To the Anti-Religious

[BHSU_Student]

Personally, I view the religious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the religious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

We are all prone to making mistakes, that is human nature. Researchers make many mistakes in their research, despite a lot of scientific training. Shorthand calculations leading to cognitive errors and bias is something that cannot fully be eliminated, because the mind has evolved to work in a specific way.

There are also things that science can learn from religion. Interestingly, there is a growing collaboration between the field of neuroscience and Bhuddism on the investigation of the mind. My own studies of religion has yeilded respect (although I may disagree with some of them).

 

[rageoftyrael]

okay, i have some links that indicate the whole intelligence thing, i just don't know how to do it. Can someone tell me how to post links?

Either way, i didn't say you had to be an atheist to be intelligent. I said that atheism and higher intelligence has been linked together.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Okay, i did kind of say that you had to be an atheist to be smart, in a roundabout way i guess. Didn't mean it that way. I meant to say that intelligence and atheism is linked.

 

[Kurt31416]

Einstein and Godel weren't atheists, just what more intelligent atheists did you have in mind?

 

[rageoftyrael]

The exception should not be mistaken for the rule. Of course, you fail to mention that at least einstein(i don't know about godel) was not a theist, but a deist. Now, that is just the next best thing to atheism. He believed there was something out there, he just didn't know what. Now, i think it is more logical to disbelieve in gods in general, but at least he rejected theism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Einstein and Godel weren't atheists, just what more intelligent atheists did you have in mind?

True, Einsteins views on a non-personal God, and the relationship between God and science put him more in a Deistic theology.

"When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:

Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."
​

 

[PureX]

I am just honestly trying to figure out how exactly a person chooses what to believe. Because I honestly haven't ever heard an explanation. Not even an example. How do I choose what compels me? How do I choose what evidence is required? There are certainly circumstances where I know of ideas and evidence that could make me believe something, but I didn't directly choose the kind of evidence. I honestly don't think it's as simple as choice, at least for me it certainly isn't. I think we can try to believe, put ourselves in positions to become compelled, but I would like to hear arguments or just examples where we believe things based on choice.

I CANT simply believe that ufo's are visiting. I wouldn't be surprised if some were true, but I am skeptical because of the vast distances of space. Sure there could be some pretty advanced civilizations out there that could travel with ease, but there are other small reasons I'm skeptical we've been visited as well. I just cannot say that I believe ufos visit our planet. I don't see how a person makes a conscious decision on their beliefs. It is an argument that I hear very often, but cannot ever get an explanation on how someone can choose. Maybe I just cannot.

I'm sorry for coming off as a dick at first but it's hard to fathom that you or anyone else believe in god because of some choice. You must have at least "thought" that a god "probably" existed, before you "chose" to believe it to be true? I just don't think that someone can be sitting on the fence, not knowing what to believe, and simply pick a side and start believing that it's true. And I certainly don't think that someone can somehow switch what they think to be true, without being convinced by some kind of argument or evidence first.

Thank you for being sincere. I'll try harder.

I think the answer, though you may have difficulty in understanding what I mean, is that we "surrender" to faith. To our need to have faith, and our desire to believe that what we are placing our faith in will turn out to be true. And this surrender is an act of serious humility (it's not irrational).

I'll try to give an example.

I am a recovered alcoholic. One of the most important things I learned as I was in the process of recovering from this illness is that it had seriously effected my mind. I had a long history of a certain way of thinking that I until then did not know was the result of my being alcoholic. When I was drinking, I tended to see only the worst in everything, and everyone. And as a result, I truly believed that life was a kind of hell that I had to endure, and that people were all selfish and dishonest and only out for themselves. And I sincerely believed this, because everywhere I looked I saw the evidence for it. My sponsor in AA had a difficult time trying to get me to see that my view of reality was being skewed by my disease because to me this was the true way of things, and I saw it was so everywhere I looked. I didn't like seeing life do darkly, but I couldn't deny what I saw. So for me, this was the way it was.

