To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

Well, this is going nowhere, so I might take your hint and leave. Nice talking with you all. ^_^

Bye.

I guess you are not willing to answer the question so I'll just continue with the point I was going to make after you answered me.

I'm sure you were going to argue that, since there is no evidence for either the existance of god or for the "inexistance" of god, both viewpoints are equally valid. I think competently explaining why I think this is wrong would be really hard without an example, so I'm going to give one:

Imagine a theist and an atheist playing in a park. In the middle of the park there's a deep, dark well. The atheist pulls a coin out of his pocket and tosses it in the air. Unfortunatelly, the coin ends up falling in the well and can't be seen anymore. The atheist is a bit upset, since it was his coin, but soon becomes preoccupied with another matter - the theist's claim that the coin landed face up. The atheist, realizing that the theist has no way of knowing this, says: "no, it didn't".

And so we're faced with the dilema. Who's more resonable?

I guess, in this case, the atheist - being careless enough to reject the theist's claim with "no, it didn't", implies that the atheist is making a positive claim of knowledge - that the coin actually landed face down. None of them have any evidence to support their claim, so - as the coin will land on each side 50% of the time, both claims are equally (un)likely to be true.

Ok, I guess the aheist should have been more careful, so he dug his own grave. But now, imagine that, insted of flipping a coin, the theist and the atheist are playing with a dice. The theist claims that it was a "six" and the atheist now says again: "no, it wasn't". Now, even though the atheist is still making a bold claim, he's much more likely to be right than the theist (5:1)- even though there's no evidence to support either claim.

Now let's move away from the example and look at the actual situation - a theist who argues that "god exists" and an atheist arguing that "god doesn't exist". On first glance this might look like a coin toss. But this is not an either/or situation - if there is no god, there are still multiple possibilities. We have no way of knowing how many possibilities there are - as far as we're concearned, unless we have evidence to support one specific claim of existance, there are a practically infinite number of possibilities of things that might exists. If nothing else, I can make up an infinite number of things possibly existing - a fairy, a fairy with two heads, a fairy with tree heads,... You get the point. The fairy is a bad example since it does not exclude god - both could be true - but for any specific claim of a god you could add numerous (infinite?) examples of another, equally unsupported thing that exists, that would exclude that specific god. With "specific god" I mean a god with a certain attibute - any attribute. For instance a creator god - god that created everyhing, I could make up numerous other "beings" and "things" that created everything or "events" that show how this god could not have done it that would necesarrily exclude that god from being the option (if one is true, the other can't be). (I know I made this part a bit complicated)

So in effect, we are tossing a dice with an infinite (or at least a very large) number of possible events. It's more resonable to say, "no, it wasn't a six million and tree" than it is to claim it was - even though there is no evidence either way (or rather, because there is no evidence).

Even if you wanted to incorrectly state that atheists generally argue that "there is no god" - instead of correctly rejecting the theists' claim with "you have absolutely no right to claim that". This is why skepticism is appropriate - not just with the claim of god.


*but I would like to add that few atheists claim to "know" that there is no god and that not all theists aknowledge that there is no evidence for god.

 

[DarkSun]

My question is why you even bring it up? Who cares if some atheists are arrogant. Of course they are. They're a group of people. Some are going to be arrogant. Some are going to be stupid. Some are going to be short, tall, ugly, beautiful, sensitive, caring, uncaring, etc. I'm sure some atheists will claim they know that no god exists, but that's hardly relevant, especially since the whole question is irrelevant to what we've been talking about.

Why did you feel the need to jump in to throw out the arrogance accusation out of nowhere? That's the bigger question.

Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm against atheism? Most of the people I know and get along with are atheists to some degree. So I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was vindicating a diverse group of people, but I don't think I need to comment on that any further.

And I think I might have been misunderstood, MBall.

To claim that God does not exist is not arrogant at all. I'm okay with that view. I disagree, but I'm still okay with it.

But such a claim, by its very nature, is based on absolutely zero empirical evidence. It is an assumption made about reality based on one's individual perception. Sure, there is a lack of evidence for God's existence, but there is also a lack of evidence against it. So it remains an assumption.

