To the Anti-Religious

[Dunemeister]

They might strenuously disagree, but they wouldn't produce any evidence.

If Christianity (at any rate) is true, their failure to produce evidence is nothing against their beliefs. I can't produce any evidence of my vacation to the Grand Tetons. But I remember being there. Should we doubt my memory just because I can produce no corroborating evidence? If not, why should the believer in God? I obtain my belief in God through the proper functioning of my cognitive establishment. My belief arises in the basic way (as do my memory beliefs) without recourse to evidence. So why should I have to produce evidence? I may need to do so if I want you to change your beliefs. But if the question is whether the theist can be warranted in believing as she does even without evidence, I think it's pretty clear that she can.

And I rather doubt that there are "six billion people (at the very least)" who are even theists, much less theists who are prepared to argue strenuously that they have evidence of god's existence.

Doubt if you will. At least four billion people are monotheists along Abrahamic lines. The vast majority of them would say that they have evidence of God's existence, including such things as the brute fact of the universe's existence, the order within creation, the existence of moral laws, and many other arguments besides. You may not find these arguments compelling; nevertheless, these theists would very likely argue that these arguments DO constitute evidence. And they won't be impressed by the skeptic's disavowal of them. Nor should they be.

Add to these the many millions (or greater order of magnitude) of non-Abrahamic theists. Many of these would also point to similar arguments to argue for some version of theism (spiritual monism, polytheism, animism -- not really a theism, I know, deism, paganism, and a host of others). Compared with all these theisms, atheism comes off as something of an oddity. As I said before, it's the metaphysical naturalist, the person who says that the only "stuff" in the world is physical stuff, who is statistically weird. So why is it that it's theism (writ large) rather than atheism that must bear the burden of proof? Indeed, atheism seems so strange and at odds with human experience as to warrant pity!

 

[Smoke]

Therefore, one cannot accuse Christians of irrationality in believing as they do (even such beliefs as the virgin birth, resurrection, the whole nine) without presuming that Christianity is false. Put another way, there is no objection to the rationality of Christianity that is not actually an objection to the truth of Christianity. But if the skeptic wishes to press THAT sort of claim, an argument for the incoherence of Christian belief or something like that will be required.

Nonsense. You're just trying to shift the burden of proof -- not that I demand you prove your beliefs; I couldn't care less what you believe unless you try to force your beliefs on me in some way, and I'm sure that's not your intention. Whether Christians are irrational for believing in Christianity isn't an issue I'm even interested in. I'm not trying to deconvert all the Christians. I'm just saying that Christians are unable to provide me with any rational reason why I should believe in Christianity.

You may be losing track of the conversation. You said Christians (theists, actually) make extraordinary claims. I have asked you to specify in what way they are extraordinary. So far, you have not done so. You have said only that their (theists') worldviews are frequently incompatible with other theists.

I understood you to be saying that theistic beliefs are not extraordinary because so many people are theists. I was just pointing out that "theism" is not a belief; each theistic belief must stand or fall on its own merits. Anyway, in the sense that I'm saying Christian beliefs are extraordinary, it doesn't really matter how many people believe them. I mean they are extraordinary in the sense that they are implausible and describe things that are outside the usual human experience. I didn't mean they weren't widely believed.

There are a bewildering array of incompatible belief systems compatible with being a non-theist. So should I doubt non-theism simply because non-theists are inconsistent about what they do in fact believe? That seems a bit implausible.

Doubt away. Non-theism isn't a belief system and doesn't describe what anybody believes; why should you try to believe in a non-belief?

On the other hand, it's certainly appropriate for you to ask for rational reasons for believing what any particular non-theist does believe -- and that might be any kind of non-theistic belief. A non-theist might believe in leprechauns, for instance. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't subject his belief in leprechauns to the same standard of evidence as that to which he subjects your belief in god.

 

[Smoke]

If Christianity (at any rate) is true, their failure to produce evidence is nothing against their beliefs.

Maybe not, but it would certainly undermine their claim to have evidence.