But one evening we were walking down a crowded street in Chicago, and as usual as we walked along I was babbling about how bad everything was when he suddenly stopped me and pointed across the street and said, "Wait, quick, look over there!". Across the street a bag lady was giving a homeless man who was sitting in a doorway some money. My sponsor was all excited and full of joy at the site of this act of kindness amid these two poor folks on the street in the middle of all that hubbub. He was that kind of guy.

Finally, though, the light went off in my head. I was astonished that he managed to spot that one small act of kindness in the middle of all the people that were out on that street, and that he could find such joy in it, when I saw nothing and was always miserable. And it finally hit me that he saw that act of kindness because he LOOKED FOR IT. I didn't ever notice that sort of thing because I was already convinced that it wasn't there, or that it was unimportant compared to all the cruelty in the world.

I finally realized that the reason my sponsor was always such a happy and joyful guy and a pleasure to be around, while I was always so miserable I was alone all the time, was because Tom had learned what I was just then beginning to understand. And that was that our expectations color and dictate to a large degree what we will "see" happening to us in our lives. But more importantly, we can CHANGE this! We can learn to look for the evidence that supports the way we WANT to see the world, in spite of ourselves, just as Tom had learned to spot such a small act of kindness on a busy Chicago street.

And not only can we teach ourselves to see the world differently, we can allow ourselves to revel in that new vision when it's ratified. But it all begins with our recognizing that we have trained ourselves to see things as we are seeing them now. And that what we are seeing now is NOT ALL THERE IS. And this means we must humble ourselves. We must surrender our current "truth" as we realize that it's only a partial truth and that it's become a blinder for us - an obstacle of our growth.

It took some practice, but now I'm a lot more like my sponsor, Tom. I look for the good things in life and when I spot them, I revel in them. I find joy in them. I 'milk them' for all their worth. And when I encounter cruelty and stupidity in life I don't surrender to it's inevitability anymore. I call it out and try to show it for the weakness that it is.

As an alcoholic I loved the dark, negative view I had of life because it gave me a perpetual excuse to drink. When drinking finally made me so miserable that I couldn't stand it, I tried to stop and was horrified to discover that I couldn't. I had become a chronic alcoholic. I went to AA not because I thought they could help me, but because I didn't know what else to do. But thankfully, I was wrong. AA did help me because they not only showed me how the get sober, they showed me how to change the way I think, and view the world, so that I could stay sober.

That was their greatest gift to me: the gift of self control. I am in charge of my own mind, now. I decide how I will see the world, and I decide what will be the evidence for my convictions, and I decide how I will react to things emotionally, not my alcoholic brain. If it were still in charge I would surely be dead, now.

If you want to change your "truth", you can. All it takes is a sincere desire to do it, maybe someone to help you keep your eye on the new goal, and persistent practice.

 

[Dunemeister]

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."

There's a sense in which Christians have the same evidence as everyone else (insofar as evidence can provide warrant for beliefs). We can marshall arguments for God's existence. My point has been that it isn't necessary, in order for Christian belief to be rational, to appeal to evidence. I'm claiming that Christian belief is rational even if the beliefs arise (as I think they do) the basic way. In other words, Christians claim to have a source of warrant for their beliefs that others either don't have or don't avail themselves of. Of course, this isn't very helpful for proving the truth of Christianity. Thankfully, that's not my project in this thread. All I'm arguing is that it is rational. I'm further arguing that the claim that Christian belief is irrational is in fact the claim that Christianity is untrue. But if that's the claim, we are owed an argument for the falsity of Christian belief, not just the claim that it's irrational to believe it. For if Christianity is true, it's probably rational to believe it. (It may even be rational to believe it if it's false, but that's another matter.)

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

Nothing. As I keep saying, I press this claim because it was argued earlier that Christians share an inordinate burden of proof because they make extraordinary claims. I'm merely turning that argument around by showing that it's in fact atheism that is the extraordinary claim inasmuch as the number of atheists in the world is actually quite miniscule, especially over against theists (of whatever stripe). Therefore, atheists share at least the same burden of proof as the Christian. I'm NOT arguing from 'theism is very popular' to 'theism is (probably) true.'

 

[rageoftyrael]

It doesn't matter, dunemeister. The amount of people who believe in something does not make something any less or more extraordinary. It is not extraordinary to disbelieve in something that there is no proof for. It is just base intelligence.

