Present arguments for atheism

[HekaMa'atRa]

Scientific hypotheses have the advantage of being backed up by our knowledge of physics and chemistry, and by observations

I wouldn't disagree with that, even though, with our current knowledge of physics and chemistry, scientists still subscribe to different theories about universal origins. However, in regards to the origin of life, I'd say scientists are little more...lost. We might know what early life looked like and what it was made of, but we still don't know what that spark was that turned chemicals and elements into a living thing.

Religious hypotheses are entirely unconstrained and are not backed up by either theoretical understanding or observations.

I disagree on the observations comment. People have been having religious and supernatural experiences for thousands of years. It might not be something that can be replicated or explained but it's still something they experienced. To write them all off as delusions or tricks of the mind would be foolish.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but do you mean like using Divine Will, Energy, Power, and Utterance to bring forth matter? Is this the mechanism you're looking for?

Good morning, HekaMa'atRa.

Sure! If those are the mechanisms to which you attribute causation of the origin of the universe, I think they'll work just fine.

IF a theistic or religious position is: "Science cannot satisfactorily, or with specificity, explain the origin of the universe in natural terms; I will then substitute for that set of unknowns the belief in mechanisms of Divine Will, Energy, Power and Utterance" yet are unable to satisfactorily explain those mechanisms with specificity, what is gained? It appears to be nothing, but rather, a modification of "I don't know." So, it's "I don't know +, as a statement of belief." Which, I am not stating that you gain nothing by your belief. If you didn't, I can only assume you wouldn't adhere to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that's a terrible argument. It would be similar to saying that an assumption that migrating birds are migrating to mars for the season, has the same validity as any other idea.

Come again? That analogy has nothing to do with what I just said.

No it isn't. Many theists have justification for their faiths. The fact that you don't, or a an atheist doesn't, does not affect this fact.

If they have justifications, why don't they give them when they're in situations like you described, i.e. they're having a discussion with an atheist, trying to convince the atheist that their god(s) exists, and have reached an impasse? Why would these theists keep their "big guns" in their pocket - every single time - if they have them?

Great....but this is a very broad statement, ie people believe all sorts of claims without knowing the arguments, etc.

Of course. I never said that all people are rational. We're all irrational to some degree; the trick is to change our opinions for the better when we're confronted with a rational belief
we hold, and to try to figure out where we're irrational so we can root it out.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Good morning, HekaMa'atRa.

Sure! If those are the mechanisms to which you attribute causation of the origin of the universe, I think they'll work just fine.

IF a theistic or religious position is: "Science cannot satisfactorily, or with specificity, explain the origin of the universe in natural terms; I will then substitute for that set of unknowns the belief in mechanisms of Divine Will, Energy, Power and Utterance" yet are unable to satisfactorily explain those mechanisms with specificity, what is gained? It appears to be nothing, but rather, a modification of "I don't know." So, it's "I don't know +, as a statement of belief." Which, I am not stating that you gain nothing by your belief. If you didn't, I can only assume you wouldn't adhere to it.

Good Morning!

Do you believe there's a possibility for other beings in the universe that have an intelligence so great that they are capable of things we cannot possibly comprehend? I hold this belief. I also hold this belief about the Divine. What's gained is a possible understanding of our early origins and our purpose in this universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Of course. I never said that all people are rational. We're all irrational to some degree; the trick is to change our opinions for the better when we're confronted with a rational belief
we hold, and to try to figure out where we're irrational so we can root it out.

"Irrational" is obviously just a codeword for subjective. The atheists like mister Spock try to get rid of all irrationality by which they mean get rid of all subjectivity. Get rid of the procedure to reach a conclusion by expression of emotion with free wil, and in stead have the existence of love, God and the soul be a matter of fact issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The teapot scenario is ridiculous. It presumes that the theism stance has no logic, to it, at all. It's not relevant.

It's a tautology - and therefore necessarily true - that a claim is unjustified until such time as it's justified.

For a god-claim to have greater merit than Russell's Teapot, it would need greater justification than Russell's Teapot. So... where's that justification? Even Russell's Teapot has "you can't prove it's NOT there" going for it. Russell's Teapot also has something else: the existence of teapots as a general class of "thing" is an established fact, so to prove Russell's Teapot, you would only need to demonstrate one specific case; you don't need to make a foundation with a general case for teapots.

What does theism have going for it that Russell's Teapot doesn't?

Well, theists are theists for different reasons, and have different ''evidence'', /or not/, for their theism. You would have to ask them that as individuals; I don't speak for theists, I disagree with many of them.

I have spoken to lots of them. I've also read many arguments from prominent theologians. Universally, their justifications and "evidence" have been garbage.

I can't exclude the possibility that there's someone out there who I've never talked to who has a really good argument for his gods, but at this point, I'm satisfied that I've evaluated the mainstream arguments for mainstream religions.

Great, except there is nothing irrational about theism. It is quite rational.
/again, irrelevance

For theism to be rational - i.e. to go from "I don't know" to "I accept that this god or gods exist", it would need rational justification. What is this justification?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Irrational" is obviously just a codeword for subjective. The atheists like mister Spock try to get rid of all irrationality by which they mean get rid of all subjectivity.

