To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

No, Kalam says that everything that began to exist has a cause. That the universe began to exist is reasonably uncontroversial, and so the natural question is what caused it to exist. On the other hand, God did not begin to exist. Thus we don't have to explain his existence in terms of anything else.

Another way to put this (got this from Plato) is that everything in the universe (the physical universe) is contingent. That is, it depends on something else for its existence and/or sustenance. Therefore, the whole universe is contingent. So how do we explain the existence of the whole chain of contingent things? What might cause this chain to continue to exist? Well, we need something noncontingent (i.e., something that doesn't itself depend on anything else for its existence) to explain the existence of the universe.

Again, I can see ways for the skeptic to get around this. The skeptic might try to argue (however implausibly) that the universe is noncontingent. I don't think that argument is convincing, but there's nothing that says it isn't possible.

However, you may be surprised to find out the that the presupposition of the kalam is false (and proven to be false scientifically). So it fails at the first gate. And I'll bet you want an example too...Okay. I'll give you a few.

Events at the atomic and subatomic levels are observed to have no evident cause. When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause for that event. Similarly no cause is evident in the decay of the radioactive nucleus.

Theologian William Lane Craig tried to counter these examples using the idea of "probabilistic causality" - basically these events are still "caused" but not in a pre-determined manner. This defeats the kalam because by his own admission, because he's shown that the "cause" is an accidental, spontaneous one (not predetermined). He has destroyed his own argument for predetermined creation.

If the first premise of the kalam is wrong, it follows that the rest is too because the rest of the kalam is dependent on the assumption that the first premise (everything that began to exist has a cause) is correct.

Well if my argument is approximately right, God is the source of our sense of right and wrong. If Christianity is true, God created us in his image, and it is because we bear his image we have access to moral truths. However, as it happens, our divine sense (that which we use to know truths about God and morality) is damaged through sin. As a result, we don't know God and morality as we ought. Thus we have that deplorable blooming, buzzing confusion about ethics, not to mention umpteen religions. So I don't have to acknowledge the existence of other gods to explain other moral codes. I can write it all off as confusion created by sin.

Whoa, Johnny. Back 'er up there.

Now there are so many things I see wrong with this I don't know where to start. Let's start with the most glaring problem.

I see a huge bout of circular logic here.

We sin because we don't follow God's moral code. We don't follow God's moral code because we sin. [And this sin is the source of corruption that hinders our ability to follow God's moral code]. Is this what you mean to tell me? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Could you re-word that less...circularly?

Furthermore, how do you explain how most cultures and religions have the same basic, core philosophies? We do not know of any societies where bravery is despised and cowardice is considered a virture. Nor do we know of any that consider generosity a vice and ingratitude a virtue.

There are details that differ due to culture, and religion (which is what I was referring to earlier). But the basic core values are the same across the board. And if you want a name to back up that assertion, look up the work of anthropologist Solomon Asch.

If morality only comes from following/obeying God, why do the godless have this innate morality? I'll tell you why. It doesn't take divine revelation to demonstrate how stealing from your own community is immoral because it's quite easy to imagine a society where everyone stole from each other. It doesn't take divine revelation to demonstrate how lying is immoral as we can picture a society where lying is the norm (communication would be impossible!).

These moral mechanisms are social constructs that developed through evolution. Of course everyone doesn't agree on every little moral issue. However, they agree on the basic core values.

Both sides of the abortion debate agree that murder is wrong. However the debate is not about whether or not murder is wrong, but about whether or not a fetus is alive and if so, when, and even without brain activity, is it okay to kill a non-sentient entity. It's a debate about the difference between life and sentience. We might, for example, differ on this issue. But we both agree unequivocally that murder is wrong.

We already have morality innate to us and Christians (like other theists) merely project their current moral stature onto their scriptures and attempt to justify them that way. Some Christians are (rightfully, even if they don't care to explicitly admit it) ashamed when they read disgusting Deuteronomy and attempt to justify it using "mistranslations" or "out of context!" or just try to ignore it completely. This is why some liberal Christians attempt to justify passages about homosexuality being an abomination with their own (already evolutionarily developed) innate morality to twist the quote into something more positive.