 

[gnomon]

Nothing. As I keep saying, I press this claim because it was argued earlier that Christians share an inordinate burden of proof because they make extraordinary claims. I'm merely turning that argument around by showing that it's in fact atheism that is the extraordinary claim inasmuch as the number of atheists in the world is actually quite miniscule, especially over against theists (of whatever stripe). Therefore, atheists share at least the same burden of proof as the Christian. I'm NOT arguing from 'theism is very popular' to 'theism is (probably) true.'

No, they don't.

Then again, I don't think people merely professing faith have much to prove either.

Atheism is hardly an extraordinary position.

 

[richardlowellt]

Nothing. As I keep saying, I press this claim because it was argued earlier that Christians share an inordinate burden of proof because they make extraordinary claims. I'm merely turning that argument around by showing that it's in fact atheism that is the extraordinary claim inasmuch as the number of atheists in the world is actually quite miniscule, especially over against theists (of whatever stripe). Therefore, atheists share at least the same burden of proof as the Christian. I'm NOT arguing from 'theism is very popular' to 'theism is (probably) true.'[/QUOTE]


Christians do in fact make extraordinary claims, why are you not expected to provide some proof of these claims? You know the phrase I'm sure--"Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence" I'm not sure I understand your point here, because Atheists are smaller in numbers than theists we share the same burden of proof? How exactly does that work? Atheism is a non-belief, we are not obliged to prove something non-existent, Christians on the other are making the claim for something that is suppose to exist, so your job is to show us this thing you believe in exists, or in the least, point to some small shred of evidence.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Thank you for being sincere. I'll try harder.

I think the answer, though you may have difficulty in understanding what I mean, is that we "surrender" to faith. To our need to have faith, and our desire to believe that what we are placing our faith in will turn out to be true. And this surrender is an act of serious humility (it's not irrational).

I'll try to give an example.

I am a recovered alcoholic. One of the most important things I learned as I was in the process of recovering from this illness is that it had seriously effected my mind. I had a long history of a certain way of thinking that I until then did not know was the result of my being alcoholic. When I was drinking, I tended to see only the worst in everything, and everyone. And as a result, I truly believed that life was a kind of hell that I had to endure, and that people were all selfish and dishonest and only out for themselves. And I sincerely believed this, because everywhere I looked I saw the evidence for it. My sponsor in AA had a difficult time trying to get me to see that my view of reality was being skewed by my disease because to me this was the true way of things, and I saw it was so everywhere I looked. I didn't like seeing life do darkly, but I couldn't deny what I saw. So for me, this was the way it was.

But one evening we were walking down a crowded street in Chicago, and as usual as we walked along I was babbling about how bad everything was when he suddenly stopped me and pointed across the street and said, "Wait, quick, look over there!". Across the street a bag lady was giving a homeless man who was sitting in a doorway some money. My sponsor was all excited and full of joy at the site of this act of kindness amid these two poor folks on the street in the middle of all that hubbub. He was that kind of guy.

Finally, though, the light went off in my head. I was astonished that he managed to spot that one small act of kindness in the middle of all the people that were out on that street, and that he could find such joy in it, when I saw nothing and was always miserable. And it finally hit me that he saw that act of kindness because he LOOKED FOR IT. I didn't ever notice that sort of thing because I was already convinced that it wasn't there, or that it was unimportant compared to all the cruelty in the world.

I finally realized that the reason my sponsor was always such a happy and joyful guy and a pleasure to be around, while I was always so miserable I was alone all the time, was because Tom had learned what I was just then beginning to understand. And that was that our expectations color and dictate to a large degree what we will "see" happening to us in our lives. But more importantly, we can CHANGE this! We can learn to look for the evidence that supports the way we WANT to see the world, in spite of ourselves, just as Tom had learned to spot such a small act of kindness on a busy Chicago street.

And not only can we teach ourselves to see the world differently, we can allow ourselves to revel in that new vision when it's ratified. But it all begins with our recognizing that we have trained ourselves to see things as we are seeing them now. And that what we are seeing now is NOT ALL THERE IS. And this means we must humble ourselves. We must surrender our current "truth" as we realize that it's only a partial truth and that it's become a blinder for us - an obstacle of our growth.