Doubt if you will. At least four billion people are monotheists along Abrahamic lines. The vast majority of them would say that they have evidence of God's existence, including such things as the brute fact of the universe's existence, the order within creation, the existence of moral laws, and many other arguments besides. You may not find these arguments compelling; nevertheless, these theists would very likely argue that these arguments DO constitute evidence. And they won't be impressed by the skeptic's disavowal of them. Nor should they be.

Add to these the many millions (or greater order of magnitude) of non-Abrahamic theists. Many of these would also point to similar arguments to argue for some version of theism (spiritual monism, polytheism, animism -- not really a theism, I know, deism, paganism, and a host of others). Compared with all these theisms, atheism comes off as something of an oddity. As I said before, it's the metaphysical naturalist, the person who says that the only "stuff" in the world is physical stuff, who is statistically weird. So why is it that it's theism (writ large) rather than atheism that must bear the burden of proof? Indeed, atheism seems so strange and at odds with human experience as to warrant pity!

That's all very impressive, but I'm still not convinced that 4 billion plus many millions is equal to "six billion people (at the very least)."

 

[Vile Atheist]

The vast majority of them would say that they have evidence of God's existence, including such things as the brute fact of the universe's existence

Mind explaining how the fact the universe exists is evidence for God's existence? In particular YOUR God, and not the pesky Greek, Egyptian, or Norse ones.

the order within creation

Despite the troublesome fact that order can arise naturally? Look up montmorillonite. Look up cellular automata. Look up exactly why flowers have certain arrangements of petals and leaves. There is no design to that order. It occurs naturally because these are the laws of nature.

the existence of moral laws

Despite the troublesome fact that morality is highly circumstantial and thus, there is no concrete, absolute "law", but only imposed religious dogma? And how do you reckon conflicting moral values?

You still have not offered any evidence of the existence of your God. You are merely pointing out inane things and expecting people to fill in your blanks for you.

and many other arguments besides

If they are no more compelling than the above, then you have absolutely zero evidence of your God.

You may not find these arguments compelling

How perceptive of you.

nevertheless, these theists would very likely argue that these arguments DO constitute evidence

You seem to believe that because someone THINKS it is evidence, it actually is.

You make an extraordinary claim, point out the existence of known entities and call that evidence for the extraordinary claim. Let me play your game of stickball.

I have a dragon's tail.

Well tails exist on some animals, don't they? Therefore I have a dragon's tail. That is exactly what you are doing. You make no connection to what you state and how this is proof of your God's existence.

And they won't be impressed by the skeptic's disavowal of them. Nor should they be.

Oooohhh! Skepticism!! Not accepting things with blind faith!!! Sends a chill down my spine how people could be so darned skeptical.

Add to these the many millions (or greater order of magnitude) of non-Abrahamic theists.

Congratulations. This has been one gigantic appeal to authority. But I'm sure you don't mind that you're employing a logical fallacy. Me and my darned skepticism and all...

Many of these would also point to similar arguments to argue for some version of theism (spiritual monism, polytheism, animism -- not really a theism, I know, deism, paganism, and a host of others). Compared with all these theisms, atheism comes off as something of an oddity. As I said before, it's the metaphysical naturalist, the person who says that the only "stuff" in the world is physical stuff, who is statistically weird.

Right because the more people believe something, the truer it is. Wow. There is no expression to convey the magnitude of the facepalm I'm doing right now.

It's as if you have no regard for the bloody history of Christianity and just how it got so many followers.

So why is it that it's theism (writ large) rather than atheism that must bear the burden of proof? Indeed, atheism seems so strange and at odds with human experience as to warrant pity!

Because atheism makes no claims. The theist claims that something exists. Therefore it has the burden of proof. Numbers of followers does not determine who has the burden of proof. What an odd way of thinking (and I use that term loosely).

And atheism is at odds with human experience? Uhhh, sorry, but when I went grocery shopping today, I didn't see Zeus. When I had a shower, the Angel Gabriel didn't pass me the soap. When I was driving on the highway, Aphrodite wasn't in the passenger's seat bearing her breasts to passing truckers.

Sorry, where in human experience does God come in, especially considering how neurology can explain religious "experiences"? YouTube "Why We Believe in Gods". It's a one hour lecture by Dr. Andy Thomson. Who knows, you might even learn something.