Of course, I realize not all Christians do this.

So thus, you must explain the differences due to religion/culture in moral codes and also explain the similarities. Why do people who reject God and the Bible (like me, for example) have this innate morality?

You've said the differences come from confusion of sin. It isn't that satisfactory of an argument, but I'm willing to try and see things your way and accept it - at least for the sake of argument. Now what about the similarities?

This misunderstands the case. Why should we expect every important Roman decree to have survived the ravages of time? And the hand-waving to "conflicts in the bible" is, to say the least, uninformative. Suffice to say that you have a lot of catching up to do on such things as historiography.

*sigh*

We have inane lists from the Roman Empire. Trivial little documents. We're talking about an undertaking that would have moved a large amount of people (quite unnecessarily, too). It wouldn't simply be written in one source (the only source to mention it is the Bible). We would have had many, many other sources mention this because the event is a significant one. It's highly unlikely it was "lost to time".

Furthermore, if you want an example of my "hand-waving"...

Biblical prophecies about Jesus:

"But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel whose origin is from old, from ancient days" (Mic. 5:2, RSV)

- No reason (outside the New Testament) to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, following from my earlier mention of taxation in the Roman Empire and how there is no historical record of it. There was a census recorded in Judea, but not Galilee. But this was in 6-7 CE. That conflicts with Jesus being alive in the days of Herod who died in 4 BCE. One source does not confirm a historical event.
- Jesus was never ruler of Israel.
- Jesus was never called "Immanuel", either, as Isaiah 7:14 predicted.

One of the most important prophecies has not been fulfilled. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus tells his followers that he'll return and establish his kingdom in a generation before the listeners die. 2000 years later.....where is this kingdom?

There is no Roman record to verify Jesus was ever tried by Pontius Pilate nor executed - even by crucifixion. These are events that would have easily been recorded in Roman documents. Yet not a trace of them. Not a single piece of history concurring with the Biblical account of Jesus.

What were you saying again about "hand-waving"?

Again, this doesn't show a flaw in the biblical history. Why should we expect Philo or Josephus to have recorded every atrocity by every tyrant? Why should the fact that Philo and Josephus (more accurately, those histories we have from them that have survived the ravages of time) don't record these events to be evidence that they didn't happen? That's just weird.

Your argument for the lack of historical support for the story of Jesus seems to be that "everything probably wasn't recorded". I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I believed that, I would claim God doesn't exist with 100% certainty. But there isn't a single detail about the story of Jesus that can be checked against known historical events. Care to provide at least one detail that has been confirmed historically?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is that life requires a great number of universal constants to have an infinitessimally small range. So yeah, we might have a "universe" that "functions" with different constants, but we wouldn't have life. The argument was convincing enough to move such a staunch athiest as Antony Flew to a deist position. Flew is nothing if not a hard-nosed skeptic. So if you are not impressed by the argument, may I humbly suggest that you are either not conversant with the issues it raises or there is another source for your skepticism?

Firstly, there isn't a "great number" of these constants that are integral to life. And secondly when I wrote that these universes would operate much in the same way as our own when fundamental forces are removed, I meant life would still be supported.

And appeals to authority hardly impress me, either. I know of Antony Flew and I've heard his arguments and they don't convince me. Flew has a flaw in his thinking if he thinks that universal constants are a sufficient reason to construct a deity to attribute to it with no evidence for that deity. A "hard-nosed skeptic" would not invent a deity with no evidence in order to explain something.

But let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. Let's talk about some of these constants and stop griping and moaning about Antony Flew.

The strength of electromagnetic force is determined by a parameter called the "fine structure constant" that depends on the value of the unit electric charge (the charge of an electron). The fine structure constant, though, has not been -ironically- constant. From the highly successful standard model of particles and forces, the fine structure constant and the strengths of the other elementary forces vary with energy and must have changed very rapidly during the first moments of the big bang when temperature rose drastically within a fraction of a second. At this point, the four known forces were unified as one force. Gravity and electromagnetism commenced with equal strength.