Again. I have absolutely no problem with this assumption, this viewpoint, this belief on its own.

What I am against, however, is the absolute refusal to admit that belief in God is equally justified by the available empirical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof). To claim that all theists are using inferior logic to atheists in believing in God, when both perceptions of the world are in fact equally logical (scientifically), is arrogance at its worst. It reaks of bigotry.

Don't get me wrong. If a theist was doing the same thing and saying that everyone who doesn't believe in God is stupid, illogical and dumb... then I would say exactly the same thing to them as well. It works both ways.

Except they probably wouldn't be able to argue against what I'm saying quite so well.

That being said... Commoner. I've read your post... I've considered it. But I still don't see how it invalidates what I've been saying. So forgive me for not replying, but the alternative is repeating myself, which would frustrate both of us. So let's just not go there.

 

[DarkSun]

Just one thing though...

Imagine a theist and an atheist playing in a park. In the middle of the park there's a deep, dark well. The atheist pulls a coin out of his pocket and tosses it in the air. Unfortunatelly, the coin ends up falling in the well and can't be seen anymore. The atheist is a bit upset, since it was his coin, but soon becomes preoccupied with another matter - the theist's claim that the coin landed face up. The atheist, realizing that the theist has no way of knowing this, says: "no, it didn't".

And so we're faced with the dilema. Who's more resonable?

Mmm. I would use a different analogy.

Let's say a man from New York decides to travel to Africa for six months, to live with one of the tribes living in the remote jungle. Within two months he manages to learn their language and can communicate without a translator. When sitting down to eat the food that they had gathered one night, the man tells the story of all of the sky scrapers, the restaurants, the people, how everyone is white, how there are as many people there as there are stars in the sky, and virtually everything about the society he had come from. When he finished explaining, one of the elders of the tribe, a very wise man, said to the white traveller: "You're lying. I have lived here for years and years and I have yet to see such things. Where is your proof?"

Who is more reasonable?

 

[Commoner]

Just one thing though...



Mmm. I would use a different analogy.

Let's say a man from New York decides to travel to Africa for six months, to live with one of the tribes living in the remote jungle. Within two months he manages to learn their language and can communicate without a translator. When sitting down to eat the food that they had gathered one night, the man tells the story of all of the sky scrapers, the restaurants, the people, how everyone is white, how there are as many people there as stars in the sky, and virtually everything about the society he had come from. When he finished explaining, one of the elders of the tribe, a very wise man, said to the white traveller: "You're lying. I have lived here for years and years and I have yet to see such things. Where is your proof?"

Who is more reasonable?

But the man does have evidence for the skyskrapers. You were arguing that there is no evidence for a god - or at least that even if there weren't any, the two would be equally resonable.

Here, the only question would be: should the elder believe?

EDIT: are you now suggesting there is evidence for god?

 

[DarkSun]

But the man does have evidence for the skyskrapers. You were arguing that there is no evidence for a god - or at least that even if there weren't any, the two would be equally resonable.

How would he present that evidence for the sky scrapers? These people have never seen a photo before in their lives.

Here, the only question would be: should the elder believe?

Why should the elder believe? He has no proof at all, and nothing in his experience has ever agreed with what this man is saying.

EDIT: are you now suggesting there is evidence for god?

There is no empirical evidence for God. So I'm not suggesting that there is, and I never would unless some time in the future, using some method unknown to me, we do find proof for or against. However, using inductive reasoning, the individual can feel justified in believing either way.

In that sense, the Elder is justified in his disbelief, and the man is justified in his belief. Both of them, equally so - because there is no way (currently) to prove the other person wrong.

 

[Commoner]

How would he present that evidence for the sky scrapers? These people have never seen a photo before in their lives.

I guess presenting something extraordinary as a photo might lend the stranger some creedence.

Why should the elder believe? He has no proof at all, and nothing in his experience has ever agreed with what this man is saying.

He shouldn't believe.

There is no empirical evidence for God. So I'm not suggesting that there is, and I never would. However, using inductive reasoning, the individual can feel justified in believing either way.

In that sense, the Elder is justified in his disbelief, and the man is justified in his belief. Both of them, equally so - because there is no way to prove the other person wrong.