 

[Dunemeister]

Nonsense. You're just trying to shift the burden of proof -- not that I demand you prove your beliefs; I couldn't care less what you believe unless you try to force your beliefs on me in some way, and I'm sure that's not your intention. Whether Christians are irrational for believing in Christianity isn't an issue I'm even interested in. I'm not trying to deconvert all the Christians. I'm just saying that Christians are unable to provide me with any rational reason why I should believe in Christianity.

Fair enough. We may be talking past each other. But as to your last sentence, that may say more about you than about the arguments. Just saying.

I understood you to be saying that theistic beliefs are not extraordinary because so many people are theists. I was just pointing out that "theism" is not a belief; each theistic belief must stand or fall on its own merits. Anyway, in the sense that I'm saying Christian beliefs are extraordinary, it doesn't really matter how many people believe them. I mean they are extraordinary in the sense that they are implausible and describe things that are outside the usual human experience. I didn't mean they weren't widely believed.

Size (of the believer pool) matters. If fully a third of people believe Christian theism, and if 90% of the world affirm that some form of theism is true, by virtue of what is theism (even the Christian version) implausible? It can't be, as you say, that Christian belief describe things outside the usual human experience. Christians tend to appeal to experience as the source of their belief (although they don't need to) or its sustenance. It appears that religious experience is normative for humans, and those who eschew it or don't see its value appear to be the extraordinary ones.

Doubt away. Non-theism isn't a belief system and doesn't describe what anybody believes; why should you try to believe in a non-belief?

Well, I guess believing non-theism would entail a change from being a Christian to being an agnostic or atheist or something like that. that would be the point.

On the other hand, it's certainly appropriate for you to ask for rational reasons for believing what any particular non-theist does believe -- and that might be any kind of non-theistic belief. A non-theist might believe in leprechauns, for instance. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't subject his belief in leprechauns to the same standard of evidence as that to which he subjects your belief in god.

Indeed I do.

 

[Dunemeister]

Maybe not, but it would certainly undermine their claim to have evidence.

How?

That's all very impressive, but I'm still not convinced that 4 billion plus many millions is equal to "six billion people (at the very least)."

Quibble about the precise numbers all you want. It is simply a truth that the vast majority of people who have ever lived and who live now are theists of one sort or another. Atheism is statistically miniscule.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Quibble about the precise numbers all you want. It is simply a truth that the vast majority of people who have ever lived and who live now are theists of one sort or another. Atheism is statistically miniscule.

Why do you hold onto this point as if it has any significance? The number of followers a particular idea or concept has is not in any way indicative of how true it is.

At one point, everyone believed the Earth was flat. Therefore the Earth is flat. That's exactly where your line of reasoning goes into the garbage can.

 

[Smoke]

It can't be, as you say, that Christian belief describe things outside the usual human experience.

Really? Do you believe things like the Incarnation or the Resurrection are ordinary human experiences?

Well, I guess believing non-theism would entail a change from being a Christian to being an agnostic or atheist or something like that. that would be the point.

Non-theism just means not believing in gods. That's it. If I say I'm a non-Christian, you understand that I don't adhere to some belief system called non-Christianity. Saying someone is a non-theist doesn't tell you anything at all about what he believes; it just tells you one type of belief he doesn't believe.

 

[Smoke]

How?

If they strenuously insist that they have evidence, but they can't produce evidence, you don't see how that undermines their claim? Try that in a court of law sometime. "I have evidence, your honor, but it's secret evidence. You can't see it, but trust me, I have it."

Quibble about the precise numbers all you want. It is simply a truth that the vast majority of people who have ever lived and who live now are theists of one sort or another. Atheism is statistically miniscule.

What does that have to do with the likelihood of theism (or some theism) being true?

 

[PureX]

Despite the troublesome fact that order can arise naturally?

Order cannot arise naturally without some limitations being present. A random universe, one without limitations, can result only in chaos. Our universe has limitations, which in turn control the way energy can and cannot behave. And the result of this order is structure, many structures, and eventually the structures that we experience as existence, today.

So the natural line of inquisition becomes; where did these limitations come from? Why do they exist? Do they indicate purpose? If so, is there some form of intelligence behind that purpose? ...

