NationStates Jolt Archive

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”
-Sir Francis Bacon

The purpose of this thread:
I will try to establish here the reasonable, rational possibility for the existence of a God- a hypothesis based on real observable evidence, not on abstract theological possibilities. While it is not necessarily the Christian God I am going to assert (in this thread), certain belief systems will be ruled out by my train of thought. The following is an informal essay I wrote in response to a group of atheists in my school. I’ve modified the essay a bit so it is accessible not only to atheists but everyone and so it better fits the format of a forum (though it’s still longwinded and a bit rambling, sorry).

A note about where I am coming from…

Though I will try not to comment about specific religions, my own viewpoint on the ‘God question’- Roman Catholicism- should be noted. Also, it is important to make clear that none of the arguments I present here are truly my own. I am simply combining, and occasionally adding to, the arguments of Dr. Francis Collins, Father William O’Malley of Fordham University (in New York), Viktor Frankl, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the great British author C.S. Lewis.
Currently in the United States, and I assume elsewhere in the Western world, there is a massive Church-State debate. Secularists fear God sneaking His way into science classrooms through pseudo scientific theories like Intelligent Design- whose advocates declare that evolution is false on the basis of certain scientific observations and statistics, and blatantly religious viewpoints such as Young-Earth Creationism which posits that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and denies a great deal of scientific findings about the history of the universe. I do not agree with either of these theories, and think it is important that believers embrace the discoveries of science. The veracity of these claims however, has very little to do with the argument I am about to make. My argument for God applies both for those who do accept ID and creationism, and for those who accept evolution and all other proven scientific discoveries as facts. Before I argue God’s existence, I will provide a summary of modern atheism as I see it and allow time for comments:

1. The (strong) Atheist’s Case

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

-Richard Dawkins

Atheism, I think, makes a great deal of sense. With all that science has discovered in the past 100 years, belief in anything supernatural, let alone an all powerful deity can seem a little ridiculous. Skepticism, at the very least, should greet every claim of the miraculous or paranormal. If evolution is to be accepted as true, what room does that leave for God’s creative abilities? If He is all powerful, why would he go about creating humanity in such a roundabout way, requiring billions of years? Indeed, the very vastness of the Universe should discourage us from thinking humanity in any way ‘special.’ We are an infinitesimal part of a vast cosmos; a race of ants clinging to a mere speck of dust in a backwater galaxy. Why should we accept an intangible, invisible Creator when it seems so much more logical simply to admit there is much about the Universe (or, if some physicists’ theories are correct, Multiverse) that we do not at this time understand? Assuming the existence of an All-Loving God is even more ludicrous. Heinous human crimes aside, the natural world we inhabit is full of horror…tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, animal maulings, ect. ect. How could a benevolent Creator make a world where disaster is possible? How could He, who supposedly loves his creation, allow humans to commit depraved acts like rape, genocide, and murder against each other?



Combine this with the apparent hypocrisy of the world’s “great” religions and the case against that great big imaginary friend in the sky strengthens. The chaos and death caused by Islam, even ‘moderate’ Islam, is apparent to anyone who opens a newspaper. Christians seem always to quote the nice, cushy sections of the Bible (“love thy neighbor!”) and leave out the not-so-friendly sections. A blackly humorous example of this is found in Second Kings (2:25).

“The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.”

The God of the Old Testament edicts death sentences to those guilty of petty mistakes, homosexuals, pagans, and disobedient slaves too many times to count. Surely if such an All-Powerful Demon exists we will want to distance ourselves from It? Religion-even moderate religions like Methodism, Catholicism, and Hinduism- has fostered fanaticism, ignorance, violence, and delusion. It allows people to think of themselves as somehow more special than the rest of humanity.

Those who say that they believe in religion simply because ‘it gives them comfort; makes them feel good; or provides their lives with meaning,’ are not only being intellectually dishonest, they are actively contributing to an unhealthy delusion. People can find meaning in corporal things that actually do good: soup kitchens, charities, environmental protection, education, and art of all kinds. This brings me to my last point (finally). The claim that good and evil depends on the existence of God is absurd. According to Sam Harris, the moral code is a combination of psychological factors which for biological and evolutionary reasons bring about happiness. The ‘golden rule'- "do unto others as you would have done unto you"- is a simple emotional extrapolation. Would I like to be murdered? No, therefore it is unfair for me to murder another person. Since I have feelings, so too must everyone else. Such reasoning creates a simple moral code that provides protection for the rights of all without getting into such dogmatic trivialities such as ‘no sex outside of marriage’ or ‘no gay marriage’ or ‘no birth control.’

Okay, now…if there is one thing I despise it is someone setting up a straw man (false representation of an opponent’s beliefs) and then tearing it to pieces to prove that their side is right. Before I move into providing my reasoning for God’s existence, please- atheists, freethinkers, agnostics- let me know if I have left anything out of my summary of modern atheism or if I have said anything misleading.

((Link to the next part of my argument: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12414805&postcount=126 ))

or if I have said anything misleading.
Yeah, that God exists.

Sorry, bad troll. Just ignore me. =[

Could you get to the argument already?

It seems pretty accurate to me. Back when I used to care about religion that is, now I'm primarily interested in politics and have realized that it's not really important what religion someone is. Especially sense most of my fellow atheist and I end up on opposite sides of debates. Ironic I spend my yougner years arguing against christianity, and now spend all of my time siding with them.

To my drunken eye, that looks satisfactory, but what is the point for proving the reasonable possibility of God? That still leaves infinite possibilities, does it not?

@Soheran: sorry you've had to deal with two of my rambling threads and have gotten nowhere. The real argument is coming soon, thanks for the patience lol

@Vittos: If there is a reasonable possibility of God, then religion, whether agreed with or not, should be taken seriously...not as a world force, but as possible path to the Truth.

@Vittos: If there is a reasonable possibility of God, then religion, whether agreed with or not, should be taken seriously...not as a world force, but as possible path to the Truth.

Sure religions would be in the realm of possible truths, but big fucking deal.

The "You Are All a Part of My Dream" theory holds that prestigious position.

You're somewhat insulting your audience here. Presumably an atheist knows what it is to be an atheist. If you want to make an argument, make it.

You're somewhat insulting your audience here. Presumably an atheist knows what it is to be an atheist. If you want to make an argument, make it.

I think it is rather refreshing that he establishes the argument before he refutes it. It at least saves a step.

Sorry, I consider positing that there may be a god, but that it's not necessarily the x-whatever god (butit'sreallymygodbecausethatswhatibelieve), to be a massive cop out.

To say that we do not know everything, therefore it's not fair to assume that god does not exist; god may exist, we just haven't proven it yet is a load of poo. By doing this you've created three categories of existence: (1) things that exist and manifest in reality, (2) things that do not exist and (3) things that exist but do not (yet) manifest in reality. The big problem is that there is no way to tell the difference between (2) and (3), and if we can't say that (3) doesn't exist, and we can't tell (3) from (2), then we can also say that (2) doesn't exist. Meaning we can't say that things that don't exist, don't exist. If we follow your logic to its logical conclusion, we're left with a scenario where we can't call anything "nonexistent."

Compare: "It is unfair to say 'leprechauns don't exist', because we have no way of telling if they exist, we just haven't proven it yet" with "it is unfair to say 'god doesn't exist', because we have no way of telling if it exists, we just haven't proven it yet."

The notion of a god is logically equatable with leprechauns.

The big problem is that there is no way to tell the difference between (2) and (3)

Um, yes, there is.

For instance, I can look up and see that there is no table balancing on my head.

"manifest in reality" is a rather difficult turn of phrase to deal with

can't think of anything. although i would say that moderate islam does not cause chaos and death. but i suspect that is irrelevant to you argument.

Um, yes, there is.

For instance, I can look up and see that there is no table balancing on my head.

Huh? What does that have to do with those points?

....I will try to establish here the reasonable possibility for the existence of a God....

I accept that possibility, I just don't believe it to be anything more than a possibility.

Huh? What does that have to do with those points?

There is still a clear distinction between (2) and (3).

That table is almost unquestionably in the (2) category.

There is still a clear distinction between (2) and (3).

That table is almost unquestionably in the (2) category.

Why? What makes you think that table won't manifest at some point?

I think this is just a dumb concept in general. To argue whether or not there is a God is pointless. The whole basis of religion is faith; there are no facts. To, from a religious standpoint, try to prove the existence of God totally defeats the purpose of faith.

Why? What makes you think that table won't manifest at some point?

Exactly, "manifest in reality" is a difficult phrase.

I do not think that the OP is arguing that God will "manifest in reality", rather that it is already a part of reality.

Your use of the term "manifest" adds perception to the whole ordeal, which is a horse of a different color.

If there is a reasonable possibility of God, then religion, whether agreed with or not, should be taken seriously...not as a world force, but as possible path to the Truth.
I disagree. Religion presents itself as if it is true, without allowing for the possibility it is not.

Until religion's assertions make some material difference, there is no reason to consider it at all.

I disagree. Religion presents itself as if it is true, without allowing for the possibility it is not.