Yes, but you're forgetting that in your example - the man has empirical evidence to justify his belief (well, had) - even if he can't present it to the elder at that point. But if you never had any empirical evidence to support god - how did you get to believe in him.

If you argue that there is no empirical evidence then you can't say your belief is equally justified.

Again, are you saying there is such evidence? If you're now saying that you have (had) empirical evidence, but just can't show it to me - that's a 180 of your argument so far.

 

[DarkSun]

I guess presenting something extraordinary as a photo might lend the stranger some creedence.

Really? Would you believe me if I started quoting the Bible?

He shouldn't believe.

No, he shouldn't.

Yes, but you're forgetting that in your example - the man has empirical evidence to justify his belief (well, had) - even if he can't present it to the elder at that point. But if you never had any empirical evidence to support god - how did you get to believe in him.

I don't have empirical evidence. But I know that the skyscrapers exist. And I'm sure that if someone had lived for another 2000 years or so, He could tell you too. But He'd probably be classed as insane and locked away.

The same sort of thing probably would have happened to the translator.

If you argue that there is no empirical evidence then you can't say your belief is equally justified.

Yes I can. Because there is no empirical evidence for your viewpoint either.

The elder and the white traveller are both equally justified.



Anyway, I really don't think this is worth arguing over. So this is my last post.

I'm going to go now.

All the best.

Again, are you saying there is such evidence?

No. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for or against God's existence.

Good night. ^_^

 

[Commoner]

Yes I can. Because there is no empirical evidence for your viewpoint either.

The elder and the white traveller are both equally justified.

But I'm agreeing with you - they are both equally justified. Have you completely misunderstood?

 

[dogsgod]

.






God?

 

[DarkSun]

But I'm agreeing with you - they are both equally justified. Have you completely misunderstood?

Wow... Apparently.

Well this is embarrassing. What did you think I've been saying?

 

[PureX]

There are some problems with all these analogies.

Imagine a theist and an atheist playing in a park. In the middle of the park there's a deep, dark well. The atheist pulls a coin out of his pocket and tosses it in the air. Unfortunatelly, the coin ends up falling in the well and can't be seen anymore. The atheist is a bit upset, since it was his coin, but soon becomes preoccupied with another matter - the theist's claim that the coin landed face up. The atheist, realizing that the theist has no way of knowing this, says: "no, it didn't".

How can the atheist be certain that the theist has no way of knowing this? He can't. So he reasonably asks the theist to explain or to prove his claimed knowledge, which the theist says can only be done if the atheist is willing to 'believe'. But the atheist is not willing. So there will be no resolving this dilemma. The atheist is left uncertain, while the theist is left unproven.

But there are a couple things to note. One is that the theist does have a right to make his claim. Just as the atheist has the right to demand that he prove it. And likewise, should the atheist claim that the theist is wrong, the theist then has the right to demand that the atheist prove that. But neither will prove either. And so it will remain an unresolved dilemma.

Who's more reasonable?

They are both being equally reasonable. The theist is making the claim because from his perspective the claim is true. Unfortunately, he is unable to prove it to the atheist without the atheist's cooperation. But the atheist can't cooperate in the way that he's being asked, or he wouldn't be what he is: an atheist. And without this cooperation, the theist can't show how he knows what he believes he knows. And the atheist can't understand this, because he has no experience of any such kind of knowledge acquisition.

It's an unsolvable dilemma.

But now, imagine that, insted of flipping a coin, the theist and the atheist are playing with a dice. The theist claims that it was a "six" and the atheist now says again: "no, it wasn't". Now, even though the atheist is still making a bold claim, he's much more likely to be right than the theist (5:1)- even though there's no evidence to support either claim.

The problem with this analogy is that it places the better knowledge of "God's nature" in the atheist's mind. Which clearly would not be the case.

Now let's move away from the example and look at the actual situation - a theist who argues that "god exists" and an atheist arguing that "god doesn't exist". On first glance this might look like a coin toss. But this is not an either/or situation - if there is no god, there are still multiple possibilities...