As the universe cooled, a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking resulted in the separation of forces that we experience at much lower energies we experience today and their strengths evolved into their current values. They weren't "fine-tuned". Life simply had to wait for the forces to separate sufficiently.

Okay, let's add those in.

I said it was a stronger argument than moaning about the "fine-tuned" constants. I didn't say it was a valid argument. However, I'm a nice guy and I'll show you why the moaning about the universal ratios are also invalid. These are the necessary changes to these ratios I speak of so that life as we know it could not exist on Earth.

- Electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational force. If forces were comparable, stars would collapse before life evolved.
- Vacuum energy density of the universe is at least 120 orders of magnitude lower than theoretical estimates. If at any time the universe was as large as the calculations suggest, it would have quickly blown apart.
- The electron's mass is less than the difference in the masses of the neutron and proton. Thus a free neutron can decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino. If this were not the case, the neutron would be stable and most of the protons and electrons in the early universe would have combined to form neutrons, leaving little hydrogen to act as fuel for stars.
- The neutron is heavier than the proton but not so much that neutrons cannot be bound in nuclei, where conservation of energy prevents the neutrons from decaying. Without neutrons we would not have heavier elements for building complex systems (like life, for example).
- The carbon nucleus has an excited energy level at around 7.65 MeV. Without this state, insufficient carbon would be manufactured in stars to form the basis of life. Using anthropic arguments, Hoyle predicted this energy level before it was confirmed experimentally.


This is why the universe isn't "fine-tuned". I was even generous to give you a better argument to use and still demonstrated that huge differences are required for life as we know it not to exist on Earth.

But that's just for LIFE to exist. As we know it. The universe is still tenable with even greater changes, even if there is no life.

Some agnostics say this. Not all. Some agnostics say that we just don't have it.

Then they wouldn't be agnostic if they claimed we just don't have it. That would defeat the purpose of declaring yourself agnostic. That's more akin to what a fundamental atheist would believe.

ag·nos·tic (

g-n

s

t

k) n.1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

1a is the religious definition. 2 is the colloquial usage.

This completely ignores everything I've said for dozens of posts. Let's take that claim: "It is irrational to believe anything without evidence." Do you have evidence for that claim? Probably not. So clearly, you don't need evidence to believe some things. Evidence is simply not required for some of our beliefs to be rational. In fact, I'd go farther. MOST of our beliefs are rational without evidence.

Yes, yes I do. It's demonstrably easy. I make the claim you are actually a cat right now. I dare you to believe that without evidence. Go on. Meow. Would you agree it's irrational to believe an extraordinary claim (you are a cat/God exists/Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead) without evidence now?

Faced with the mountains of evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead, one might say "Well look, I can't explain all these evidences. I admit that the best explanation for it all is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. However, we know that such things can't happen because the laws of nature are inviolate. So although I don't have another explanation right now, even though the evidence points to resurrection, I don't believe the resurrection."

That's not what I'm arguing at all. There is zero evidence Jesus rose from the dead. If I was "faced with mountains of evidence", I'd be more inclined to accept your claim. You seem to imply I'm being biased here. Like I simply wish to ignore evidence to suit my own purposes. Why would I want to do that? If there is a chance I might burn in hell for eternity, don't you think I'd take a little more care to be sure of what I'm arguing?

That's simply not so. And what's sad is that you know it's not so. Once again, take your belief: "Any belief you cannot objectively prove is irrational." Apparently you think this belief is rational, but can you 'objectively' prove it? No. Must be irrational (I believe it is, but for different reasons).

I am Magog, an alien of Zudreb-9. Do you believe me? If so, your belief is irrational because you have no evidence to prove my extraordinary claim. Do you not believe me? Then why do you persist in claiming I have no evidence for the statement "It is irrational to accept claims without evidence"?

This is basically how I explain other people's lack of belief in God. Spiritual blindness. Something has gone awry with the cognitive establishment.

Uhhh...okay...

I really don't know. It puzzles me more than anyone.

I was really hoping you wouldn't play the "It's a mystery " card. Nonetheless, I do think you're sincere in your beliefs.

It's broadly logically possible. I rule it out because it just seems obviously false.

How is a very probable, naturalistic explanation "obviously" false? I seemed to have missed this.