Until religion's assertions make some material difference, there is no reason to consider it at all.

Yep, individual religions still merit no serious consideration.

Exactly, "manifest in reality" is a difficult phrase.

I do not think that the OP is arguing that God will "manifest in reality", rather that it is already a part of reality.

Your use of the term "manifest" adds perception to the whole ordeal, which is a horse of a different color.

I concede that that's probably a bad term.

Let me put it this way: for something to exist, it must have a presence in reality, however vague. It must be something, and being something implies interaction with the universe. If god exists, but has absolutely no interaction with the universe, it's as good as not existing, since the perceivable effects are the same. Ergo, "nothing" and "something that does not manifest" are logically equatable, if you're an empiricist.

What makes you think that table won't manifest at some point?

Because tables, unlike deities, usually do not have the quality of obscuring themselves to the senses.

Even if they did, I could just change the example slightly: "There is no table perceptible by human senses that is balancing on my head."

Because tables, unlike deities, usually do not have the quality of obscuring themselves to the senses.

Even if they did, I could just change the example slightly: "There is no table perceptible by human senses that is balancing on my head."

Yes, and what makes this invisible table that we cannot sense any different from the concept of non existence?

Let me put it this way: for something to exist, it must have a presence in reality, however vague. It must be something, and being something implies interaction with the universe. If god exists, but has absolutely no interaction with the universe, it's as good as not existing, since the perceivable effects are the same. Ergo, "nothing" and "something that does not manifest" are logically equatable, if you're an empiricist.

Now you are creating a definition of God that is pointless.

I will agree that something that has no being is "something that does not manifest" that is "nothing".

But is it even possible to describe such an entity?

Yes, and what makes this invisible table that we cannot sense any different from the concept of non existence?

Now there is the question.

Now you are creating a definition of God that is pointless.

I will agree that something that has no being is "something that does not manifest" that is "nothing".

But is it even possible to describe such an entity?

No, it's a logical contradiction. It ultimately results in the conclusion that we cannot describe things that don't exist as not existing.

Now there is the question.

It's also my point, which I admittedly described in a long winded manner.

The fact that it exists?

If there is no way to detect it, how can we describe it as existing?

It ultimately results in the conclusion that we cannot describe things that don't exist as not existing.

What?

Yes, and what makes this invisible table that we cannot sense any different from the concept of non existence?

The fact that it exists?

What?

If we can't tell the difference between non-existence and existence-but-undetectable, we can't say that "x doesn't exist" because x might exist, but be undetectable.

Sorry, I consider positing that there may be a god, but that it's not necessarily the x-whatever god (butit'sreallymygodbecausethatswhatibelieve), to be a massive cop out.
.

I have philosophical reasons to believe in Christianity. Establishing Christianity is simply not the point of this thread, the point of this thread is to establish God as a rational possibility- the "You Are All in My Dream" thoery is not considered by competent philosophers as reasonable because it is not based on real evidence. It is impossible to prove God, I simply want to show that believing in God is A) perhaps more rational than atheism based on evidence.

Do you mean, how can we tell that it exists? We can't.

If you don't, what else do you mean?

I mean that. If we can't tell it exists, how can we say it exists? At most we can say "maybe", and I consider that a cop out, since saying "maybe" equates the notion of god to leprechauns.

I have philosophical reasons to believe in Christianity. Establishing Christianity is simply not the point of this thread, the point of this thread is to establish God as a rational possibility- the "You Are All in My Dream" thoery is not considered by competent philosophers as reasonable. It is impossible to prove God, I simply want to show that believing in God is A) perhaps more rational than atheism based on evidence.

There is no evidence. Not that I've ever been made aware of. Other than some religious people referencing some "divine feeling", which doesn't even nearly count.

If there is no way to detect it, how can we describe it as existing?

Do you mean, how can we tell that it exists? We can't.

If you don't, what else do you mean?

If we can't tell the difference between non-existence and existence-but-undetectable, we can't say that "x doesn't exist" because x might exist, but be undetectable.

Unless "x" includes the quality of detectability.

Unless "x" includes the quality of detectability.

If x does not include that quality, it's as good as not existing.

Neither leprechauns nor God are undetectable.

Oh? Pray tell how we detect either.

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”
-Sir Francis Bacon

The purpose of this thread:
I will try to establish here the reasonable, rational possibility for the existence of a God- a hypothesis based on real observable evidence, and while it is not necessarily the Christian God, certain belief systems will be ruled out by my train of thought. The following is an informal essay I wrote in response to a group of atheists in my school. I’ve modified the essay a bit so it is accessible not only to atheists but everyone and so it better fits the format of a forum (though it’s still longwinded and a bit rambling, sorry).

A note about where I am coming from…

Though I will try not to comment about specific religions, my own viewpoint on the ‘God question’- Roman Catholicism- should be noted. Also, it is important to make clear that none of the arguments I present here are truly my own. I am simply combining, and occasionally adding to, the arguments of Dr. Francis Collins, Father William O’Malley of Fordham University (in New York), Viktor Frankl, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the great British author C.S. Lewis.
Currently in the United States, and I assume elsewhere in the Western world, there is a massive Church-State debate. Secularists fear God sneaking His way into science classrooms through pseudo scientific theories like Intelligent Design- whose advocates declare that evolution is false on the basis of certain scientific observations and statistics, and blatantly religious viewpoints such as Young-Earth Creationism which posits that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and denies a great deal of scientific findings about the history of the universe. I do not agree with either of these theories, and think it is important that believers embrace the discoveries of science. The veracity of these claims however, has very little to do with the argument I am about to make. My argument for God applies both for those who do accept ID and creationism, and for those who accept evolution and all other proven scientific discoveries as facts. Before I argue God’s existence, I will provide a summary of modern atheism as I see it and allow time for comments:

1. The (strong) Atheist’s Case

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

-Richard Dawkins

Atheism, I think, makes a great deal of sense. With all that science has discovered in the past 100 years, belief in anything supernatural, let alone an all powerful deity can seem a little ridiculous. Skepticism, at the very least, should greet every claim of the miraculous or paranormal. If evolution is to be accepted as true, what room does that leave for God’s creative abilities? If He is all powerful, why would he go about creating humanity in such a roundabout way, requiring billions of years? Indeed, the very vastness of the Universe should discourage us from thinking humanity in any way ‘special.’ We are an infinitesimal part of a vast cosmos; a race of ants clinging to a mere speck of dust in a backwater galaxy. Why should we accept an intangible, invisible Creator when it seems so much more logical simply to admit there is much about the Universe (or, if some physicists’ theories are correct, Multiverse) that we do not at this time understand?

Combine this with the apparent hypocrisy of the world’s “great” religions and the case against that great big imaginary friend in the sky strengthens. The chaos and death caused by Islam, even ‘moderate’ Islam, is apparent to anyone who opens a newspaper. Christians seem always to quote the nice, cushy sections of the Bible (“love thy neighbor!”) and leave out the not-so-friendly sections. A blackly humorous example of this is found in Second Kings (2:25).

“The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.”

The God of the Old Testament edicts death sentences to those guilty of petty mistakes, homosexuals, pagans, and disobedient slaves too many times to count. Surely if such an All-Powerful Demon exists we will want to distance ourselves from It? Religion-even moderate religions like Methodism, Catholicism, and Hinduism- has fostered fanaticism, ignorance, violence, and delusion. It allows people to think of themselves as somehow more special than the rest of humanity.

Those who say that they believe in religion simply because ‘it gives them comfort; makes them feel good; or provides their lives with meaning,’ are not only being intellectually dishonest, they are actively contributing to an unhealthy delusion. People can find meaning in corporal things that actually do good: soup kitchens, charities, environmental protection, education, and art of all kinds. This brings me to my last point (finally). The claim that good and evil depends on the existence of God is absurd. According to Sam Harris, the moral code is a combination of psychological factors which for biological and evolutionary reasons bring about happiness. The ‘golden rule'- "do unto others as you would have done unto you"- is a simple emotional extrapolation. Would I like to be murdered? No, therefore it is unfair for me to murder another person. Since I have feelings, so too must everyone else. Such reasoning creates a simple moral code that provides protection for the rights of all without getting into such dogmatic trivialities such as ‘no sex outside of marriage’ or ‘no gay marriage’ or ‘no birth control.’

Okay, now…if there is one thing I despise it is someone setting up a straw man (false representation of an opponent’s beliefs) and then tearing it to pieces to prove that their side is right. Before I move into providing my reasoning for God’s existence, please- atheists, freethinkers, agnostics- let me know if I have left anything out of my summary of modern atheism or if I have said anything misleading.

Yeah... get to the point.

If we can't tell the difference between non-existence and existence-but-undetectable, we can't say that "x doesn't exist" because x might exist, but be undetectable.

It seems that anything that exists must interact with something else of existence, and by extension must interact with us in some way, but nevertheless, I guess it is possible for your third category to exist.