The point here is that the very nature of our universe leads us directly to a set of questions that are remarkably close to those questions who's answers will define what most people call "God".

"God" as a concept defines an essential mystery, not an "invisible guy in the sky". The "invisible guy in the sky" is just a functional, intellectual metaphor that people use because they find it useful. It's difficult to face and interact on a daily basis with an undefined creating/sustaining mystery force. So people imagine an "invisible guy in the sky" because that's a lot easier. But regardless of the easy metaphor, what they are really interacting with is the Divine Mystery. The very same one that the nature and existence of the universe leads us to conceive of, and to wonder about.

Look up montmorillonite. Look up cellular automata. Look up exactly why flowers have certain arrangements of petals and leaves. There is no design to that order. It occurs naturally because these are the laws of nature.

Exactly. Those "laws of nature" are a set of limitations, or a blueprint that in turn "designs" (designates) what and how structures can and can't exist. The behavior of energy is being controlled. And that control dictates what forms energy can take. It's this control that has designed the entire universe.

Despite the troublesome fact that morality is highly circumstantial and thus, there is no concrete, absolute "law", but only imposed religious dogma ...

Not necessarily. It could be argued that the nature of our own structures command us to continue to exist, and that this command is then a moral obligation. If existence has a goal, or function, it would appear to be to achieve maximum variety of energy expression, within a given set of limitations. If this is so, then we could label this a universal moral value. It certainly is a value that we see expressed in the natural world, and even in ourselves.

You still have not offered any evidence of the existence of your God.

We can offer evidence, but not proof. I think you are confusing the two by demanding conclusive evidence.

You seem to believe that because someone THINKS it is evidence, it actually is.

And you seem to presume that because you think it's not, than it isn't. Who is dictating what is acceptable as evidence, if not each of us for ourselves? And if we are each deciding what we will accept as evidence, how is your criteria any better than anyone else's?

You make an extraordinary claim, ...

No one is making any extraordinary claims. The universe is what it is. Existence is what it is. And the nature of these lead us directly to the conception of a possibly intelligent creative and sustaining mystery source, commonly defined as "God".

It's your theory that order emerged from chaos that doesn't hold up, and that isn't defensible. You can't explain away the founding limitations that are responsible for the order from which springs all that exists. You can't explain why energy can express itself is some ways, but not in others. And until you can explain this, it remains a great mystery. It remains the mystery that is at the source of all that exists. And that mystery will continue to be the essence of "God" for a whole lot of people.

That mystery exists, and it's label is "God". That is our evidence.

 

[Commoner]

Extraordinary by what lights? Most of the world are theists. It would seem that the skeptics are making extraordinary claims. It's the skeptic who demands -- in the teeth of nearly universal rejection of the idea -- evidence for every belief. Most of the world believes that some beliefs, and in particular God-beliefs, don't require evidence to be rationally believed. Why should we bow to skeptical pressure? Because really, that's all it is. Pressure. There's no reason in the world to think that, in order to be rational, one's theistic beliefs must be based on a wide and extensive body of evidence. Indeed, there's no reason to think any evidence of any sort is required at all.

How?

Quibble about the precise numbers all you want. It is simply a truth that the vast majority of people who have ever lived and who live now are theists of one sort or another. Atheism is statistically miniscule.

Hi guys!

I'm new here so please be gentle.

Most of the world are theists? Well, that's an interesting concept.

I am not a theist, I do not follow any religion, I do not believe in any god (except Eric Clapton, of course).

So from my skeptical viewpoint I can agree and say - yes, most people are theists - since I have no allegiance to a single version of "god", I can just throw them all in one basket. The christian God is just as untrue to me as Allah or any other god. I can also admit that it's not necessarily irrational for a person to believe in a god. It certainly would be irrational for me to believe in a god, since I've not seen any evidence for one or had a religious experience or anything like that. But I accept that other people have their own minds, their own experiences and their own interpretations. Of course, being rational doesn't equal being right.

But isn't it irrational for a "believer" to use this argument, that "most of the world are theists" and therefore "our" claims are valid?

