, so far, none that could convince me that my own theism is no longer worth it.

I maintain an agnostic approach. To me, the truth of god/s existence is inherently unknowable. I hold this position for a few reasons:
1. Humans are imperfect and so their perception of the universe is also likely to be imperfect.
2. The universe is so vast and so little has been explored that it strikes me as arrogant for our species to assume we've arrived at some great truth about it.
3. I consider doubt to be a more intellectually honest position than certainty.

So, the truth of god/s is unknowable. More than that, truth itself is likely unknowable. Whether you lean towards theism or atheism at this point is pretty much entirely down to personal taste. I've always been fascinated by mythology and folklore, so I decided to incorporate various pagan gods into my worldview. For the most part, this is largely expressed through a sort of nature worship. Thor literally is thunder, Poseidon is the sea, Erebus is darkness and so on. Incorporating these archetypes into the way I view the world enriches my life, it adds an extra hint of poignancy to the natural world. Theism suits me fine.

Atheism on the other hand is ... well it's just boring. It's certainly preferable to some forms of zealous theism, but for somebody like myself? I've honestly never seen a good reason to drop my theism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have found no compelling arguments for or against the existence of God. There is just as much faith required to be an atheist as there is to be a theist. Only the agnostic can claim to not need faith, and I have yet to meet a pure agnostic. In other words there is no intellectual benefit to believe or to disbelieve. You either do or don't and it's all good if you treat everyone with kindness and respect.

It's supernatural, silly! Trying to prove or disprove the spiritual with the non-spiritual is like trying to measure the ocean using a grain of rice.

So believe or disbelieve all you want. You won't have a problem with me unless you want me to pander to any bigotry. You're not superior either way, so stop acting like it.

 

[1AOA1]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

Reason and logic start off with God already existing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

There's a certain line of personal conviction that some people simply will not cross when it comes to questioning their presuppositions, or biases, or preferential conclusions. So to that point, I say that yes I have come across arguments that I have not been able to dismantle. But on the whole, no. Most personal convictions are based on the same faulty conclusions as anything else. It just takes a little poking to get people to realize it.

 

[allfoak]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

The existence of God is proven through experience.
This experience starts with living out your highest ideal in life.

Know thyself and you will know your creator.

The most ironic part of this is that we live in the mind of God like a fish lives in water.
Our entire experience is completely dependent upon our creator, yet somehow we seem to think that we exist completely autonomous from everything but our own mind and body.

Everything is connected.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I've honestly never seen a good reason to drop my theism.

Really wanting to know the truth might be a good reason.

 

[1AOA1]

Evaluated by adherents perhaps most of all, but also by non-believers.

Theistic religion as a phenomenon in the world can be evaluated through theism or materialism. Just like you can have naturalistic theories about earthquakes that exclude God, you can have naturalistic theories about a theistic religion phenomenon that excludes God. When materialism excludes God to speak of theistic religion phenomena, God is usually confined to the word "God" in the sentence but removed from other words. For example, for the event "People were on their way to church to worship God" in materialism, the definition of the people, among other aspects in the phenomenon, excludes God.

 

[Erebus]

Really wanting to know the truth might be a good reason.

I want to believe this is a joke, given what I wrote in my post. Unfortunately, exposure to the internet has made it very hard for me to tell when people are being sarcastic.

Help me out here

 

[McBell]

Let's see...

-Meditation has been scientifically proven to be beneficial to mental health, IIRC.
-A sense of cultural unity within a group is generally a good thing because it ensures survival of said group, and shared rituals can help foster this.
-Dawn will always return. (At far as humans living on Earth's surface will ever be concerned.)

...or do these not count as "religious arguments" because they're not central to Christianity? Or make much in the way of reference to stories?

Um...
How do they evidence the existence of a deity?
Or that a specific religious belief system is the "one true way"?