It took some practice, but now I'm a lot more like my sponsor, Tom. I look for the good things in life and when I spot them, I revel in them. I find joy in them. I 'milk them' for all their worth. And when I encounter cruelty and stupidity in life I don't surrender to it's inevitability anymore. I call it out and try to show it for the weakness that it is.

As an alcoholic I loved the dark, negative view I had of life because it gave me a perpetual excuse to drink. When drinking finally made me so miserable that I couldn't stand it, I tried to stop and was horrified to discover that I couldn't. I had become a chronic alcoholic. I went to AA not because I thought they could help me, but because I didn't know what else to do. But thankfully, I was wrong. AA did help me because they not only showed me how the get sober, they showed me how to change the way I think, and view the world, so that I could stay sober.

That was their greatest gift to me: the gift of self control. I am in charge of my own mind, now. I decide how I will see the world, and I decide what will be the evidence for my convictions, and I decide how I will react to things emotionally, not my alcoholic brain. If it were still in charge I would surely be dead, now.

If you want to change your "truth", you can. All it takes is a sincere desire to do it, maybe someone to help you keep your eye on the new goal, and persistent practice.

This is actually an example of choosing what you acknowledge, not what you believe.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Nothing. As I keep saying, I press this claim because it was argued earlier that Christians share an inordinate burden of proof because they make extraordinary claims. I'm merely turning that argument around by showing that it's in fact atheism that is the extraordinary claim inasmuch as the number of atheists in the world is actually quite miniscule, especially over against theists (of whatever stripe). Therefore, atheists share at least the same burden of proof as the Christian. I'm NOT arguing from 'theism is very popular' to 'theism is (probably) true.'

Christians do in fact make extraordinary claims, why are you not expected to provide some proof of these claims? You know the phrase I'm sure--"Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence" I'm not sure I understand your point here, because Atheists are smaller in numbers than theists we share the same burden of proof? How exactly does that work? Atheism is a non-belief, we are not obliged to prove something non-existent, Christians on the other are making the claim for something that is suppose to exist, so your job is to show us this thing you believe in exists, or in the least, point to some small shred of evidence.

Theists make a positive claim. Atheists don't claim anything. We just state that we find the evidence supporting the assertion God exists is lacking. Therefore, we do not believe it.

Now with respect to theists, some will claim "I believe in God". This alone does not carry a burden of proof until:

a) That person claims their belief is fact.
b) Attempts to convince others of their belief (which is, in a sense, dressing it as fact).
c) Or attempts to suggest other beliefs are wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But when they do a, b, or c, they are required to present evidence to support the claim.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. It's a skeptical position. If we suggest other beliefs are probably wrong, we are not presupposing that our beliefs are correct merely for the matter we have no beliefs to presuppose are correct. When we try to convince others that atheism is a more tenable position then religion, we are endorsing a position of skepticism. We have no alternative beliefs to compare to. We are not promoting a position that "God does not exist", but a position that "There is no reason to believe God exists". There is a world of difference. There will be a reason once theists get around to presenting evidence for their respective gods.

Thus, by default, atheists cannot be guilty of B or C.

But atheists can be guilty of A if they state something along the lines of "God definitely does not exist". It is only at that point they are required to present evidence to support that claim. "God definitely does not exist" is as much of a positive claim as "God definitely does exist".

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm kinda playing catchup with this discussion, so forgive me if my responses are late (or a repeat of what someone else has already said).

But I don't claim that there is no god. I simply don't believe there is any god. There may be a god or gods somewhere; I just don't have any evidence for them. I have no burden of proof because there is nothing to prove.

Well, the debate isn't about whether atheism or theism is true. The debate is over whether it is rational to believe as a Christian does. Some have argued that Christianity is irrational to believe because of a lack of evidence. I've argued that Christianity is rational to believe even without evidence.

Really? Which god is that? Yahweh? Jesus? Zeus? Odin? Yemanya? Perun?