As far as you (any theist) are concearned, most theists are wrong (even if you follow the most widespread religion). Unlike a skeptic, you can't throw all religions in one basket, because you know that there is only one true god. You're not all playing for the same team. Following that logic, we can come to a simple conclusion on which we should both agree: (at least) the majority of people who believe in a god are wrong.

No matter which religion you follow, you're in the minority. Most people do not believe what you believe. Luckily for you, using "numbers" to prove the validity of your case is never a good idea anyway.

 

[Breathe]

Hi guys!

I'm new here so please be gentle.

Hey, welcome to RF!
Don't forget to introduce yourself in the "Are you new to ReligiousForums?" section.

As far as you (any theist) are concearned, most theists are wrong (even if you follow the most widespread religion).

Not necessarily. I know of a few religions who believe that all religions lead to God.

I myself hold this view that there are many paths to the same Source. All roads lead to Rome - except in this Rome is a metaphorical explanation for the Divine. Nor do I believe in a Hell, or any kind of punishment for someone who does not believe. I find those views a little um... unpalatable myself.

Welcome again.

 

[Commoner]

That mystery exists, and it's label is "God". That is our evidence.

I could almost get on board with that. But to simply label all that is a mystery as "god" - what good is it? Unless you define god as something more, it adds no value, it doesn't help understand or accept the mystery.

 

[Commoner]

Not necessarily. I know of a few religions who believe that all religions lead to God.

Well, but I think that's a slightly different issue. Certainly, there are religions that tolerate different views. But even a religion that says "all religions lead to god" would disagree with a more exclusive religion. Someone who believes all religions lead to god surely can't agree with someone who thinks only one path leads to god. They might not be any consequences for being "wrong", but they are still "wrong". No?


Oh, and thank you for making me feel welcome!

 

[PureX]

I could almost get on board with that. But to simply label all that is a mystery as "god" - what good is it? Unless you define god as something more, it adds no value, it doesn't help understand or accept the mystery.

But it's the mystery that we fear. It's the unknown that stands between us and our desires. It's our ignorance that threatens to destroy us.

The unknown is everything to we humans, who survive and thrive by our cunning: by our ability to "know" things. So it has always been, and so it still is. It began with droughts and volcanoes and the like. These were powerful and fearsome expressions of the unknown, and of how they could destroy us at any moment. We feared these greatly, all the more so BECAUSE they were unknown to us.

And it's this fear of the unknown that we have to address, to live. "God" is how we address it. "God" becomes the face and personality of the mystery of life for us. And then we can address that mystery as we address "God". We can grapple with ideas like faith and destiny and misfortune and mortality as we grapple with our image of "God". And if we are fortunate, we can find peace in the face of our fear and ignorance, and our unknowing.

This is what "God" is for. This is what spiritual growth and healing is about. And this is supposed to be what religions are for, too, even though they often are about something else completely.

 

[Breathe]

Well, but I think that's a slightly different issue. Certainly, there are religions that tolerate different views. But even a religion that says "all religions lead to god" would disagree with a more exclusive religion. Someone who believes all religions lead to god surely can't agree with someone who thinks only one path leads to god. They might not be any consequences for being "wrong", but they are still "wrong". No?

Well, I wouldn't say they are wrong, but I would say I disagree with their belief that there is only one way. After all, I think God is big enough to be accepting of different beliefs. In my view, even if (and it's a big "if") there was a 'wrong' and a 'right' religion, I wouldn't expect God to shun people who believed differently.

Oh, and thank you for making me feel welcome!

Not a problem, I hope you enjoy it here.

 

[Commoner]

But it's the mystery that we fear. It's the unknown that stands between us and our desires. It's our ignorance that threatens to destroy us.

The unknown is everything to we humans, who survive and thrive by our cunning: by our ability to "know" things. So it has always been, and so it still is. It began with droughts and volcanoes and the like. These were powerful and fearsome expressions of the unknown, and of how they could destroy us at any moment. We feared these greatly, all the more so BECAUSE they were unknown to us.