Now you have opened up the question to infinity. Which in essence makes it completely unanswerable. In fact, I don't even see how the question would be asked.

 

[dogsgod]

.






God who?

 

[DarkSun]

.






God who?

That's what she said.

 

[Commoner]

Wow... Apparently.

Well this is embarrassing. What did you think I've been saying?

The white man and the elder are equally justified in their beliefs (the man believes, the elder doesn't).

I'm saying that the elder would not have been (equally) justified in believing - and basing his actions on that belief. Not if it went against everything he knew and without any evidence being presented.*

If you claim there is no evidence - then you're the elder, not the white man - he's claiming that there is evidence.

*we could argue over what would be enough evidence and how absurd or resonable the claim would be to him, but that's not the point.

 

[DarkSun]

The white man and the elder are equally justified in their beliefs (the man believes, the elder doesn't).

I'm saying that the elder would not have been justified in believing - and basing his actions on that belief. Not if it went against everything he knew and without any evidence being presented.*

If you claim there is no evidence - then you're the elder, not the white man - he's claiming that there is evidence.

*we could argue over what would be enough evidence and how absurd or resonable the claim would be to him, but that's not the point.

Well, of course the white man would claim that there is evidence. But he can't present it, can he? So there may as well be no evidence.

I guess the Elder could be proven wrong if the white man were to somehow arrange with immigration officials to allow the Elder to board a plane and come over to New York... but good luck getting him to consent to that. But for all the white man knows, he could very well be delusional. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the Jungle.

 

[DarkSun]

Anyway, I really have to go.

Ciao.

 

[Commoner]

There are some problems with all these analogies.
How can the atheist be certain that the theist has no way of knowing this? He can't. So he reasonably asks the theist to explain or to prove his claimed knowledge, which the theist says can only be done if the atheist is willing to 'believe'. But the theist is not willing. So there will be no resolving this dilemma. The atheist is left uncertain, while the theist is left unproven.

I was arguing the point that if there was no evidence at all for either position - either for the existance or the "inexistance" of something (as stated by DarkSun) - then it is not equally justified to believe (or rather, it's more justified to believe in the "inexistance"). Not that, if you can't prove it to me - you shouldn't believe it; and not that theists have no evidence - that wasn't my claim.

Look back at what DarkSun has been saying and you'll see what I meant.

 

[Commoner]

Well, of course the white man would claim that there is evidence. But he can't present it, can he? So there may as well be no evidence.

Yes, to the elder it's just the same as no evidence. He shouldn't believe.

If you are arguing that there is no evidence - as you've been doing (not only that you can't show me the evidence) you should act the same. And maybe ask your "white man" for some evidence.

I guess the Elder could be proven wrong if the white man were to somehow arrange with immigration officials to allow the Elder to board a plane and come over to New York... but good luck getting him to consent to that. But for all the white man knows, he could very well be delusional. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the Jungle.

Again, even showing him something as extraordinary as a plane would be a good start. I don't know why you mentioned the Bible. It's a book isn't it, we have tons of those. Now show me a flying book and I could be impressed.*


*A second later he adds: "Please stop throwing books at me!"

 

[dogsgod]

I don't define God so I don't know nor do I care if there is evidence for or against God. As an atheist I don't even know what God it is I'm supposed to be denying, that's for DarkSun to quibble over. Have fun DarkSun.

 

[Madhuri]

As a theist I freely admit that I have no real scientific evidence for the existence of Divinity. I do not wish to make absolute claims that God does exist because I can admit that I may be wrong. In truth, all I have is subjective feelings and perspective. For me, love and life and consciousness is what draws me to God concept. Those are the things that are of greatest mystery and wonder to everyone. So as far as defining God, I see Him as those three things. But I would not claim that I understand what God is.

So what I have is this: a yearning for something greater than random nothingness and a yearning to discover it. So I lead my life with the assumption that such a 'greater' exists because for me it must. Even if I am wrong, I have made this the meaning in my life and the purpose.

I do not think that anyone should make absolute statements either way and I do not think that any person should be kept from a life that has become their meaning and purpose. Science and subjective perception cannot always collaborate and i do not think that scientists can really tap that perception. Neither do I think it always should.