However, I explicitly said that I was not arguing that theism is uncommon. (That would be a pretty stupid thing to argue, after all.) When I say that theists make extraordinary claims, I mean the nature of their claims is extraordinary. I do not mean that such claims are unlikely to occur. Do you understand now?

Yes, I realize that you're saying that Christianity makes extraordinary claims. MY point is that, given that most of the world claims that a god of some sort exists (described variously, but the theisms agree that there's more to the world than physical stuff), it's the atheist claims that are extraordinary. That's why I appealed to the numbers in discussing the extraordinariness. The claim that there is no God, when 90% of the world demurs, is extraordinary. The atheist is making the extraordinary claim, against the majority of humankind, that God does not exist, let alone act in history. By theistic lights, that's a breathtakingly extraordinary claim.

Nonsense. I no more owe you an explanation for being an atheist than you owe Muslims an explanation for being a non-Muslim, and Hellenic reconstructionists an explanation for being a non-reconstructionist, and people who believe in leprechauns an explanation for your not believing in leprechauns. The fact that your belief belongs to a broad category of beliefs which, taken together, make up a very common type of belief does not mean that an explanation is logically or reasonably required of those who do not hold that type of belief.

IF you are in a discussion with a Christian (say) about the rationality of their beliefs, you owe the Christian an argument that doesn't presuppose the falsity of the Christian's belief system. Otherwise, you're begging the question. If you're not having such a discussion, then of course, there's no "owing" of anything by anyone. However, the case under discussion is one where the atheist says that Christians are irrational for believing such things as resurrection or virgin birth. The atheist owes the Christian an argument in that case.

The fact that large numbers of people hold a certain kind of belief is not any evidence at all that that type of belief is likely to be accurate -- especially when, as is the case with theism, the beliefs that fall within that type of belief are in many cases mutually contradictory.

Perhaps we can safely put this argument aside. I'm not arguing for the truth of Christianity (or theism more broadly) based on its popularity. I was only balancing out the so-called argument about the extraordinariness of Christian claims. In particular, the claim was that this extraordinariness saddles the Christian with some requirement (intellectual? moral? epistemic?) to have extraordinary evidence for their belief in order to be rational in holding that belief.

Let's say that I believe that Friday the 13th is an unlucky day, but I can show no evidence that it is. But I can show that many people believe it, and many other people believe that breaking a mirror or spilling salt or walking under a ladder is unlucky. I can say that most people throughout history have been superstitious about something or another. If I tell you that most people throughout history have been superstitious and it is therefore rational and reasonable to be superstitious, and rational to believe that Friday the 13th is an unlucky day, will you find that argument convincing?

Of course not. But that's not exactly what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that Christianity (or theism) is true (or even rational) because most people believe it. I've argued only that the atheist, by theist lights, is making an extraordinary claim about the world. By Christian lights, for instance, the claim that Jesus isn't God is an extraordinary claim, breathtakingly (and again, by our lights, obviously) false and outrageous. My point is that the extraordinariness of the claim (by the opponent's standard) is nothing for or against the claim.

 

[PureX]

This is actually an example of choosing what you acknowledge, not what you believe.

They are the same thing. That's the point. I still acknowledge that life is cruel and people are selfish. But I also acknowledge that life is good and people are kind. Because both are true. And this awakens me to a choice that I didn't have before. It's the choice of which of these aspects of life I will seek out as evidence for truth, and which I will express through my own behavior, and which I will revel in and share with others.

 

[Dunemeister]

What exactly are we supposed to get proof for? All skepticism suggests is that one should have compelling evidence that can be seen by all, before making any claims.

Why think a thing like that? What if I have insider knowledge? Take a case in which I have been accused of stealing your hat last Friday afternoon. It's well known I have a penchant for stealing hats and furthermore, I have a vendetta against you because you published a salacious argument against me in the National Enquirer. A security guard testifies that he saw me break into your office and take the hat. What's worse (for me) is I have no alibi. As a result, you and everyone else believe I stole your hat.

However, I don't believe it. I believe I didn't steal your hat. At the time in question, I remember being on Mount Baker enjoying an exhilerating hike. Now by your lights, I am not permitted to claim that I am innocent. Why? Because I have a source of information not available to all: my memory. (Your memory furnishes information about where you were, not where I was.)