Please read my introduction to this thread again. What you are arguing is based on a misunderstanding of what I intend to do. My fault. My intention is to explore whether it is more reasonable to be an atheist or a theist based on REAL observable evidence. Unlike the 'you cant disprove god b/c he is invisible and magical' argument, I am going to use real commonplace Facts to argue that it is reasonable to believe in him. It is not reasonable to believe that "This is all a dream" because, while it can't be disproven, it is simply idiotic to assume that it is true.

At most we can say "maybe", and I consider that a cop out, since saying "maybe" equates the notion of god to leprechauns.

Neither leprechauns nor God are undetectable.

the "You Are All in My Dream" thoery is not considered by competent philosophers as reasonable because it is not based on real evidence

I can't wait to shoot this beauty down.

There is nothing easier than destroying "evidence".

It seems that anything that exists must interact with something else of existence, and by extension must interact with us in some way, but nevertheless, I guess it is possible for your third category to exist.

Precisely.

Really?

So it makes no difference to you whether your friends and family are full, conscious beings or just illusions?

I don't see how this relates. Can you elaborate?

If x does not include that quality, it's as good as not existing.

Really?

So it makes no difference to you whether your friends and family are full, conscious beings or just illusions? After all, everything about them but the stuff that the illusion would imitate is undetectable.

Really?

So it makes no difference to you whether your friends and family are full, conscious beings or just illusions? After all, everything about them but the stuff that the illusion would imitate is undetectable.

If it's undetectable, it's as good as not existing. Sheesh!

Like I said in another thread, Jesus raising the faithful to Heaven might be a bit of a hint.

Can we detect this right now? Until (and if) it happens, my point stands.

Oh? Pray tell how we detect either.

Like I said in another thread, Jesus raising the faithful to Heaven might be a bit of a hint.

@The Mindset: A thousand years ago atoms were undetectable, that does not mean they did not exist or that they were irrelevant...human beings simply could not see them.

Answer the question, please.

Do you care? I know I do.

I don't see how it's relevant. It's an entirely unrelated philosophical debate. If there is absolutely no way of telling that it's an illusion, then it's not an illusion for all intents and purposes.

Precisely.

Unfortunately, I cannot imagine that the OP is describing any God that exists independent of "our" reality.

That would be pointless, as I said earlier.

If it's undetectable, it's as good as not existing.

Answer the question, please.

Do you care? I know I do.

@The Mindset: A thousand years ago atoms were undetectable, that does not mean they did not exist or that they were irrelevant...human beings simply could not see them.

You have an argument to propose.

Do not keep your audience waiting, my friend.

@The Mindset: A thousand years ago atoms were undetectable, that does not mean they did not exist or that they were irrelevant...human beings simply could not see them.

Ah, I see where the problem is. I don't mean it that way. A thousand years ago, atoms could've been detected had we the technology. Atoms manifest themselves in reality, and therefore can be detected, even if no one is able to do so. No one is able to detect god, ever, unless it manifests itself in reality, at which point this debate ends.

That it's not happening? Pretty much, yes.

And not only is that not happening, but none of the things one would expect to see from an omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient being are happening - and, indeed, the very concept of such a being is absurd on its face anyway.

How can we detect that it's not happening?

My intention is to explore whether it is more reasonable to be an atheist or a theist based on REAL observable evidence. Unlike the 'you cant disprove god b/c he is invisible and magical' argument, I am going to use real commonplace Facts to argue that it is reasonable to believe in him.
I'm looking forward to this. Whether conclusions are reasonable is my specialty.

Can we detect this right now?

That it's not happening? Pretty much, yes.

And not only is that not happening, but none of the things one would expect to see from an omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient being are happening - and, indeed, the very concept of such a being is absurd on its face anyway.

It was directly relevant to the claim you made that that which is undetectable might as well not exist, which you must have thought was relevant - after all, you said it.



Ah, so you switch your presumption depending on preference.

With regard to God, you might as well assume He doesn't exist.

With regard to your friends, you might as well assume they do.

No, you've completely read this wrong. God does not manifest. My friends and family do. That is why I assume god does not exist, and that my friends and family do.

I don't see how it's relevant. It's an entirely unrelated philosophical debate.

It was directly relevant to the claim you made that that which is undetectable might as well not exist, which you must have thought was relevant - after all, you said it.

If there is absolutely no way of telling that it's an illusion, then it's not an illusion for all intents and purposes.

Ah, so you switch your presumption depending on preference.

With regard to God, you might as well assume He doesn't exist.

With regard to your friends, you might as well assume they do.

How can we detect that it's not happening?

Short of making absurd claims, we can just in the ordinary way. Do you see any people floating up to Heaven?

Admittedly, this does not give us certainty - but then, nothing does, so why worry about it?

Unfortunately Im writing this as I go so you'll have to wait for tomorrow for the next part of my argument. I probably should have written the entire thing first, but I wanted to hear atheistic responses to my summary of atheism first. Soheran, in mentioning that we do not see the what we would expect to see in a world created by an omniscient, benevolent being, makes a good point and I realize I left something out of my summary of atheism...the problem of pain in the world. For now, suffice it to say that there is a legit christian explanation for this (whether you believe it or not, lol) and that I will attempt to explain it. Thanks for your thoughts all, I'll attempt to get the next part up tomorrow.

For now, suffice it to say that there is a legit christian explanation for this (whether you believe it or not, lol) and that I will attempt to explain it.

The problem is, no there isn't. Any belief sytem that is based on the unknowable will constantly have to come up with explanations out of wholecloth to defend themselves through inconsistancis. After a while you end up with such a convoluted mess that says that god loves us but lets us suffer, because we have to suffer, even though god cold make us not suffer, because we have free will, even though god can change that, but he didn't because he has a plan which involves free will, and he must have that plan because if he didn't it wouldn't be that way.

The entire "logic" of christianity boils down to "the universe is the way it is because god wanted it that way and we know that because if he wanted it another way it would be different".

The purpose of this thread:
I will try to establish here the reasonable, rational possibility for the existence of a God- a hypothesis based on real observable evidence, not on abstract theological possibilities. While it is not necessarily the Christian God I am going to assert (in this thread), certain belief systems will be ruled out by my train of thought. The following is an informal essay I wrote in response to a group of atheists in my school. I’ve modified the essay a bit so it is accessible not only to atheists but everyone and so it better fits the format of a forum (though it’s still longwinded and a bit rambling, sorry).

I wish you luck. :fluffle:

@Arthais101: I'm hesitant to argue this point right now, I feel it would be jumping the gun. In order to have a theological conversation about the problem of pain, one must first accept God as a rational possibility. So, please don't think I am avoiding the issue by saying that I would rather get to the issue by a different road at another time. You'll notice that I edited my first post and included the 'problem of pain' as an argument for atheism.

Also, I'd like to point out that I have taken atheism very seriously, that at the very least I understand it's arguments fairly well. The reason I am not an atheist is because of a few serious flaws at the center of this philosophy. These flaws-often dismissed-lead directly to theism and then, I think, to Christianity. The point is, I, and many other thinking theists respect your veiwpoint despite the fact that we think it is ultimately incorrect. Ive found that many, if not most, atheists dismiss religion out of hand once they make up their minds, they think they've found truth and that anyone who believes in purposeful existance is a deluded (and often manipulated) ignorant savage...while many claim to be for tolerance, they are in fact quite intolerant of the idea that someone has looked at the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion. All I ask is for respect for my beliefs. It is true that many theists disrespect atheists- and that is wrong- but by being hateful back you are not part of the solution.

The entire "logic" of christianity boils down to "the universe is the way it is because god wanted it that way and we know that because if he wanted it another way it would be different".

That's not exactly that bad of an argument, honestly. It's concise and explains the problem quite well. I mean, the anthropic principle contains pretty much the exact same underlying concept as that argument for God; things had to be the way they are or else we wouldn't be here.

That's not exactly that bad of an argument, honestly. It's concise and explains the problem quite well.

Except for the fact that it's absolutly and totally circular.

I mean, the anthropic principle contains pretty much the exact same underlying concept as that argument for God; things had to be the way they are or else we wouldn't be here.

The difference between this argument and the anthropic principle is the assumptions each make. Or rather, one makes the assumption and the other does not.

The circular logic is "the universe is the way it is because god wanted it that way, and we know this because if he wanted it differently he would have made it that way"

In other words, it assumes god, and assumes god has something to do with the way things are.

the anthropic principle doesn't make any assumptions. It doesn't claim why we have the reality we have, or why it's isn't different. It is merely a truism, it states that the reason that the universe looks designed specifically for our existance is that if it were any other way, we wouldn't be in existance to debate why the universe is the way it is.

There is no assumption as to the WHY, it merely states that IF things were different we wouldn't be here. That's it. It is not circular logic, as it makes no assumptions it attempts to prove. It's merely a truism.

The sexiest are the ones being used.

Oh, I thought we were talking about panties.

Anyway, the true atheist doesnt need to talk about religion because he feels it is as stupid as talking about Santa Claus.

The only atheists who talk about it usually are trying to prove to themselves or to make them feel better about it.

I know because I´ve been there. Nowadays religion means shit.