 

[McBell]

The question assumes that reason somehow stands alone and is not dependent on anything itself. Reason acts on evidence and arbitrary restrictions on evidence cripple one's ability to reason. Another assumption is that arbitrarily restricting evidence to the empirical realm (or purported reports of it) is the only legitimate evidence to draw on when using reason. In any case, I believe it so happens that scripture is a report of empirical evidence. As prophets interact with God empirically and consequently report (as scripture) that He exists; and that coupled with the fact that a cohesive agreement exists among those prophets over the millennia concerning God's existence as well as His nature is legitimate evidence to reason upon.

It is a matter of choice what one chooses to reason upon and it is not legitimate to say that some evidence should be arbitrarily excluded. If you choose to exclude scripture, I believe you are stifling your ability to reason. If you simply do not like scriptural evidence... then there is nothing to talk about.

Now that is a nice post of double talk.

 

[leibowde84]

My God exists because the universe exists.

lol ... I think this is exactly what the OP is complaining about.

 

[Gharib]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

I think atheism fails quite badly in it's arguments too, possibly even worse than those presented for religion.

The worst I've seen as a cop out during discussions about God is, "well if I cant see it or touch it then it doesn't exist" as if there aren't about a billion things a person has not seen or touched which he already believes in.

 

[Quintessence]

In honesty, if one isn't capable of finding copious amounts of reasonable "arguments" (maybe not the right word to use in many cases) about religions, one of two things is going on:

• Lack of Education. Some religions dedicate an entire discipline of their study towards the ends of presenting cases for themselves, or explaining the reasoning behind them to outsiders. On top of that, there's entire academic units dedicated to the study of religions and the reasons behind its various facets from anthropological psychological, sociological, and even biological angles. There are literally trainloads of "arguments" out there to be found if one takes the time to look. But this brings us to an important second point...
• Confirmation Bias. At times, people are not capable of recognizing a given well-reasoned "argument" because they are too emotionally or personally invested in their own perspective. They have already decided what the "correct" answer is, and tune out anything that doesn't match their preconceived notions. Put another way, because they personally disagree with the reasoning, they then label it as unreasonable or illogical, even when the argument follows. All arguments contain the elements of their own demise, meaning all arguments, religious or irreligious can be defeated with "reason" and "logic." Yes, our arguments make sense to ourselves, but believe it or not, they're completely irrational and unreasonable to someone else and that doesn't mean they're an idiot or that we're right and they're wrong.

There's a third thing going on, which is probably the most severe problem at all when it comes to dialogues about religions in my culture. That's people generally missing the point of religion in the first place such that they think "arguments" grounded on reason and logic are what matters. Some people have this bizarre notion that it is appropriate to analyze religions as if they were hard science. This is quite frankly befuddling. The arts - of which religions have much more in common with - are not and never have been about enshrining Enlightenment-era values that our culture seems to love putting on a pedestal nowadays. It has never been about Enlightenment-style "reason" as much as experience and emotion and storytelling and community. That we don't see the emotional, personal, artistic, and social benefits of religion to be reason enough for them, I think that speaks very poorly of our society and we need to bring back the Romantics.

 

[Augustus]

That we don't see the emotional, personal, artistic, and social benefits of religion to be reason enough for them, I think that speaks very poorly of our society and we need to bring back the Romantics.

But. They. Are. Not. Objectively. True.

I mean, simply gaining numerous benefits from a belief system is no reason to actually hold it. It is far more rational to discard these many benefits in order to pursue the virtue of seeking objective 'truth' (which is in no way a subjective and unprovable 'transcendental' ideal).

My secular humanist values, on the other hand, are scientific fact. I mean there's no actual evidence for this, but they are scientific fact.

Sky daddy, inquisition, jihad, Hitler was a Christian, etc.

 

[Mackerni]

I fall somewhere between a believer and a non-believer. I accept science for what it is and what humanity can potentially achieve with concepts like science. I equate "faith" to "hope" and I recognize that hope is indeed important. I believe the purpose of life is to "become free" otherwise, to clarify, "allow more options."

