Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Zwing]

I suspect that's because the word 'atheist' means a variety of things.

1. The one that most of them seem to favor is 'One who lacks belief in God or gods. They like this one because they believe (falsely in my opinion) that it frees them of any need to defend their atheism.

2. One who believes that the proposition 'God/gods exist' is False. Many of them are reluctant to admit this one, but they typically wear it on their sleeves. It's the definition of 'atheist' that I think best fits in most cases.

3. An anti-religious individual (which typically means anti-Christian in most cases in the US and Europe).

My guess is that holding to 3. (anti-Christianity) would motivate the kind of views that you criticise in the opening post.

You missed one possible position: that which holds that “I should not believe that God, or gods, exist”. Let’s call this number “4”. It differs from number “2” by addressing only the proper way to believe when confronted with the theistic proposition, while not making any absolute judgments. I will address each of your points below.

(1) A defense? Easy. I am an atheist for the same reason that I do not believe in unicorns or centaurs: because I have never seen a god.

(2) This is the antitheistic position, an affirmative denial that any god exists. It appears wrongheaded because the affirmation of non-existence itself demands objective, supernatural evidence which is not available.

(3) I hold that religion is very important for its ability to render significance to the passages of human life. Religion need not be theistic, nor must it depend upon acceptance of the supernatural. I am not at all anti-religious, nor do I shun Christians, but I do oppose the central tenets of Christianity for their tendency to delude, and for the danger to the individual which seems to progress from that delusion.

(4) No reluctance here, for this is my position. As to why, there is an exceedingly simple logical argument, the premise of which is that a supernatural claim should only be accepted as true if shown so by the offering of objective, supernatural evidence.

Argument:
I should only believe that a god exists if I have some form of objective evidence that it does.
I have no objective evidence supporting the existence of any god.
Therefore, I should not believe that any god exists.

Note that the position remains moot on the actual existence or non-existence of a god, which point remains immaterial until such a time as a god deigns to reveal itself or clearly supernatural events begin to occur. It only clarifies the correct position to take when confronted with the proposition that a god exists. This is not a “cop out”, it is a clarification of correct belief given a complete lack of objective evidence either way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Argument:
I should only believe that a god exists if I have some form of objective evidence that it does.
I have no objective evidence supporting the existence of any god.
Therefore, I should not believe that any god exists.

...

Your hidden assumption is that you can have objective evidence as such.
So now show that you can have objective evidence.

 

[Ella S.]

How is this apologism? Is Ehrman an apologist because he believes Jesus existed and that Christians were martyred? Is doing history apologism now?

Corrupting history to make Christianity look better is apologism, yes. Ehrman is not an apologist, but your post is apologism.

1) Paul met Jesus in a vision. According to Paul, this is good enough because he believes that Jesus is still alive. Whether you believe Jesus is alive or not isn't germane; we can accept that Paul had some kind of mystical experience in which he believed he saw Jesus. I don't think this should be too difficult for anyone to accept, especially given that it is recorded in two places (Acts by Luke and in Galatians by Paul). If you are going to deny that Paul even had a mystical experience then you are going to have to explain why. When Paul goes to the Apostles after this experience they find no fault with him and allow him to preach to the non-Jews (Galatians 2:6-10). He had later disagreements, but Paul and Peter were not the only ones having disagreements.

Paul having a mystical experience is completely different from Paul actually meeting a physical, historical Jesus. Obviously. I can't believe you're even trying to conflate the two.

2) I wasn't specifically referring to the Jesus of Christianity. I was referring to the Jesus of history. That Jesus, by scholarly majority consensus, existed. I'm talking about people who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

And my point is an important scholarly one, since it's the minimal mythicist argument. There are nearly as many conceptions of the historical Jesus as there are historians who write about him.

This reminds me of when someone once told me that the majority of philosophers accept the existence of an objective morality in an effort to make it look like academia was unified against moral nihilism. In reality, the majority of philosophers have not agreed on any specific moral framework and moral nihilism is one framework among many.

Likewise, just saying that most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus doesn't actually say anything. The historical Jesus of one scholar is often a completely different concept of Jesus from another one. The way you're wording this creates a false consensus. That's the bad history I expect from apologists.