The way I see it as an empirical atheist is that the universe operates on mathematically expressible rules. We know this is true. There are billions of these rules, many quite complex and operating on rules of logic unfamiliar to us (certain aspects of quantum physics, for example), and the interactions of these many laws become so sophisticated that, given the huge numbers of gaps remaining in our knowledge of these laws, we can't yet accurately predict the outcome of these sophisticated interactions--we term them "nonlinear systems" and chalk up their cause-effect relationships to some convenient place-holder, which we variously label "God", "chaos", et al, to compensate for the fact that we don't actually know what unknown rules represent the open variables in the equation. However, based on current trends of discovering more and more of these rules, the space in which it is possible for "God" or "chaos" to exist is rapidly diminishing, particularly when you consider the awkward rationality of hard-and-fast mechanics coexisting with something inherently unpredictable, such as intelligent management or true chaos. To demonstrate that chaos is truly a force in the universe, you could set up the following experiment: a repeatable coin-toss. A coin toss is the classic demonstration of probability and unpredictability. A free-hand coin toss cannot be predicted with more than 50% accuracy due to the variables of air movement, muscle movements, arbitrary starting position and orientation of the coin, etc. However, one could set up a mechanical coin catapult that flips a coin with precisely calculated force, with a carefully measured starting position and orientation, and thrown in a vacuum. The outcome would be, with the outside variables removed, highly predictable. If the system was perfectly designed, you could flip nothing but heads. If chaos was real, periodically the coin could violate expectations and float in midair or mutate into a canary. The only reason unpredictability enters into events is that we don't know all the factors, either through ignorance of certain factors, or through the lack of measurements of known factors. Even the fundamental probabilities of quantum physics still obey predictable trends and can be accounted into a "universe equation": the combined function of all the rules that currently apply to the universe. If the universe function was completed, everything in the universe would be predictable and the notion of God would be rendered intuitively impossible, since there would be no room for non-rigid, non-rule-bound action.

The sexiest are the ones being used.

Oh, I thought we were talking about panties.

Anyway, the true atheist doesnt need to talk about religion because he feels it is as stupid as talking about Santa Claus.

The only atheists who talk about it usually are trying to prove to themselves or to make them feel better about it.

I know because I´ve been there. Nowadays religion means shit.

I take offense to this as an agnostic and as a human being. If you wanted to participate in this discussion, you could have done so without insults or assumptions on behalf of anyone.

In order to understand the argument of another, you must first listen to him in order to provide an accurate counter argument that doesn't attack his or her intelligence, but rather provides other logical reasons for the evidence produced.

I, for one, am wholly interested in what Atlantia has to say.

However, based on current trends of discovering more and more of these rules, the space in which it is possible for "God" or "chaos" to exist is rapidly diminishing, particularly when you consider the awkward rationality of hard-and-fast mechanics coexisting with something inherently unpredictable, such as intelligent management or true chaos

Huh? One of the biggest fields of the mathematical sciences today is the study of chaos and the general patterns that chaotic systems contain; they do behave in general ways but their inherent behavior is non-deterministic and there is absolutely no guarantee that those functions will continue to operate like that. Non-determinism is one of the most philosophically important ramifications of modern science today.

Even so, it's only a problem if you believe in God because of a naive "God of the Gaps" argument; that's hardly a convincing argument to begin with regardless of what we know.

If chaos was real, periodically the coin could violate expectations and float in midair or mutate into a canary

It can. It's entirely possible, but the problem is the "possibility" is so small that we would likely have to be flipping a massive number of coins for billions of years, maybe even longer than the age of the universe before that event could happen.

Even the fundamental probabilities of quantum physics still obey predictable trends and can be accounted into a "universe equation": the combined function of all the rules that currently apply to the universe. If the universe function was completed, everything in the universe would be predictable and the notion of God would be rendered intuitively impossible, since there would be no room for non-rigid, non-rule-bound action.

Quantum physics obeys very vague trends that don't really tell us much more beyond what is possible; even if I know that a given particle can behave in certain ways, I have no idea how it will behave until it does. Even observing these phenomena can cause massive changes in their properties that we don't even remotely have complete understanding of. What actually happens is completely indeterminate; indeed, it was quantum physics that destroyed the 19th-century confidence in physical determinism once and for all...it simply doesn't exist in a predictable form.

Ideas like string theory, if validated, will give us something similar to a theory of everything, but given that we would be dealing with a number of possibilities that might be literally infinite, we would not be able to use it for predictions on anything more than the scale of our own universe.

Ideas like string theory, if validated, will give us something similar to a theory of everything, but given that we would be dealing with a number of possibilities that might be literally infinite, we would not be able to use it for predictions on anything more than the scale of our own universe.

The trouble with string theory is that there is, as yet, absolutely no observational or experimental evidence to support it.

The trouble with string theory is that there is, as yet, absolutely no observational or experimental evidence to support it.

Yes, but that will be possible in the near future. Of course, it's also possible that tests may end up showing we're completely wrong and we'll have to effectively start from scratch.

Yes, but that will be possible in the near future. Of course, it’s also possible that tests may end up showing we’re completely wrong and we’ll have to effectively start from scratch.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png (http://www.xkcd.com/c171.html)

Huh? One of the biggest fields of the mathematical sciences today is the study of chaos and the general patterns that chaotic systems contain; they do behave in general ways but their inherent behavior is non-deterministic and there is absolutely no guarantee that those functions will continue to operate like that. Non-determinism is one of the most philosophically important ramifications of modern science today.

Probabilistic chaos is its own field; what I was referring to, more specifically, was nonlinear-system chaos, such as the so-called "butterfly effect". Probabilistic chaos (as in the behavior of gases) is the result of complex interactions of billions of predictable but individually minuscule forces that adopt predictable patterns when statistically weighed. Another good example is radioactive half-life: a given neutron can decay into a proton and electron at any time, but the statistical probability of neutron decay is iron-bound and completely predictable.

Even so, it's only a problem if you believe in God because of a naive "God of the Gaps" argument; that's hardly a convincing argument to begin with regardless of what we know.

Where else, then, is there room for God? If all of God's functions are handled by physical constants, what is left for Him/Her/It to do? If you believe in a functional universe, how can the key element of such a universe have no function?

It can. It's entirely possible, but the problem is the "possibility" is so small that we would likely have to be flipping a massive number of coins for billions of years, maybe even longer than the age of the universe before that event could happen.

Certain things, however, just don't happen. Millions of coin flips take place every year; when has one ever changed into anything that is not a penny? I know it's an odd example, but the same thing goes all the way down to the atomic level. Below that, it starts getting weird, but there are still rules.

Quantum physics obeys very vague trends that don't really tell us much more beyond what is possible; even if I know that a given particle can behave in certain ways, I have no idea how it will behave until it does. Even observing these phenomena can cause massive changes in their properties that we don't even remotely have complete understanding of. What actually happens is completely indeterminate; indeed, it was quantum physics that destroyed the 19th-century confidence in physical determinism once and for all...it simply doesn't exist in a predictable form.

Once again, the predictability of quantum physics is a combination of statistical constructions and other mathematical constructs. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, often held up as the definitive evidence of quantum mechanics' unpredictability, is actually a mathematical equation.

Ideas like string theory, if validated, will give us something similar to a theory of everything, but given that we would be dealing with a number of possibilities that might be literally infinite, we would not be able to use it for predictions on anything more than the scale of our own universe.

String theory should be called "string hypothesis"; there has been, as yet, no empirical evidence supporting it whatsoever.

I admit my grasp of physics is fairly rudimentary (I'm an ecologist, not a physicist), but these are all things I've encountered on my way to a science major.

Certain things, however, just don’t happen. Millions of coin flips take place every year; when has one ever changed into anything that is not a penny? I know it’s an odd example, but the same thing goes all the way down to the atomic level. Below that, it starts getting weird, but there are still rules.
Isn’t that the point?

At our level of existence, Newtonian mechanics works appears to work (although in fact there are massive flaws in Newtonian methods). At a sub-atomic level the chaos of quantum mechanics reveals itself. At a massive scale, chaos again rules the day.

Newtonian mechanics is a chaotic quirk that initially appears standardised to a sentient mind that has been used to order and universal rules.

I'm ending all religous/scientific debate right here.

We're ALL, going to find out some day. I promise you this. So why don't we just wait and see.

We're ALL, going to find out some day.

But better to find out before you burn in agony in Hell, yes? ;)

But better to find out before you burn in agony in Hell, yes? ;)

Be better to find out before you waste your entire life serving the wrong God, yes? ;)

That's the problem with the atheism/theism idea as a duality - it isn't that simple. Even if all the atheists turn out to be wrong, given how mutually exclusive most religions are, most theists must also be wrong.

The way I see it as an empirical atheist is that the universe operates on mathematically expressible rules. We know this is true....

Bad start.

We know no such thing - we just have a pattern observed of the universe appearing to operate accoridng to a rule set.

It could be that our whole universe relies on observation, and - when no one is looking - most of it just isn't there. (For example).