Note: My main source for my ramblings is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. I disagree with the premise of his book (God can be definitely disproven), but there is still a lot of valuable information in there.

 

[lunamoth]

Actually, the main difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that the weak atheist admits that his belief is based on faith. The strong atheist is just deluded into thinking that he is not relying on faith.

 

[Sententia]

Actually, the main difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that the weak atheist admits that his belief is based on faith. The strong atheist is just deluded into thinking that he is not relying on faith.

Essentially you are stating:

It takes Faith to believe in god.
It takes Faith to not believe in god.
It takes reason to say you are not sure.

Based upon all available evidence I can state Perpetual Motion, Fairies and Gods do not exist.

Should further evidence avail itself to justify its claim I would evaluate it as required.

No evidence conclusively or even semi-conclusively support a god. I consider god a virtual impossibility. Its very different then say monopole magnets... We said Monopole magnets should exist but we have never found any... then yesterday we did... for the first time ever....

While many have reason to believe god exists I dont think its the same thing. No evidence supports that god must exist... and I think the search has probably already ended in lieu of things that might actually be important rather then 1000 year old fairy tales of devils, demons, gods and evil shellfish.

Like when people discovered the earth wasnt flat... Most people still believed it was... but their belief didnt make it so and no amount of evidence could convince many otherwise and they died believing the earth was flat.

So for them perhaps the earth was flat. And for many perhaps god is real. But regardless... There is no evidence or really any need for a god theory at this point and I dont think that really requires faith. If you think there is evidence that conclusively supports the existence of god I think most people who consider themselves strong atheists would consider the evidence. Contrast that with evidence that might conclusively support there is no god and I dont think you would find as many theists considering it. (I am cheating since percentage wise there are more theists then atheists and if you play the number games I automatically win hehe) But seriously... I think you know what I am trying to say.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Actually, the main difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that the weak atheist admits that his belief is based on faith. The strong atheist is just deluded into thinking that he is not relying on faith.

I love how Christians seem to be more sure of what atheism is...than atheists. And still get it so horribly wrong, I'm not even going to bother correcting you anymore. Not YOU specifically, lunamoth, but anyone who miraculously decides what my beliefs are without informing me of the fact.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Essentially you are stating:

It takes Faith to believe in god.
It takes Faith to not believe in god.
It takes reason to say you are not sure.

Based upon all available evidence I can state Perpetual Motion, Fairies and Gods do not exist.

Should further evidence avail itself to justify its claim I would evaluate it as required.

No evidence conclusively or even semi-conclusively support a god. I consider god a virtual impossibility. Its very different then say monopole magnets... We said Monopole magnets should exist but we have never found any... then yesterday we did... for the first time ever....

While many have reason to believe god exists I dont think its the same thing. No evidence supports that god must exist... and I think the search has probably already ended in lieu of things that might actually be important rather then 1000 year old fairy tales of devils, demons, gods and evil shellfish.

Like when people discovered the earth wasnt flat... Most people still believed it was... but their belief didnt make it so and no amount of evidence could convince many otherwise and they died believing the earth was flat.

So for them perhaps the earth was flat. And for many perhaps god is real. But regardless... There is no evidence or really any need for a god theory at this point and I dont think that really requires faith. If you think there is evidence that conclusively supports the existence of god I think most people who consider themselves strong atheists would consider the evidence. Contrast that with evidence that might conclusively support there is no god and I dont think you would find as many theists considering it. (I am cheating since percentage wise there are more theists then atheists and if you play the number games I automatically win hehe) But seriously... I think you know what I am trying to say.

I applaud you, sir!

 

[lunamoth]

Essentially you are stating:

It takes Faith to believe in god.
It takes Faith to not believe in god.
It takes reason to say you are not sure.

It takes reason for all of the above positions.
But yes, you get my point for theism and atheism.

Agnosticism is the most 'logical' position. However, even trusting our reason to tell us what is true is based upon faith.

Based upon all available evidence I can state Perpetual Motion, Fairies and Gods do not exist.

Should further evidence avail itself to justify its claim I would evaluate it as required.