3) We have records of Jesus' brother, 4 biographies of him, letters detailing a movement inspired by him, early anti-Christian graffiti showing a crucified man, and no evidence anywhere of anyone in this period denying the founder of the Christian religion even existed. That's a pretty good amount for a Galilean woodworker. The fact that you will take Suetonius but not the Gospels even though they're the same genre is baffling and that's on you to explain. Obviously we have more material evidence for Roman emperors than we have for Judean peasants, but the fact that 4+ people wrote incredibly cultured biographies about him is extraordinary. If he hadn't existed I think at least 1 of them ought to have known about it.

We have a Jamesian reference from Josephus that I accept as authentic. It seems like you're specifically picking as many sources on James as you can without real regard for their veracity here, though. I'm not going to pretend that all of the sources you mention here can be simply dismissed out of hand, but most of them also can't be asserted. It's a subject of active scholarly debate and any position is fringe, as far as I'm aware.

4) These religious claims are 2000 years old, they're hardly new. You are the one with the onus to disprove the claims.

And there you have it. The ultimate tool in the apologist's kit; the Argument from Ignorance mixed with an Appeal to Tradition. No, sorry, the fact that these claims have been around a long time does not mean they warrant special exemption from the burden of proof. And that which can be asserted without evidence...

 

[Ostronomos]

God, or One, is real.

Spirit is a kind of oneness with Him/ it.

Evil is the antithesis of religion and God. Regardless of who thinks what.

God, is the only true matter.

Ella S., I look upon you with pity. For the vengeance of God will strike down the evil that you uphold.

The very highest minds support religion and God. I should know, I lived it.

 

[Ella S.]

Evil is the antithesis of religion and God. Regardless of who thinks what.

God, is the only true matter.

Ella S., I look upon you with pity. For the vengeance of God will strike down the evil that you uphold.

I snipped your post to reply to this part since it's the most pertinent to my response.

I only used "evil" in reference to religion because the user I was replying to was using that language, which I suspect was meant as hyperbole. I do not believe in God, so I do not believe in the kind of evil you're describing here.

If someone's angry at me, usually that should stay between us. Quite frankly, if God were real then it would be none of your business to tell me how God feels about me. That responsibility lies with God. So far, I haven't heard anything from God, but if that changes I'll let the whole forum know I've repented and converted.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[exchemist]

As an obsessive Mediaevalist this is so true. It baffles me the nonsense that is peddled.

What a pity you are too young to have met my father.

But you and my son could have a chat about Herodotus. He was telling me yesterday that Herodotus used a technique of interviewing the bloke in the pub (or equivalent) about the local history. Not an unreasonable approach, in an era in which almost nothing was written down. And he was aware of the need to be sceptical and to cross-check.

 

[Zwing]

So now show that you can have objective evidence.

The appearance of a god, or any other sensory evidence, would amount to objective evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

Your hidden assumption is that you can have objective evidence as such.
So now show that you can have objective evidence.

Objective evidence. That which can been shown to physically exist regardless of whether you believe in its existence or not.

The problem is if God is not physical then God can't be proven to exist. All of us non-dual physicalists are unfortunately stuck with being unable to believe in a non-physical God.

Or if one postulates a physical God then asking for the objective evidence is the correct course.

 

[Zwing]

You are not wrong to state, @Rival, that some atheists, particularly those who lapse into the fallacy of antitheism, tend to carry their reasoning beyond the reasonable. If that reaches the point where one begins to deny historical fact, then that seems indicative of a reaction to emotional pain, or of some kind of thinking problem. This is a good thread, though. It has gotten some traction!

 

[Zwing]

The problem is if God is not physical then God can't be proven to exist.

One would assume, though, that a non-physical God who is omnipotent, as is claimed, might yet manifest itself in some physical manner, as YHVH is claimed to have done regularly in Tanakh. I would be satisfied with a fiery whirlwind, or even with a burning bush which speaks to me…

 

[Nakosis]

One would assume, though, that a non-physical God who is omnipotent, as is claimed, might yet manifest itself in some physical manner, as YHVH is claimed to have done regularly in Tanakh. I would be satisfied with a fiery whirlwind, or even with a burning bush which speaks to me…

That's a good question though. So assuming a omnipotent God who could prove themselves to everyone, then why don't they?

 

[Zwing]

That's a good question though. So assuming an omnipotent God who could prove themselves to everyone, then why don't they?