Probabilistic chaos is its own field; what I was referring to, more specifically, was nonlinear-system chaos, such as the so-called "butterfly effect". Probabilistic chaos (as in the behavior of gases) is the result of complex interactions of billions of predictable but individually minuscule forces that adopt predictable patterns when statistically weighed. Another good example is radioactive half-life: a given neutron can decay into a proton and electron at any time, but the statistical probability of neutron decay is iron-bound and completely predictable.

Oh, yes. Nonlinear "chaos" is really an extremely complex series of interactions that can produce increasingly unpredictable effects as they iterate outwards from their starting point. It's not really "chaos" so much as it is the appearance of chaos in an extremely complex but ultimately predictable system.

Of course, the problem would be that simulating chaos on scales large enough to really predict things would require massive amounts of computational power. That's not really a problem overall (given the doubling in performance of computers every 18 months or so) but at present it would be very expensive to do.

Where else, then, is there room for God? If all of God's functions are handled by physical constants, what is left for Him/Her/It to do? If you believe in a functional universe, how can the key element of such a universe have no function?

Perhaps to create it?

Certain things, however, just don't happen. Millions of coin flips take place every year; when has one ever changed into anything that is not a penny? I know it's an odd example, but the same thing goes all the way down to the atomic level. Below that, it starts getting weird, but there are still rules.

Millions of coin flips aren't even enough for the probability of a penny to land heads or tails up 20 times in a row; the probability of that happening in and of itself is less than 1 in 1 million tosses. The probability of 30 coins in a row is 1 in 1 billion, and the probability of 1,000,000 is 1/(2^1e6)...even conventional sequences of coin tosses rapidly scale up to infinitesimally small probabilities that would take almost forever to occur.

If we were to take in to account all of the probabilities of all of the interactions needed for that penny to change in to something else entirely, it would be a number so massive that we'd have to likely flip more coins than there has been time or matter in the currently accessible universe in order to even remotely approach that event occurring.

Once again, the predictability of quantum physics is a combination of statistical constructions and other mathematical constructs. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, often held up as the definitive evidence of quantum mechanics' unpredictability, is actually a mathematical equation.

Pretty much what that means is we would be capable of predicting all of the possible outcomes for a given action but we wouldn't be able to predict which one actually occurs. Of course, that's still a nondeterministic system since the actions themselves are unpredictable.

String theory should be called "string hypothesis"; there has been, as yet, no empirical evidence supporting it whatsoever.

Actually, that's an interesting debate in science today.

Scientists are debating whether mathematical evidence and proofs, which string theory does have, are sufficient
evidence for a hypothesis to be considered a theory.

I admit my grasp of physics is fairly rudimentary (I'm an ecologist, not a physicist), but these are all things I've encountered on my way to a science major.

Mine is pretty rudimentary as well.

I was joking. I don't buy Pascal's Wager. :)

Yes - and the biggest problem with little monsieur Pascal, is that he establishes a duality, where none exists. I'm not contradicting you, I'm making more of the same point.

Be better to find out before you waste your entire life serving the wrong God, yes? ;)

I was joking. I don't buy Pascal's Wager. :)

Be better to find out before you waste your entire life serving the wrong God, yes? ;)

That's the problem with the atheism/theism idea as a duality - it isn't that simple. Even if all the atheists turn out to be wrong, given how mutually exclusive most religions are, most theists must also be wrong.

If not all of them: given the improbably vast number of possibilities for belief systems, and given that deities are by definition beyond our ability to literally comprehend, it's entirely possible that no religion is accurate. Or maybe they are all reflections of some reality that is so complicated that all religions are true without being mutually exclusive, as though they represent individual facets of the whole reality. Or maybe there isn't a God or an afterlife but people aren't emotionally able to handle that possibility.

If not all of them: given the improbably vast number of possibilities for belief systems, and given that deities are by definition beyond our ability to literally comprehend, it's entirely possible that no religion is accurate. Or maybe they are all reflections of some reality that is so complicated that all religions are true without being mutually exclusive, as though they represent individual facets of the whole reality. Or maybe there isn't a God or an afterlife but people aren't emotionally able to handle that possibility.

Cards on table, I'm an Implicit Atheist simply because there is just no reason to believe that any of the stories out there are true. It's not even like fairytales, where I can examine the mythos and find the germ of truth that started the story - the extraordinary claims of most religions lack any 'extraordinary' evidence.

In the absence of anything approaching what I would consider enough evidence to leap to a conclusion that assumes an entire new paradigm beyond our comprehension, I am incapable of sanctioning that leap.

To me, it seems likely all religions are wrong. If for no other reason than it makes no sense to me that 'god' would hide his identity.

Millions of coin flips aren't even enough for the probability of a penny to land heads or tails up 20 times in a row; the probability of that happening in and of itself is less than 1 in 1 million tosses. The probability of 30 coins in a row is 1 in 1 billion, and the probability of 1,000,000 is 1/(2^1e6)...even conventional sequences of coin tosses rapidly scale up to infinitesimally small probabilities that would take almost forever to occur.

If we were to take in to account all of the probabilities of all of the interactions needed for that penny to change in to something else entirely, it would be a number so massive that we'd have to likely flip more coins than there has been time or matter in the currently accessible universe in order to even remotely approach that event occurring.

On the first count I would say that while rare, the improbable happens frequently while the impossible happens rarely, especially when the frame of reference is in millions of years. I mean, who's to say what could happen? 20 coin flips in a row could easily lead to 20 counts of heads while 1 million could lead to to 1 million counts of heads. My point is that order and chaos are closely related, and from chaos springs order, not fully formed, but self-organizing, especially chaos with simple governing rules for that chaos.

And as for the second, well, a coin could change into a canary, or it could appear to. Actual transmutation is difficult and require much more energy than the coin itself has to offer. The mere possibility of it changing isn't enough to change it, else we would have pennies turning into porpoises and lightning bolts into meteorites. If a coin actually turned into a canary, only two possibilities exist in my mind, that an illusion was pulled, or that God decided to reach out with his skewed mind and touched that coin, turning it into a canary because he felt like fucking with us. Also, I'd preternaturally choose the former.

I know you didn't bring up the initial point, but I'm posting it now because I can.

If for no other reason than it makes no sense to me that 'god' would hide his identity.

Yeah, that's part of the absurdity of the whole thing.

If He's really concerned that humans worship Him, shouldn't He have made clear who's right by now?

I was joking. I don't buy Pascal's Wager. :)

I don't have to buy it. I got 101325 of the damn things for free.

We're ALL, going to find out some day. I promise you this. So why don't we just wait and see.

I'll have to ask the Cosmic AC when I have a chance.

I don't believe in the existence of a Divine Entity.

But many other people do believe in the existence of such an Entity, and their unswerving belief in this Entity's exisitence gives it power, whether it exists or not.

Also, I believe that if such a being were to exist, there is no way in which we would be able to conceive of it. Language is, in its essence, a set of limitations, restrictions, definitions. So all words we attach to the description of something limit it. For example, if I say that "the ball is red", I am also saying that "the ball is not blue". So if I say that this Entity is massive, I am saying that he is not small. Every word we apply to this Entity limits it, binds it. Seeing as most monotheistic religions believe that their Entities are omnipresent and omnipotent, any attempt to further define their Entity is, in and of itself, fallacious.

Just my two cents.

Probability that god exists is equal to probability that whole our universe as we know it, is just an experiment, that evil super-mutant-pancake scientists are doing in their laboratory.

Also if god exists, possibility that he decides to send christians to paradise and all others to hell is completely equal to possibility that he decides to send atheists to paradise and others to hell.

Looking forward to seeing the OP's big refutation; not because he can challenge the position of Atheism (even I can do that*) but because I want to see why he thinks this challenge can come from Christianity.


*God is a concept that is (at least in part) arbitrarily chosen by religions. To reject God as a matter of principle is to reject any arbitrary entity that this concept might refer to, including, for instance, Steve down the road.

*waits for OP's real argument...*

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.”
-Sir Francis Bacon

The purpose of this thread:
I will try to establish here the reasonable, rational possibility for the existence of a God- a hypothesis based on real observable evidence, not on abstract theological possibilities. While it is not necessarily the Christian God I am going to assert (in this thread), certain belief systems will be ruled out by my train of thought. The following is an informal essay I wrote in response to a group of atheists in my school. I’ve modified the essay a bit so it is accessible not only to atheists but everyone and so it better fits the format of a forum (though it’s still longwinded and a bit rambling, sorry).