No evidence conclusively or even semi-conclusively support a god. I consider god a virtual impossibility. Its very different then say monopole magnets... We said Monopole magnets should exist but we have never found any... then yesterday we did... for the first time ever....

While many have reason to believe god exists I dont think its the same thing. No evidence supports that god must exist... and I think the search has probably already ended in lieu of things that might actually be important rather then 1000 year old fairy tales of devils, demons, gods and evil shellfish.

Like when people discovered the earth wasnt flat... Most people still believed it was... but their belief didnt make it so and no amount of evidence could convince many otherwise and they died believing the earth was flat.

So for them perhaps the earth was flat. And for many perhaps god is real. But regardless... There is no evidence or really any need for a god theory at this point and I dont think that really requires faith. If you think there is evidence that conclusively supports the existence of god I think most people who consider themselves strong atheists would consider the evidence. Contrast that with evidence that might conclusively support there is no god and I dont think you would find as many theists considering it. (I am cheating since percentage wise there are more theists then atheists and if you play the number games I automatically win hehe) But seriously... I think you know what I am trying to say.

See, all of that is pretty reasonable opinion. But it is not purely rational, as you seem to know.

Can you tell me how you tell when something is 'rational?'

 

[lunamoth]

I applaud you, sir!

OK. You agree completely with Balance's post. Check.

 

[Vile Atheist]

OK. You agree completely with Balance's post. Check.

OK. You've acknowledged my agreement. Check.

 

[lunamoth]

OK. You've acknowledged my agreement. Check.

Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

I would never think you to be so callous.

 

[lunamoth]

I would never think you to be so callous.

Why, thank you kind sir!

Can you tell me the rational basis of your humanism?

 

[Sententia]

It takes reason for all of the above positions.
But yes, you get my point for theism and atheism.

Agnosticism is the most 'logical' position. However, even trusting our reason to tell us what is true is based upon faith.

See, all of that is pretty reasonable opinion. But it is not purely rational, as you seem to know.

Can you tell me how you tell when something is 'rational?'

Sure... But rational has been used and abused and has many definitions hehe. But to me rational is merely something that is agreeable to reason.

So as an atheist and former theist I had to consider my beliefs in god. Deeply. I had to first consider that my core beliefs were based upon my inital indoctrination and on my reverence and unquestioning bias that the bible I still have in front of my computer right here is the actual word of a diety that created me and the whole story that went along with it.

Then I had to consider the actual source. My original reason for considering it the word of god was I was told it was the inspired word of god. Upon further research it didn't seem that the finished product in front of me was actually the word of god. I mean unless you get really, really crazy with the old idea that god works in mysterious ways I mean really how could it be.

But even still... I wanted to wipe out every tear from their eyes... I wanted to make death no more. I want the former things to pass away and forever there to be peace. I want those things. But... Scripture and 1000 year old fairy tales and hoping that if I read the bible like I would rub a lamp would summon forth some diety genie to right all the wrongs is not gonna make that happen.

Even still... it took me a while to become a real skeptic. I was still buying organic groceries... Still saying now I lay me down to sleep for a long time. I still thought perpetual motion must be possible... We just have to use X. (Magnets... Gravity wheels whatever....)

I had been taught to distrust anything but the word of god. It stuck with me for a long time. Essentially I was raised to be a sheep.

When I finally broke out of my upbringing code it was like a religious experience. And some of the religious experiences I read about are no different to me then when I started to understand what I could reasonably accept.

So to answer your question... A rational position is one of I'm not sure or No conclusive evidence supports that position and in both CASES one must be willing to examine any future evidence presented.

A disbelief in god to me is not faith based in the same way a disbelief in fairies or perpetual motion is not faith based. Thats not to say that there are not Atheistic faith based disbeliefs in god. (Recently I heard a few the young and the godless podcasts and it bordered to me a faith based disbelief) The majority of strong atheists I don't believe are faith based. On the opposite side of the spectrum I think the majority of those that believe in god are faith based but not necceserially. That is... they could not know where their beliefs come from. If they believe the bible to be the true word of god and have never examined why they believe that or where the bible came from etc etc they could believe on fact. (According to them)

Often when this subject comes up I point to christian science followers who watch their children die of simple and curable diseases because they believe praying will cure their kids. In reality we can cure their kids and we don't need god to do it and god has been historically unreliable in the field of medicine....