Let us stipulate that I have no corroborating evidence, no alibi. By your lights, I have no right to make a claim about my innocence. Really? I am obligated to keep my mouth shut about my innocence. I have a duty to remain silent. Forgive me if that comes off as a bit unconvincing.

And if it's unconvincing in the case of beliefs based on memory, it's no less unconvincing in the case of beliefs that come by way of IIHS, which is a source of information not available to all. It may simply be that, as a Christian, I have a source of warrant for some of my beliefs that you don't; just as you have a source of warrant for beliefs that I don't (perhaps). I'm willing to wager that most people are better at math than me, so their mathematical beliefs will have much more warrant than mine. That's just the way it goes.

There's no actual claims being made solely by categorizing oneself an atheist, or a skeptic. But if you want evidence for why skepticism is a superior quality, all one needs to do is to mention Hitler,the occult, and the idea that jews were an inferior race. Surely one can see the use of skepticism in this case. There's the evidence you requested.

The atheist is making claims. The atheist says either (a) there is no God, or (b) it is irrational/unwarranted to hold a belief in God (otherwise why be an atheist rather than some sort of theist?). Those are claims, very substantial ones, about the way the world is. Indeed, if true, they are extremely important ones. If there is a dispute about them, an argument is in order.

 

[Dunemeister]

There's a big difference between rationality and truth. And whether or not your belief is coincidentally true doesn't really matter if it's true for reasons you didn't know beforehand.

As an analogy, say I take a coin and claim that on the next flip, it will turn up "heads". I explain that this is because I had rubbed my thumb around the edge of the coin three times, and this makes coins turn up heads (but only when you do it properly, in case you had any ideas about replicating this yourself ). There's a very good chance that the coin will turn up heads, but even if it does, the foundation for my belief was entirely irrational.

I'm unclear how this argument addresses what I said. I agree that rationality and truth are not the same thing. I also agree that, in order for my belief to be warranted (rational), there must be some principled connection between the truth of the belief and my having the belief. On my view, IIHS provides that principled connection. That is, the truth of the belief is related in a non-arbitrary way with my forming the belief and holding it with the firmness that I do. That way involves the activity of God. I'm unclear how this relates to a belief in the result of a random tossing of a coin. But perhaps I've lost the train of thought here (likely given that I have several conversation partners and several arguments to chase up).

 

[Dunemeister]

It doesn't matter, dunemeister. The amount of people who believe in something does not make something any less or more extraordinary. It is not extraordinary to disbelieve in something that there is no proof for. It is just base intelligence.

Well in this we agree. If I seriously put forward Christianity to you as something you should believe, and you don't believe it, there's nothing extraordinary in that, especially if, on balance, the story is hard to believe. I admit that it is. I also admit that the proofs I might offer are, on balance, (very) defeasible, tentative, and very much underdetermine the conclusions. So without something else (such as the IIHS I described), perhaps the rational thing to do would be not to believe it.

 

[Dunemeister]

Christians do in fact make extraordinary claims, why are you not expected to provide some proof of these claims? You know the phrase I'm sure--"Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence"

What counts as extraordinary? By my lights, the claim of the resurrection isn't extraordinary. It's what one would expect given that the Christian God exists. The resurrection (say) is extraordinary by atheist lights because, since there is no God (of any sort, Christian or otherwise), dead people must stay dead because natural laws reign supreme and are inviolate.

Besides, whether I need to provide proof for Christian claims like the resurrection depends on the context. In the present debate, the question is whether Christians are rational in holding the beliefs they do without evidence. I suggest they are because they have a source of warrant independent of the normal run of evidence -- what I've called the IIHS (faith).

Of course, if I am to convince a skeptic of the truth of Christian claims, then perhaps argument and evidence would be useful. But as it happens in practice, at best argument can clear up misunderstandings about meanings and concepts. The rest, as they say, is a matter of faith (IIHS).

I'm not sure I understand your point here, because Atheists are smaller in numbers than theists we share the same burden of proof? How exactly does that work? Atheism is a non-belief, we are not obliged to prove something non-existent, Christians on the other are making the claim for something that is suppose to exist, so your job is to show us this thing you believe in exists, or in the least, point to some small shred of evidence.