A note about where I am coming from…

Though I will try not to comment about specific religions, my own viewpoint on the ‘God question’- Roman Catholicism- should be noted. Also, it is important to make clear that none of the arguments I present here are truly my own. I am simply combining, and occasionally adding to, the arguments of Dr. Francis Collins, Father William O’Malley of Fordham University (in New York), Viktor Frankl, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the great British author C.S. Lewis.
Currently in the United States, and I assume elsewhere in the Western world, there is a massive Church-State debate. Secularists fear God sneaking His way into science classrooms through pseudo scientific theories like Intelligent Design- whose advocates declare that evolution is false on the basis of certain scientific observations and statistics, and blatantly religious viewpoints such as Young-Earth Creationism which posits that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and denies a great deal of scientific findings about the history of the universe. I do not agree with either of these theories, and think it is important that believers embrace the discoveries of science. The veracity of these claims however, has very little to do with the argument I am about to make. My argument for God applies both for those who do accept ID and creationism, and for those who accept evolution and all other proven scientific discoveries as facts. Before I argue God’s existence, I will provide a summary of modern atheism as I see it and allow time for comments:

1. The (strong) Atheist’s Case

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

-Richard Dawkins

Atheism, I think, makes a great deal of sense. With all that science has discovered in the past 100 years, belief in anything supernatural, let alone an all powerful deity can seem a little ridiculous. Skepticism, at the very least, should greet every claim of the miraculous or paranormal. If evolution is to be accepted as true, what room does that leave for God’s creative abilities? If He is all powerful, why would he go about creating humanity in such a roundabout way, requiring billions of years? Indeed, the very vastness of the Universe should discourage us from thinking humanity in any way ‘special.’ We are an infinitesimal part of a vast cosmos; a race of ants clinging to a mere speck of dust in a backwater galaxy. Why should we accept an intangible, invisible Creator when it seems so much more logical simply to admit there is much about the Universe (or, if some physicists’ theories are correct, Multiverse) that we do not at this time understand? Assuming the existence of an All-Loving God is even more ludicrous. Heinous human crimes aside, the natural world we inhabit is full of horror…tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, animal maulings, ect. ect. How could a benevolent Creator make a world where disaster is possible? How could He, who supposedly loves his creation, allow humans to commit depraved acts like rape, genocide, and murder against each other?



Combine this with the apparent hypocrisy of the world’s “great” religions and the case against that great big imaginary friend in the sky strengthens. The chaos and death caused by Islam, even ‘moderate’ Islam, is apparent to anyone who opens a newspaper. Christians seem always to quote the nice, cushy sections of the Bible (“love thy neighbor!”) and leave out the not-so-friendly sections. A blackly humorous example of this is found in Second Kings (2:25).

“The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.”

The God of the Old Testament edicts death sentences to those guilty of petty mistakes, homosexuals, pagans, and disobedient slaves too many times to count. Surely if such an All-Powerful Demon exists we will want to distance ourselves from It? Religion-even moderate religions like Methodism, Catholicism, and Hinduism- has fostered fanaticism, ignorance, violence, and delusion. It allows people to think of themselves as somehow more special than the rest of humanity.

Those who say that they believe in religion simply because ‘it gives them comfort; makes them feel good; or provides their lives with meaning,’ are not only being intellectually dishonest, they are actively contributing to an unhealthy delusion. People can find meaning in corporal things that actually do good: soup kitchens, charities, environmental protection, education, and art of all kinds. This brings me to my last point (finally). The claim that good and evil depends on the existence of God is absurd. According to Sam Harris, the moral code is a combination of psychological factors which for biological and evolutionary reasons bring about happiness. The ‘golden rule'- "do unto others as you would have done unto you"- is a simple emotional extrapolation. Would I like to be murdered? No, therefore it is unfair for me to murder another person. Since I have feelings, so too must everyone else. Such reasoning creates a simple moral code that provides protection for the rights of all without getting into such dogmatic trivialities such as ‘no sex outside of marriage’ or ‘no gay marriage’ or ‘no birth control.’

Okay, now…if there is one thing I despise it is someone setting up a straw man (false representation of an opponent’s beliefs) and then tearing it to pieces to prove that their side is right. Before I move into providing my reasoning for God’s existence, please- atheists, freethinkers, agnostics- let me know if I have left anything out of my summary of modern atheism or if I have said anything misleading.

(Yawn)

Wow, who woulda thought there were so many atheists here. Alright, Im going to piss alot of you off but unfortunately I can't post my main argument right now...perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I have a friend in the hospital and have to spend some time there today and also have to drive 3 hours to pick up my sister from school. I'd rather not leave my argument for God halfassed, so please be patient. Sorry again.


A few points to tide you over:


Where else, then, is there room for God? If all of God's functions are handled by physical constants, what is left for Him/Her/It to do? If you believe in a functional universe, how can the key element of such a universe have no function?


The above is based on a two fold misunderstanding. God is not the Manager of the Universe, but it's Creator. Thus, if string theory, or a similar 'theory of everything' is found to be true (and I rather think it will be) the argument for God is certainly not lost...it is perhaps strengthened. Why would God create a universe in which He would have to intervene to keep it running? If He is a perfect entity, it would stand to reason that His Creation would not need constant maintenance. Secondly, you are assuming God is the 'Key part of the Universe' but this is not the case. God is not a part of the Universe any more than the artist is a part of his painting- He made it, He cannot be in it. He is not Natural, but Supernatural, more Real than Nature itself.

As for the argument "If God exists why has He not made Himself known?"

The simple answer is: He has, throughout the world religions. They cannot all be right about everything, but each has at least a facet of God right. The theology that says only Christians- or those who believe in God- can go to heaven is childish. It is true that Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through Him, but we will discuss that later.

Look at the things we know to be true- atoms, molecules, evolution, the Big Bang, quantum physics- these things are not obvious, they don't jump out at you when you first observe the facts. They require alot of thought, but they are true. Why then must God be the exception? Why must He- if He exists- make Himself obvious when we already know that the Truth is anything but obvious?

We must shed the concept we of God we got in Sunday School when we were five. Unfortunately, the Biblical Fundamentalists have not really done this and give the impression that Christians are, and must be, ignorant in order to believe what they do. The opposite I think is actually true. Atheists are ignorant of several key things which turn the argument back around in the thinking theist's favor...we will discuss these later.

The suspense is killing me.

I take offense to this as an agnostic and as a human being. If you wanted to participate in this discussion, you could have done so without insults or assumptions on behalf of anyone.

In order to understand the argument of another, you must first listen to him in order to provide an accurate counter argument that doesn't attack his or her intelligence, but rather provides other logical reasons for the evidence produced.

I, for one, am wholly interested in what Atlantia has to say.

That is because you´re an agnostic. Once you become a 100% true atheist, you just wont care.

As I said, I find the idea of talking about god as stupid as talking where Santa Claus lives: its stuff for kids.

Wow, who woulda thought there were so many atheists here.

it should be no surprise, unless you live in the insular USA...non theists are huge in numbers in most western industrialized countries in some they are the majority...among well educated populations the USA has the fewest atheists, though I suspect there are many more non theists in the US than statistics show, fear of being ostracized prevents them from revealing themselves...

I find the fact that you're stating your underlying assumptions before the argument refreshing, if not outright genius. That way you can make sure everyone is OK with them and move on to your argument. I, however, do not agree with them, and The Mindset shows why excellently.

I will try to establish here the reasonable, rational possibility for the existence of a God

Sorry, I consider positing that there may be a god, but that it's not necessarily the x-whatever god (butit'sreallymygodbecausethatswhatibelieve), to be a massive cop out.

To say that we do not know everything, therefore it's not fair to assume that god does not exist; god may exist, we just haven't proven it yet is a load of poo. By doing this you've created three categories of existence: (1) things that exist and manifest in reality, (2) things that do not exist and (3) things that exist but do not (yet) manifest in reality. The big problem is that there is no way to tell the difference between (2) and (3), and if we can't say that (3) doesn't exist, and we can't tell (3) from (2), then we can also say that (2) doesn't exist. Meaning we can't say that things that don't exist, don't exist. If we follow your logic to its logical conclusion, we're left with a scenario where we can't call anything "nonexistent."

Compare: "It is unfair to say 'leprechauns don't exist', because we have no way of telling if they exist, we just haven't proven it yet" with "it is unfair to say 'god doesn't exist', because we have no way of telling if it exists, we just haven't proven it yet."

The notion of a god is logically equatable with leprechauns.

As many people were confused with what Mindset was trying to say, I'll take another stab at it. I'll also remind you that it directly attacks the foundations of your argument, and must be dealt with before you move on.

There are three (four, but it would get more confusing) types of objects in reality, regarding existence:

(1) Things that exist.

These things you can see they exist. The keyboard in front of you right now*: it exists. The Earth you're on right now*: it exists. You have proof of these objects' existence, and rationally assert that they exist.

(2) Things that don't exist.

These things don't exist in any way. They just simply don't. A pink elephant inside your computer*: it doesn't exist. An invisible dagger at your throat right now*: it doesn't exist. You don't have any proof of these objects' existence, and they are also absurd, so you rationally assert that they don't exist.

(3) Things that exist, but haven't manifested themselves in reality (read: haven't shown their existence yet)

These things actually exist, they just haven't shown themselves (at least to humans) in any conclusive way. God*: it exists, but hasn't shown himself to us such that we can't rationally conclude that He exists. Fairies, I've read in a book that at the sign of any human, they fly away (I think they even had some invisibility device)*: they exist, but they haven't shown themselves to any humans, so we can't say that they exist.