Don't presume to tell me what I mean. If you have trouble understanding me, ask me to explain. Putting words in somebody else's mouth is dishonest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Don't presume to tell me what I mean. If you have trouble understanding me, ask me to explain. Putting words in somebody else's mouth is dishonest.

Is that a rational fact that it is dishonest, or do you irrationally believe there is some invisible teapot called honesty determining human behaviour?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not how people /anyone/ forms their beliefs. It is an argument that fails as well, because it defeats it's own position. Ie , atheists cannot prove their claims, so they are back to simply presenting their opinions,

What claim do you think "atheists" are making?

Don't get me wrong: individual atheists make all sorts of claims - they're people, and people hold positions on all sorts of issues.

... but there's no "claim of atheism". There's just recognition of the fact that people don't believe a claim until they're convinced that it's true.

The teapot is fictional. The ''analogy'' doesn't work in the same way that any ''false''/ fictional analogy doesn't work. False analogies are not for serious arguments, it means the person doesn't know the subject.

The teapot is made up. Whether it's fictional - i.e. false - is an open question. It's certainly unjustified to believe in it, but there's always the possibility that Bertrand Russell just serendipitously made a correct guess. "Unjustified" doesn't necessarily mean "false"; a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And that's fine. It is your personal opinion.

Where do you think all these rational theists with excellent arguments have been hiding?

 

[Iti oj]

That was an analogy.

one that fails miserably. Do you believe in facts and that things are knowable?

This is not how people /anyone/ forms their beliefs. It is an argument that fails as well, because it defeats it's own position. Ie , atheists cannot prove their claims, so they are back to simply presenting their opinions,

The teapot is fictional. The ''analogy'' doesn't work in the same way that any ''false''/ fictional analogy doesn't work. False analogies are not for serious arguments, it means the person doesn't know the subject.


And that's fine. It is your personal opinion.

Why did you make this thread if when people give you an answer all you say that's an opinion. Neither can theist prove position, and since the non theist 'opinion' is the simpler one(less conjecture) we can reasonably and logically dismiss the theist one.

how is the tea pot a 'false analogy'? if it did not know why, when and why the tea pot argument came about it would be exactly like the theist position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that a rational fact that it is dishonest, or do you irrationally believe there is some invisible teapot called honesty determining human behaviour?

That's two. You have one more chance for respectful dialogue before you go on ignore.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Ie , atheists cannot prove their claims, so they are back to simply presenting their opinions,

This isn't really a problem.
Presenting opinions is what we typically do.
Disbelief has no evidence, so we know we're opining.

 

[Iti oj]

Your joking. But you aren't; that's not a relevant question.

No, this is your personal perspective that it is the simpler opnion /less conjecture. That is subjective, not a fact.

If you think that the teapot analogy is a good analogy, then this dialogue is over.

Yes it is relevant, you keep saying things like you can't know if santa exist or not or where birds migrate from, but you can... Do you reject facts and our ability to learn things?
No its logical. not subjective. At least so far as the logic works. As for the stipulation is depends on the claims and the evidence.
There has been no meaningful dialogue, you wont even say why its a bad analogy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's two. You have one more chance for respectful dialogue before you go on ignore.

Do you not see the respect and honesty pouring out the invisible teapot?

 

[Iti oj]

Do you not see the respect and honesty pouring out the invisible teapot?

its invisible how could you?

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

Good Morning!

Do you believe there's a possibility for other beings in the universe that have an intelligence so great that they are capable of things we cannot possibly comprehend? I hold this belief. I also hold this belief about the Divine. What's gained is a possible understanding of our early origins and our purpose in this universe.

Well, I think it a best practice to distinguish between possible and probable. E.g. if I play the lottery, it is possible, but not probable, that I'll win. So, although I would agree that it is possible, I assign a probability value which is sufficiently low enough to remove the idea from serious consideration as a factor in the causal ancestry of any event (or phenomena.)

In fairness, believers believe. It's sort of an associated trait! Non believers do not. My objection is perhaps best stated as:

I struggle to understand the difference between and undetectable* being with such fantastic cognitive (and other) abilities that is capable of fantastic things beyond our comprehension and no such being at all.

* I say undetectable while disregarding (for the moment, at least) mystical/religious experiences. Which would introduce another set of issues related to the mechanism(s) of interaction between the human mind and Divine "mind." While I understand that notions of such a being may inspire and excite a sense of awe and wonder, I find them to hold no veridical value. Then again, maybe I'm just a boring, uninspired guy!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

its invisible how could you?

Indeed, therefore we can just see honesty and respect, measure it, calculate it, put it in a pill. Take your honesty and respect pill each morning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think that the teapot analogy is a good analogy, then this dialogue is over.

It's not necessarily an analogy for belief in gods, but it is a relevant and useful thought experiment: it illustrates that a belief isn't justified merely by the fact that it hasn't been - or even can't be - disproven; it's justified by, well, justification on its own merits.

It illustrates that even a fabricated - and therefore presumably false - claim can meet the low, low bar of being immune to disproof, so we need something more if we want to justify a conclusion that a claim is true.

 

[McBell]

What does theism have going for it that Russell's Teapot doesn't?

um...
Millions of people swearing to its truth?

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed, therefore we can just see honesty and respect, measure it, calculate it, put it in a pill. Take your honesty and respect pill each morning.