And it's this fear of the unknown that we have to address, to live. "God" is how we address it. "God" becomes the face and personality of the mystery of life for us. And then we can address that mystery as we address "God". We can grapple with ideas like faith and destiny and misfortune and mortality as we grapple with our image of "God". And if we are fortunate, we can find peace in the face of our fear and ignorance, and our unknowing.

This is what "God" is for. This is what spiritual growth and healing is about. And this is supposed to be what religions are for, too, even though they often are about something else completely.

I have a hard time understanding how those views are compatible with a belief in a personal god (I noticed you describe yourself as christian as well, maybe I got that wrong?). How do you get from understanding concepts such as god and faith as a "rationalization" of sorts to a genuine belief in a specific, well defined all-powerful being, a "big brother" in the sky. I've never understood how anyone can find that comforting.

I've always found deistic and theistic views to be completely incompatible.

 

[PureX]

I have a hard time understanding how those views are compatible with a belief in a personal god (I noticed you describe yourself as christian as well, maybe I got that wrong?). How do you get from understanding concepts such as god and faith as a "rationalization" of sorts to a genuine belief in a specific, well defined all-powerful being, a "big brother" in the sky. I've never understood how anyone can find that comforting.

I've always found deistic and theistic views to be completely incompatible.

For me it's a simple matter of convenience. It's difficult to retain the concept of a great mystery that is the source and sustenance of all that exists, and how that mystery manifests itself benevolently throughout my physical world, etc. If I have quiet, and time, then I can and do enjoy contemplating such a mysterious and complicated vision of "God". But in most cases I don't have that luxury though I still need the effect of faith and peace that doing so gives me. So to use a short-cut I simply give "God" a human-like personality that's very quick and easy for me to call upon in my mind and that will allow me to "reset" myself in the same way as I would do if I had the luxury of contemplating a more deep and complex intellectual vision of "God".

There are some aspects of this 'short-cut' that I find uncomfortable, though, and will not pursue, such as materialistic supplication, or vengeance. Using a personal image of "God" doesn't mean I get to justify my personal human shortcomings through that image.

Think of it this way; I don't pray with words because I think God has ears. I pray with words because I need to articulate what's going on inside me out loud, so I can see and hear more clearly what needs correcting, in me.

 

[themadhair]

You are claiming that Christian belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection is irrational. Why? Because there isn't much evidence for these beliefs and what we know from biology suggests, nay screams out, that such things don't (can't?) happen.

Pretty much. When you actually come close to addressing that then let me know. What you wrote in no way addressed this. And to attempt the reframing of the situation in the way you are doing is irrational. IIHS is a made up concept from what I can see (feel free to come up with something rational suggesting otherwise that isn’t as circular as your last post).

There's a confusion buried in this claim, which I hope my previous comment clears up.

Your comment simply included more and more unfounded concepts that was more an attempt to bury the problem rather than either solve or address it.

If you wish to impugn the rationality of Christianity, you must go further than say "there isn't enough evidence."

Classic example of your irrationality. You demonstrated that you know the argument is more than this strawman (see the first quote of this post), so I can only accuse you of irrationality for the deliberately inaccurate reframing you have done here. Making up more concepts doesn’t help to prove a concept when those new concepts fall into the same category of irrationality.

Again, I hope my explanations have cleared up the confusion.

It served to further highlight the irrationality.

Rather, Christians claim that faith (what I am calling the IIHS) is a MEANS OF KNOWING the truth value of certain propositions (such as that Jesus was born of a literal virgin and literally rose from the dead).

This is irrational for the reason given in my previous post. Does the fact that you have to refer to another irrational concept, in this case IIHS, not ring an alarm bell for you?

Well, that depends on what you're up to.

No it doesn’t. The motivation has no bearing on the truth value. But good luck with the irrelevant tangent you decided to attack rather than the central point.

In other words, you need to provide her with a defeater for her Christian belief.

In this case then you would have to provide me with a defeater for my claimed godliness. This line of reasoning is irrational and I can only wish you good luck with it.

Namely, there are no objections to the rationality of full-blooded Christian belief that do not presuppose the falsity of Christian belief.

Almost like my post was never written.

 

[themadhair]

That mystery exists, and it's label is "God". That is our evidence.

Good to know that you evidence is merely a semantic slight of hand.