The problem is that (2) and (3) are indistinguishable. A (2) looks EXACTLY like a (3). Therefore, we have to decide what to do when we see a (2)/(3). We have four options (the fifth isn't a rational option):

(a) Assume it's (3) and say that it actually exists.
(b) Assume it's (2) and say that it doesn't exist.
(c) Assume it's (2) by default, and that it doesn't exist, but accept the possibility that it might exist.
(d) Assume it's (3) by default, and that it does exist, but accept the possibility that it might not exist.
(e) Think you're smart and you yourself decide which belongs in (2) and which belongs in (3), despite being unable to see either (2) or (3) any differently.

In my opinion, (c) is the most logical option to choose, because it allows you to keep an open mind, while still leaning towards the least absurd option (that absurd things don't exist). In fact, I assert that EVERYONE should choose option (c) when trying to identify between objects (2) and (3).

Now, we move on to your argument: you will try to show the reasonable and rational possibility of a God. Everyone (logical) already accepts the reasonable and rational possibility of a God, by taking option (c). In order to have an argument, you need to argue against something that is already in place. An example would be telling us that God, an object that may exist in (2) or (3), which we choose option (c), should actually be taken with option (a) or (b), because of -insert argument-.

* - Let's not get into semantics. I chose those options in order to make my argument understood by most readers. These is a more complex way to get at it, but I think what I said so far is fine. (BTW: sorry if I'm looking like I have a superiority complex by not saying the more complicated method of going about it)

Looking forward to seeing the OP's big refutation; not because he can challenge the position of Atheism (even I can do that*) but because I want to see why he thinks this challenge can come from Christianity.


*God is a concept that is (at least in part) arbitrarily chosen by religions. To reject God as a matter of principle is to reject any arbitrary entity that this concept might refer to, including, for instance, Steve down the road.

As an ardent and fundamental follower of our Lord and Savior, the Great and Merciful Steve Down the Road, may his lawn be forever greener, I find your heresy disturbing.

The suspense is killing me.

Let's take bets when he's going to finally post his arguement. Ten bucks on page 9.

Seriously, when it comes down to, the existence of any supernatural deities is completely irrelevant to our daily lives. There is no verifiable way to establish their existence, and nearly all claims of religion hide behind the claim of unfalsifiability.

There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of the "supernatural". The question is not whether or not a higher power exists, but rather why the fuck should I care? If we cannot verify religious claims, then we cannot verify the consequences of belief or disbelief. And any deity that would punish people for refusing to make a jump of blind faith is a deity deserving no allegiance at all.

The simple answer is: He has, throughout the world religions. They cannot all be right about everything, but each has at least a facet of God right. The theology that says only Christians- or those who believe in God- can go to heaven is childish. It is true that Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through Him, but we will discuss that later.

No, this is not a simple answer at all, in fact it's an entirely cop out answer.

Look at the things we know to be true- atoms, molecules, evolution, the Big Bang, quantum physics- these things are not obvious, they don't jump out at you when you first observe the facts. They require alot of thought, but they are true. Why then must God be the exception? Why must He- if He exists- make Himself obvious when we already know that the Truth is anything but obvious?

See, now here is where you run into a problem. There are generally two methods of making determinations. The first is to start with no assumptions, gather all the evidence you can, examine that evidence, and try to determine what is the best possible explanation for the evidence you have.

The second is to start with an assumption, and go about gathering as much evidence as you can, examine that evidence, and see if the evidence matches up with your assumptions.

The first method is generally peferable and the second method not so much. The second method is somewhat intellectually problematic, but it is not intellectually fatal. It is however disfavored. It is disfavored because it is general human nature that, if you begin with a premise, people have a tendancy to overly rely on evidence that supports that premise, disregard evidence that works against that premise, and attempt to shoehorn ambiguous evidence into their premise where it really should be treated as ambiguous.

This is where a lot of the young earth creationists run into problems. They start with a premise, use every piece of evidence that maybe, possibly, if looked at and treated in very specific ways, support that premise, and utterly reject the mountains of evidence that work against their premise.

Now not everyone does this, and not everyone who does it is aware of it. It IS possible to start with a premise, as long as you are intellectually honest about the evidence you gather, and are willing to admit when evidence seems to disprove your premise. Again, you CAN do this, as long as your honest, but when we're trying to figure out the nature of the universe, reducing the chance of bias as much as possible is prefered.

But in the end, it doesn't matter which approach you use, as long as the results match the premise. It doesn't matter wether we examine evidence first, and conclude that quantum physics is the best explanation for our evidence, or begin with the belief in quantum physics and gather evidence after. What really matters is that all the evidence we have supports the theory of quantum physics. Again, it doesn't REALLY matter whether you get evidence, then form presumption, or form presumption then gather evidence. What really matters at the end of the day is that the presumption is the best explanation for the evidence we have.

You don't do this here. You start with a premise "god would leave his message through religion", gather data "there is religion" and go "eureka, god would leave evidence through religion, we have religion, ergo god!"

Except you make the very fatal flaw. You make a presumption that is not supported by the evidence. If you start with the presumption that the proof of god is in religion, and thus use religion as the proof of god, you MUST demonstrate that the presence of religion is only possible through the existance of god.

The ONLY WAY your theory can work is if there is no other possible explanation for the existance of religion but god. That ONLY THE EXISTANCE OF GOD could account for the belief in the existance of god.

If you want to treat religion as evidence of god, then you have to show me that the only possible explanation for religion is god. And you haven't done that, not even close.

Be better to find out before you waste your entire life serving the wrong God, yes? ;)

That's the problem with the atheism/theism idea as a duality - it isn't that simple. Even if all the atheists turn out to be wrong, given how mutually exclusive most religions are, most theists must also be wrong.

Christians all here? Yes, I'm afraid the Jews were right...

It is a pretty pickle isn;t it. Well, we'll find out eventually.

(My personal theology sees 'hell' as oblivion and Heaven as 'not oblivion' to put things simply but I could be as wrong as anyone else so I don;t bother arguing it too hard because we've generally all made up our minds before we start...)

It is a pretty pickle isn;t it. Well, we'll find out eventually.

(My personal theology sees 'hell' as oblivion and Heaven as 'not oblivion' to put things simply but I could be as wrong as anyone else so I don;t bother arguing it too hard because we've generally all made up our minds before we start...)
What is your personal theology based on?

The suspense is killing me.

Oh, it's just so unbearable.

As for the argument "If God exists why has He not made Himself known?"

The simple answer is: He has, throughout the world religions. They cannot all be right about everything, but each has at least a facet of God right.

I'm inclined to think that is a load. You suggest that God might have created the universe so that these religions would come into existence to make himself known. Suggesting this also implies that when he created the universe to as to lead to the springing up of these religious groups, he always created it to lead to the Crusades, the Inquisition, terrorist attacks etc., something that, even as an Athiest, I don't think God would do if he were real.

I'm not going to read over what I just wrote, but please note it is nearly 7 in the morning and I've been up for a long time.

I was joking. I don't buy Pascal's Wager. :)
Of course you don't. No one should. Pascal completely ignored any possibilities beyond "There is no God" and "There is a God who will punish and reward you in this specific way". If you include the infinite other possibilities, his statistics fall apart.
It is disfavored because it is general human nature that, if you begin with a premise, people have a tendancy to overly rely on evidence that supports that premise, disregard evidence that works against that premise, and attempt to shoehorn ambiguous evidence into their premise where it really should be treated as ambiguous.
That's called confirmation bias.

But since he's speaking to a predominantly hostile crowd, we'll catch him if he does it.

It occurs to me I might get the opportunity to point out that most of the world believes in a God, and perhaps they do because they have senses which can detect God and God's works.

That Arthais can't do that suggests he lacks that capacity, and thus is defective.

The belief in "God the Creator" is also rooted in something that may be a human misconception: linear time. How do we know that the universe was created? Causality and linear time appears to make sense on the observable scale, but when you get into either quantum mechanics or universal-scale dynamics, it rapidly breaks down. Isn't it possible that, as with our perception of God, the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be?

It occurs to me I might get the opportunity to point out that most of the world believes in a God, and perhaps they do because they have senses which can detect God and God's works.

Alternative explanation: those who "have senses which can detect God and God's works" may be sensing world inaccurately, and only atheists have reached enough far in evolution to sense world accurately, without god. My theory is as good as yours.

What is your personal theology based on?

Raised Christian. Mostly based off the Bible, although having read about a dozen different versions of how it could all be interpreted decided to just stick with what felt right to me. Which means you end up with ideas from Buddhism and the like creeping in at times. Even I don;t know exactly what I think all the time *shrugs*. If Paul couldn;t be certain despite having God whack him on the head with a massive stick (figuratively speaking) I doubt I'll know until God decides to explain it.

But hey, the key point (for me) is that God exists, that he has sent a variety of messengers to point this out to people and that he sent Jesus to balance the cosmic scales of good and evil.

And I'll doubtless have a thousand screaming theologians after my blood for this but that's their problem not mine.