As a non-believer of all current religions, I try to interpret what the prophets said to reflect in my own life. Sometimes I find meaning in it, sometimes I don't. Dismantling it in my brain is a simple process of deductive reasoning. Sometimes I share that, sometimes I don't. I don't view anyone any more important than other people in general, hence my influence from liberal theologies like modern Unitarianism.

As a believer of everything else (literally), I find non-believers lacking in any direction. They do what they do but they don't know why they are doing it. It fulfills a life goal, makes them happy, all these things are great and completely worth living for, but I need a point. That point for me are my futurist-esque says like, "Nature Becomes Divine" "Determined for Libertarianism" "Will of Conscious" and more. I cannot accept in no afterlife, but I cannot accept in a supernatural afterlife either, so what I've declared for myself is a natural afterlife that somehow exists due to the efforts of future civilizations. In that regard I am hoping for a sort-of natural divinity.

 

[David1967]

To a degree, that's where I find myself too.
I'm happy to give people plenty of space for their own personal beliefs, and see no need to try and 'pick them apart'.
I like to understand them because;
1) Some beliefs do impact or even harm me and mine
2) Some beliefs can add to my worldview, regardless of my views on their religiosity
3) I'm a curious bugger, particularly when it comes to social psychology

But a lot of beliefs don't really fit into any of those categories, and I see no need to needle them.

Gosh, I have to say that I agree with you 100%.

 

[Quintessence]

I mean, simply gaining numerous benefits from a belief system is no reason to actually hold it. It is far more rational to discard these many benefits in order to pursue the virtue of seeking objective 'truth' (which is in no way a subjective and unprovable 'transcendental' ideal).

It never ceases to amuse me how analogous this sort of mindset is to the same religious fundamentalism that is complained about.

It also somewhat saddens me that so many arguments about (ir)religion are often better understood through the lens of animal behavior. If we watch it, these spats are perfect demonstrations of animals posturing to assert dominance over others in their clan. Sometimes, I wish we'd just admit that's really what these arguments all boil down to instead of getting all self-important and about it. Alas, an inflated sense of self-importance and anthropocentrism seems quite firmly rooted in us.

 

[Erebus]

I fall somewhere between a believer and a non-believer. I accept science for what it is and what humanity can potentially achieve with concepts like science. I equate "faith" to "hope" and I recognize that hope is indeed important. I believe the purpose of life is to "become free" otherwise, to clarify, "allow more options."

As a non-believer of all current religions, I try to interpret what the prophets said to reflect in my own life. Sometimes I find meaning in it, sometimes I don't. Dismantling it in my brain is a simple process of deductive reasoning. Sometimes I share that, sometimes I don't. I don't view anyone any more important than other people in general, hence my influence from liberal theologies like modern Unitarianism.

As a believer of everything else (literally), I find non-believers lacking in any direction. They do what they do but they don't know why they are doing it. It fulfills a life goal, makes them happy, all these things are great and completely worth living for, but I need a point. That point for me are my futurist-esque says like, "Nature Becomes Divine" "Determined for Libertarianism" "Will of Conscious" and more. I cannot accept in no afterlife, but I cannot accept in a supernatural afterlife either, so what I've declared for myself is a natural afterlife that somehow exists due to the efforts of future civilizations. In that regard I am hoping for a sort-of natural divinity.

Out of interest, have you ever looked into transhumanism? Some aspects of your post suggest you might find it an interesting area to explore.

 

[LuisDantas]

Imo it is an active stance. Atheists dont lack a belief about God. Atheists have a belief about God. You answet the question "is there a God or gods?" With no. You dont say "I cant answer"

Therefore you claim that my belief is false and I could demand a justification.

But I dont really care aslong as atheists dont claim, that it is somehow a true belief and others are false.

Your uinderstanding of atheism needs quite some work. You are reading from some work of fiction and mistaking it for the real thing.

Also, I fail to see any reason why people need justification to disagree with your arbitrary beliefs.
]