I guess it depends on what you personally consider rational. What do you, at your core base your belief in a god on? Do you acknowledge its faith based? If you didn't have that faith would you still believe in god and if so what would you call that?

 

[lunamoth]

Sure... But rational has been used and abused and has many definitions hehe. But to me rational is merely something that is agreeable to reason.

So as an atheist and former theist I had to consider my beliefs in god. Deeply. I had to first consider that my core beliefs were based upon my inital indoctrination and on my reverence and unquestioning bias that the bible I still have in front of my computer right here is the actual word of a diety that created me and the whole story that went along with it.

Then I had to consider the actual source. My original reason for considering it the word of god was I was told it was the inspired word of god. Upon further research it didn't seem that the finished product in front of me was actually the word of god. I mean unless you get really, really crazy with the old idea that god works in mysterious ways I mean really how could it be.

But even still... I wanted to wipe out every tear from their eyes... I wanted to make death no more. I want the former things to pass away and forever there to be peace. I want those things. But... Scripture and 1000 year old fairy tales and hoping that if I read the bible like I would rub a lamp would summon forth some diety genie to right all the wrongs is not gonna make that happen.

Even still... it took me a while to become a real skeptic. I was still buying organic groceries... Still saying now I lay me down to sleep for a long time. I still thought perpetual motion must be possible... We just have to use X. (Magnets... Gravity wheels whatever....)

I had been taught to distrust anything but the word of god. It stuck with me for a long time. Essentially I was raised to be a sheep.

When I finally broke out of my upbringing code it was like a religious experience. And some of the religious experiences I read about are no different to me then when I started to understand what I could reasonably accept.

So to answer your question... A rational position is one of I'm not sure or No conclusive evidence supports that position and in both CASES one must be willing to examine any future evidence presented.

A disbelief in god to me is not faith based in the same way a disbelief in fairies or perpetual motion is not faith based. Thats not to say that there are not Atheistic faith based disbeliefs in god. (Recently I heard a few the young and the godless podcasts and it bordered to me a faith based disbelief) The majority of strong atheists I don't believe are faith based. On the opposite side of the spectrum I think the majority of those that believe in god are faith based but not necceserially. That is... they could not know where their beliefs come from. If they believe the bible to be the true word of god and have never examined why they believe that or where the bible came from etc etc they could believe on fact. (According to them)

Often when this subject comes up I point to christian science followers who watch their children die of simple and curable diseases because they believe praying will cure their kids. In reality we can cure their kids and we don't need god to do it and god has been historically unreliable in the field of medicine....

I guess it depends on what you personally consider rational. What do you, at your core base your belief in a god on? Do you acknowledge its faith based? If you didn't have that faith would you still believe in god and if so what would you call that?

Hi Balance,

First, I read all of the above, even though I won't address most of your points. I hear what you are saying and it sounds like you did think a lot about your loss of faith and religion. It sounds to me like you made a reasonable choice based upon your experience and way of thinking.

But, I was not asking you about what substantiates a rational belief in God. :no:

I was asking you how you know anything you think is rational, as opposed to 'non-rational.' (I'll avoid irrational because that sounds like 'against reason'). Maybe you don't like to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is rational? You think the two terms are identical?

How do you know when you are being reasonable?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Why, thank you kind sir!

Can you tell me the rational basis of your humanism?

I wanted to find a decent definition of secular humanism to quote here so there'd be no ambiguity to my statements. Surprisingly, I rather liked Wikipedia's entry lol.

Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source, therefore rejecting faith completely as a basis for action. The humanist ethics goal is a search for viable individual, social and political principles of conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility, ultimately eliminating human suffering. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world-wide umbrella organization for those adhering to the Humanist life stance.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.[8] Humanism is known to adopt principles of the Golden Rule, as in the quote by Oscar Wilde: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." This emphasizes the respect for others' identity and ideals.
Secular humanists embrace utilitarianism as a guide to ethics. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, was a secular humanist. Peter Singer, an Australian utilitarian philosopher, is a secular humanist and a Humanist Laureate in the International Academy of Humanism.[9]

I believe rejecting faith as a base for action is rational because we require evidence for pretty much everything we come across in life. Our morality deals with facts.