That's if the truth of Christianity or atheism is at issue. But in our present debate, that's not at issue. What's at issue is the rationality of Christian belief. It is impossible to argue that Christianity is irrational without assuming that Christianity is untrue (which is begging the precise question). So to avoid begging the question, the atheist must demonstrate that Christianity is, as a matter of fact, untrue. Alternatively, the atheist could mount an argument showing that atheism is necessarily true. THAT's the burden I had in mind. (The point about number of believers was part of my argument that what belief counts as "extraordinary" depends on one's point of view.)

 

[Vile Atheist]

What counts as extraordinary? By my lights, the claim of the resurrection isn't extraordinary.

It's extraordinary because humans and other living beings do not readily resurrect. There is no known instance of resurrection to us. Thus it is out of the ordinary. Hence, extraordinary.

It's what one would expect given that the Christian God exists. The resurrection (say) is extraordinary by atheist lights because, since there is no God (of any sort, Christian or otherwise), dead people must stay dead because natural laws reign supreme and are inviolate.

By your very own standards, resurrection is an extraordinary claim for the mere matter that we do not consistently see the laws of nature broken. If they were broken, it would be out of the ordinary. Hence, extraordinary.

Besides, whether I need to provide proof for Christian claims like the resurrection depends on the context. In the present debate, the question is whether Christians are rational in holding the beliefs they do without evidence

No belief - true or not - that is unsupported by evidence is rational.

I suggest they are because they have a source of warrant independent of the normal run of evidence -- what I've called the IIHS (faith).

Faith is not evidence. You wouldn't expect "faith" to hold up in a court of law as evidence supporting your position. Why would you expect that here?

Of course, if I am to convince a skeptic of the truth of Christian claims, then perhaps argument and evidence would be useful.

It's not just useful. It's integral. Most atheists (at least that I know of) are willing to change their minds should convincing evidence be presented.

But as it happens in practice, at best argument can clear up misunderstandings about meanings and concepts. The rest, as they say, is a matter of faith (IIHS).

Which isn't evidence. Hence why we remain unconvinced.

That's if the truth of Christianity or atheism is at issue. But in our present debate, that's not at issue. What's at issue is the rationality of Christian belief. It is impossible to argue that Christianity is irrational without assuming that Christianity is untrue (which is begging the precise question).

Not really. You can hold a belief that is true and it can still be irrational.

Take for example the "Gender" tag above this post indicating I'm male. You believe I'm male because you have evidence in favour of that. I obviously indicated my own gender and there aren't very many good reasons why I would lie about that. Hence your belief I'm male is a rational one.

You, on the other hand, have not indicated your gender, but since I find it annoying to word my posts to be gender-neutral, I word them as if you are male. I assume you are male as well. I believe you are male, even though I have no evidence to make that assertion. My belief may be true. You may indeed be male. But whether or not you are is irrelevant to the fact that my assertion is irrational because I haven't a shred of evidence to support that belief.

Get the distinction?

So to avoid begging the question, the atheist must demonstrate that Christianity is, as a matter of fact, untrue.

Let's play your game of stickball.

You are a Christian. Being a Christian presupposes that you believe Christianity is true. Therefore you must not only disprove every other religion, you must "disprove" atheism, too.

The trouble with what you say is that atheism makes no claims. It's a skeptical position. It ceases to be skeptical when it says "God definitely does not exist" unless it has evidence to do so - which it doesn't. Religions make positive claims and therefore they have the burden of proof on their shoulders.

Alternatively, the atheist could mount an argument showing that atheism is necessarily true. THAT's the burden I had in mind. (The point about number of believers was part of my argument that what belief counts as "extraordinary" depends on one's point of view.)

"Point of view" doesn't enter into the equation at all. Extraordinary means it is out of the ordinary. Resurrection is out of the ordinary. God intervening in our lives in a direct, noticeable and objective way is out of the ordinary. By objective I mean that anyone - a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist...they must all be able to recognize YOUR God in that direct intervention.

Deities are out of the ordinary because we cannot see them and do not objectively influence us.