Just so. The duality represented by physicality and aphysicality would seem to be no barrier to the omnipotent or the transcendant.

 

[Audie]

Objective evidence. That which can been shown to physically exist regardless of whether you believe in its existence or not.

The problem is if God is not physical then God can't be proven to exist. All of us non-dual physicalists are unfortunately stuck with being unable to believe in a non-physical God.

Or if one postulates a physical God then asking for the objective evidence is the correct course.

I figure a omni type god could be as physical
as it cared to be.

 

[F1fan]

I suspect that's because the word 'atheist' means a variety of things.

1. The one that most of them seem to favor is 'One who lacks belief in God or gods. They like this one because they believe (falsely in my opinion) that it frees them of any need to defend their atheism.

Atheism isn't a thing to defend. Can you give examples of an atheist having to defend atheism?

2. One who believes that the proposition 'God/gods exist' is False.

Which is the logical default, BTW. All propositions in debate and logic are by default untrue until it can be demonstrated true via evidence and coherent explanations. Theists fail at this.

Many of them are reluctant to admit this one, but they typically wear it on their sleeves.

Like an armband? Give us an example of an atheist armband. At least it isn't a cross on a necklace, right?

 

[Audie]

Atheism isn't a thing to defend. Can you give examples of an atheist having to defend atheism?

Which is the logical default, BTW. All propositions in debate and logic are by default untrue until it can be demonstrated true via evidence and coherent explanations. Theists fail at this.

Like an armband? Give us an example of an atheist armband. At least it isn't a cross on a necklace, right?

The way theos like to complicate simple
things!
Extreme disbelief is a nonsense idea.

Just TRY to extremely disbelieve Batboy has a
secret moon base- lab. Try!

It's a silly idea and not worth bothering with.

Defend such disbelief? Weird.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that using a strong version of only objective evidence means that there are no morality, rights, propose, usefullness or even relevance possible.

I disagree. They are simply not objective, but subjective judgements. I am not saying that subjective ideas aren't important. Quite the contrary. They just don't constitute truth.

So when you say something is useful to you, you don't live up to your own standard for truth. So your idea of useful, may be relevant to discuss over drinks with fríends, but it is not true.

Yes, of course. I am searching for truth and that is a value judgement. Those that are not searching for truth will find other things important and truth as of less value. We are each on our own quest.

 

[F1fan]

God, or One, is real.

Describe what is real about God, or One. Use facts.

Spirit is a kind of oneness with Him/ it.

So has a penis, or is gender neutral. No recognition of the feminem?

Evil is the antithesis of religion and God. Regardless of who thinks what.

Until a religious person does evil in the name of God. Your thoughts?

God, is the only true matter.

This is a claim, where is the evidence and cohernt explanation of the evidence?

Ella S., I look upon you with pity. For the vengeance of God will strike down the evil that you uphold.

So you're threatened by women?

I would be curious what evil you think she did but your statement is so absurd that it will only ruin your reputation that much more if you kept going.

The very highest minds support religion and God. I should know, I lived it.

You're not living it? So what you say here must no longer be true.

 

[Audie]

Describe what is real about God, or One. Use facts.

So has a penis, or is gender neutral. No recognition of the feminem?

Until a religious person does evil in the name of God. Your thoughts?

This is a claim, where is the evidence and cohernt explanation of the evidence?

So you're threatened by women?

I would be curious what evil you think she did but your statement is so absurd that it will only ruin your reputation that much more if you kept going.

You're not living it? So what you say here must no longer be true.

People who make up nonsense are boring

 

[Heyo]

The problem is if God is not physical then God can't be proven to exist. All of us non-dual physicalists are unfortunately stuck with being unable to believe in a non-physical God.

One would assume, though, that a non-physical God who is omnipotent, as is claimed, might yet manifest itself in some physical manner, as YHVH is claimed to have done regularly in Tanakh. I would be satisfied with a fiery whirlwind, or even with a burning bush which speaks to me…

You seem to have a problem with reality and existence. See my previous thread 5 Planes of Existence.
Real gods can't be proven, they need evidence. Unreal gods need to be proved or at least consistently defined.

 

[The Hammer]

(1) A defense? Easy. I am an atheist for the same reason that I do not believe in unicorns or centaurs: because I have never seen a god.

Have you ever seen air? I haven't.