For example, when dealing with the abortion issue, it does no good to declare you have faith that a fertilized egg has a soul because that isn't supported by evidence. Therefore basing your moral position on the subject of morality around that claim - unsupported by evidence - is self-defeating when facts are available.


We can look at brain activity, we can look at various stages of development, we can make our decisions based on scientifically established facts, rather than meaningless assertions. Thus our morality is not built on a false premise.






I also think judging actions on how they relieve suffering is a rational way to judge actions. Religious morality, in contrast, is based upon pleasing/obeying God. Secular humanism concerns itself with removing human suffering. The effect is that religious morality sometimes overrides or downplays human suffering because they have a sincere belief in God and believe pleasing and obeying God is a more moral end than actually directly relieving human suffering.


There are plenty of cases where pleasing and obeying God causes human suffering. Look no further than my previous abortion example. Bringing an unwanted child or a child whose parents cannot care for it is ultimately going to make the child suffer. The child will live in an orphanage where there can be significant abuse by foster parents. Also, the parents will have to live with the knowledge they brought someone into this world and had to give the child up because they weren't ready for whatever reason.


Abortion solves this problem if done in a stage where the developing fetus has not developed brain activity. I think as soon as there is brain activity, when the developing fetus CAN feel pain and is aware of its surroundings, then abortion should be off the table because now abortion will cause more human suffering than it would alleviate.



A sentient entity now perishes and the parents still feel that same emotional burden. Abortion at that stage would accomplish little to no good comparatively to before when it was not sentient.






It emphasizes respect and emphasizes reducing human suffering wherever possible. It does not pay tribute to an invisible figure in the sky and does not put that invisible figure's interests over our own. We know WE exist. We don't know God exists. Not even theists. Theists only have "faith". Nothing more. Just like those who claim God doesn't exist have nothing more than "faith". I think the rejection of faith is the most rational of all the tenets of secular humanism. But even as a religious person, you'd probably agree with most of the tenets yourself.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I was asking you how you know anything you think is rational, as opposed to 'non-rational.' (I'll avoid irrational because that sounds like 'against reason'). Maybe you don't like to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is rational? You think the two terms are identical?

Fully aware this wasn't directed at me, my definition of rational vs irrational:

Rational: Supported by evidence, usually conclusively, but not necessarily so.
Irrational: Unsupported by evidence, or only supported by insufficient evidence.

Now to clear this up:

Evidence: Naturalistic material whose properties substantiate a claim OR (if we're talking logically) an argument void of any logical fallacies based on current, up-to-date knowledge that substantiates a claim.


We require different standards of proof for different claims. These are extraordinary claims vs ordinary claims (as I was discussing with Dunemeister).

I define each as:

Extraordinary claim: A claim that is highly improbable, usually involving the violation of the laws of nature, and is not immediately credible.

Ordinary claim: A claim that is very probable, within the bounds of the laws of nature and is immediately credible.

Extraordinary claim - "I am a Zulu warrior princess living in the taiga of Russia. I beekeep in my spare time, but I mostly collect stamps and turn sand into gold."

This violates the laws of nature, is highly improbable, and is not immediately credible.

Ordinary claim - "My name is Tom."

Within the laws of nature (I don't see how a name could not be in the laws of nature :S), is highly probable (lots of guys named Tom and there is no apparent reason why I would lie about my name [ironically, I'm lying about my name lol]), and is immediately credible (you wouldn't ask for my birth certificate to verify my name is Tom if I told you so).

 

[Sententia]

Hi Balance,

First, I read all of the above, even though I won't address most of your points. I hear what you are saying and it sounds like you did think a lot about your loss of faith and religion. It sounds to me like you made a reasonable choice based upon your experience and way of thinking.

But, I was not asking you about what substantiates a rational belief in God. :no:

I was asking you how you know anything you think is rational, as opposed to 'non-rational.' (I'll avoid irrational because that sounds like 'against reason'). Maybe you don't like to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is rational? You think the two terms are identical?

How do you know when you are being reasonable?

Well I guess I should begin with the logical beginning.

If one assumed it takes faith to both believe and to not believe then one has to question how one comes to that conclusion.

Some examples I listed... Fairies and perpetual motion. Gravity wheels were mentioned too I think.

I'm not sure how to further explain why I feel most atheists are not faith based. Is it reasonable to believe in god if your were raised that way and if it brings comfort to your life and inspires you to be a better person? Sure. Is it reasonable to believe in god if it helps you cope with death... Sure.

Its reasonable for you. But is it reasonable from a purely 1+1=2 standpoint? IMHO no.

Now I consider myself a strong atheist but would still consider any evidence to support a god theory. The big bang theory is falling apart all the time and at the same time being bolstered... is the big bang theory how I choose to live life by?

Right. Essentially what is the importance of god in your life? If you stopped believing would you be out stealing and murdering as your belief in god is the only thing preventing that? By all means keep believing!

What I am summing up badly. (As I am very tired hehe...) What is the reason to live your life according to whatever beliefs your believe in? Is it morality? Is it afterlife goodies? etc etc... Is it faith based? If it is faith based and you lose your faith can you still believe in it and if you can what do you call that? Rational?

It seems very subjective to me. I still have committed to memory numerous verses of the bible... what astounds me is just how non god like those passages are. I mean I also have passages from the hobbit and 1984 committed to memory... the fact that I remember a verse or a passage holds no magical power for me. But if a god or deity or such might actually inspired a holy text for us I would expect a lot more then the bible, bom or Qur’an... Its asinine to me to think that anyone but superstitious or deceitful humans wrote such balderdash. Honestly if I had written any book of the new testament and by some twist of time was allowed to see what was happening because of my fairy tale I don't think I could personally write it. What strikes me.... Is I think given the same choice they still would have written it. (I mean think of the circumstances these people probably lived in.... They certainly couldnt get netflix or argue here...)

What is more reasonable in your opinion? To assume everything was created by god or to keep looking for an actual answer you can prove?

What is more reasonable in your opinion? To assume there is god or to keep looking for evidence that may support an actual solution to the problem the god solution was supposed to solve?

Currently the answer is jesus... but it was Ra.... right? Jesus is a new god. He supposedly lived like 2k years ago but it was decades after that they wrote about him and supposedly they were just fulfilling prophesy which means their work was already based on something else...

Religions just seem to come and go.... Jehovah's witnesses are a new faith... The latter day saints... Look at what has happened since Joseph smith...

Sometimes people forget were human... Ever read about Morgellon's disease?
13 more things: Morgellons disease - 02 September 2009 - New Scientist

Jesus faith is so new that I think ultimately for real theists its irrelevant. If your not believing on faith then what drives the non-faith belief? If its is faith based and you lost that faith would still believe? And if you did still believe what would you call that? If without faith you could not believe you would still call that faith?

You see where I am going?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Atheism is a skeptical position based on evidence. No naturalistic evidence = no atheists buying your claims.

Atheism involves rational thinking in demonstrating God's improbability which most will go at length about. I will spare you a vicious tirade lol. Only a small fraction of atheism declares God does not exist definitely. There is a difference in saying "I don't believe in God" and "God doesn't exist" and I think this is a common misconception among theists who sometimes equate the two.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is a skeptical position based on evidence. No naturalistic evidence = no atheists buying your claims.

Atheism involves rational thinking in demonstrating God's improbability which most will go at length about. I will spare you a vicious tirade lol. Only a small fraction of atheism declares God does not exist definitely. There is a difference in saying "I don't believe in God" and "God doesn't exist" and I think this is a common misconception among theists who sometimes equate the two.

I have yet to hear any evidence for the non-existence of god except that there is no evidence for the existence of god. Yet there IS evidence for the existence of god. So what exactly is the evidence for the non-existence of god?

 

[Commoner]

Yet the IS evidence for the existence of god. So what exactly is the evidence for the non-existence of god?

Please, I beg of you, present the evidence.