The basic theory on heaven/hell actually came from a Jehovah's Witness friend of mine but I skipped out on the whole bodily resurrection bit *shrugs*

Wow, who woulda thought there were so many atheists here. Alright, Im going to piss alot of you off but unfortunately I can't post my main argument right now...perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I have a friend in the hospital and have to spend some time there today and also have to drive 3 hours to pick up my sister from school. I'd rather not leave my argument for God halfassed, so please be patient. Sorry again.


A few points to tide you over:



The above is based on a two fold misunderstanding. God is not the Manager of the Universe, but it's Creator. Thus, if string theory, or a similar 'theory of everything' is found to be true (and I rather think it will be) the argument for God is certainly not lost...it is perhaps strengthened. Why would God create a universe in which He would have to intervene to keep it running? If He is a perfect entity, it would stand to reason that His Creation would not need constant maintenance. Secondly, you are assuming God is the 'Key part of the Universe' but this is not the case. God is not a part of the Universe any more than the artist is a part of his painting- He made it, He cannot be in it. He is not Natural, but Supernatural, more Real than Nature itself.

As for the argument "If God exists why has He not made Himself known?"

The simple answer is: He has, throughout the world religions. They cannot all be right about everything, but each has at least a facet of God right. The theology that says only Christians- or those who believe in God- can go to heaven is childish. It is true that Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through Him, but we will discuss that later.

Look at the things we know to be true- atoms, molecules, evolution, the Big Bang, quantum physics- these things are not obvious, they don't jump out at you when you first observe the facts. They require alot of thought, but they are true. Why then must God be the exception? Why must He- if He exists- make Himself obvious when we already know that the Truth is anything but obvious?

We must shed the concept we of God we got in Sunday School when we were five. Unfortunately, the Biblical Fundamentalists have not really done this and give the impression that Christians are, and must be, ignorant in order to believe what they do. The opposite I think is actually true. Atheists are ignorant of several key things which turn the argument back around in the thinking theist's favor...we will discuss these later.

My question is why would it have to be Christianity? Perhaps you know that Christianity is relatively new in the world of theology, and I say relatively because the Bhagavad Gita has been around for longer than Christians have, and Egyptian mythology even longer, not to mention Sumerian Gods, and Chinese belief structures. And what about the truly ancient religions which worshipped the elements themselves, and the Celestial bodies in our solar system?

Christianity is based around the Bible, which begins with the Old Testament, also called the Tanakh in Judaism, which follows the creation of the world by the Jewish God Yahweh and his support of a relatively minor tribe of people through their trials and tribulations as they attempt to carve a niche out of history. Christians follow Jesus Christ, who was a Jew, and technically will be judged by the Jewish God, and since God is all-powerful, his particular religious state is undefineable, while according to Christianity the only real semi-divine Christian source of any debate would be Satan/Lucifer, who is Christian because apparently he believes in the saving power of Christ.

But Christianity is not as old as Judaism, and their version of Yahweh might be correct, or Islam's version. That's why we refer to this group as Judeo-Christianity. Basically 3 groups of people with 3 very different interpretations of the same history that was written thousands of years ago.

My question to Atlantia is: Why does it have to be Christianity? Why not Judaism, or Odin, or Ra, or Zeus? That's the proof I want to see, why we should believe in the Christian God.

It occurs to me I might get the opportunity to point out that most of the world believes in a God, and perhaps they do because they have senses which can detect God and God's works.

That Arthais can't do that suggests he lacks that capacity, and thus is defective.

Just because most of the world believes in a God doesn't mean God exists. Most of the world can't even agree on which God it is, I mean look at how many different versions of the Christian God there are. And yes, while a lot of people in the world believe in a God, that is not evidence of anything other than their belief.

Olmedreca;12413812']Alternative explanation: those who "have senses which can detect God and God's works" may be sensing world inaccurately, and only atheists have reached enough far in evolution to sense world accurately, without god. My theory is as good as yours.
Sure, but he already used the argument against me in claiming that I'm defective for being unable to comprehend social norms.. If his claims are irrefutably valid, then so is mine.

Just because most of the world believes in a God doesn't mean God exists.
That was my original point. Just because most people believe social norms or implication exist doesn't mean they do.

Arthais, your entire post is based on a misconception of what I was trying to say. You jumped to the conclusion (perhaps it is my fault that I wasnt very clear...) that the existence of religion was my proof of God...that was not my argument. I was simply making the point that God- if He exists- communicates (in part) through religion, not that religion automatically proves God. I'm aware of what religion could be- an expression of humanity's need to conform and feel special, an evolutionary glitch, or a number of other things. Before we discuss religion we must first establish God as Fact. The reason I have been hesitant not say that I will attempt to 'prove' God is because God cannot be explored by science and thus we can never be 100% certain of His existent. A healthy dose of doubt is important for believers to have. Doubt is not a sin, certitudes- on either side of the God question- almost always is.

As for your assertion that I might be biased in my observation of the Facts, here are some facts about me just so we're all clear:

I live near NYC, I am surrounded by every religion imaginable. There is a Muslim center, synaguoge (sp? I always mess that word up), a Catholic church, Episcopal church, Lutheran church, Methodist church, and Quaker Meeting House within five miles from where I live. I am friends with several Jews, a Buddhist, a variety of Protestants, atheists, and Catholics. I also, if it matters, have gay and lesbian friends- some religious, others not. I know a great deal about Catholic doctrine, popular Protestant teachings, and atheism. I have a 'working knowledge' of buddhism, Islam, and Judaism.

Now, I am a Catholic by birth. I know to some people everything that I have to say is now discredited...but there is nothing I can do about it. I have tried, as best I could, to be honest in my evaluation of the Facts and to conform to Truth...if I am biased I have tried very hard not to be.


Ex Libris Morte: Again, I was not attempting to prove Christianity's validity in my last post. Before we discuss the merits of individual religions (which, despite what my first post says, I think I will do) we must first establish the possibility of God. This is a possibility based on observable facts.

Arthais, your entire post is based on a misconception of what I was trying to say. You jumped to the conclusion (perhaps it is my fault that I wasnt very clear...) that the existence of religion was my proof of God...that was not my argument. I was simply making the point that God- if He exists- communicates (in part) through religion, not that religion automatically proves God. I'm aware of what religion could be- an expression of humanity's need to conform and feel special, an evolutionary glitch, or a number of other things. Before we discuss religion we must first establish God as Fact. The reason I have been hesitant not say that I will attempt to 'prove' God is because God cannot be explored by science and thus we can never be 100% certain of His existent. A healthy dose of doubt is important for believers to have. Doubt is not a sin, certitudes- on either side of the God question- almost always is.

As for your assertion that I might be biased in my observation of the Facts, here are some facts about me just so we're all clear:

I live near NYC, I am surrounded by every religion imaginable. There is a Muslim center, synaguoge (sp? I always mess that word up), a Catholic church, Episcopal church, Lutheran church, Methodist church, and Quaker Meeting House within five miles from where I live. I am friends with several Jews, a Buddhist, a variety of Protestants, atheists, and Catholics. I also, if it matters, have gay and lesbian friends- some religious, others not. I know a great deal about Catholic doctrine, popular Protestant teachings, and atheism. I have a 'working knowledge' of buddhism, Islam, and Judaism.

Now, I am a Catholic by birth. I know to some people everything that I have to say is now discredited...but there is nothing I can do about it. I have tried, as best I could, to be honest in my evaluation of the Facts and to confrom to Truth...if I am biased I have tried very hard not to be.


Ex Libris Morte: Again, I was not attempting to prove Christianity's validity in my last post. Before we discuss the merits of individual religions (which, despite what my first post says, I think I will do) we must first establish the possibility of God. This is a possibility based on observable facts.

Damnit, it's like when I used to read novels instead of NSG. So many acursed cliffhangers.

You jumped to the conclusion...
That's okay, Arthais likes jumping to conclusions.
Before we discuss the merits of individual religions (which, despite what my first post says, I think I will do) we must first establish the possibility of God.
You don't need demonstrate the possibility of God. Starting from the rational default position of total uncertainty, all things are possibly true. That includes God.

What you initially promised was evidence of God.

That's okay, Arthais likes jumping to conclusions.

You don't need demonstrate the possibility of God. Starting from the rational default position of total uncertainty, all things are possibly true. That includes God.

What you initially promised was evidence of God.

That's what I've been waiting for.

Thanks Llewis, that's a better way to put it. I will provide evidence for God's existence. This will, ideally, lead not to a Cartesian Certitude but to a rational possibility. Now, enough with my promises and cliffhangers...well just one more...I'll post tonight, promise.

Sure, but he already used the argument against me in claiming that I'm defective for being unable to comprehend social norms.. If his claims are irrefutably valid, then so is mine.

dont drag your problems from one thread into another. no one cares what arthais said about you in a different thread.

Before we discuss the merits of individual religions (which, despite what my first post says, I think I will do) we must first establish the possibility of God. This is a possibility based on observable facts.

Then please address my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412896&postcount=99).

Then please address my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412896&postcount=99).

What exactly do you want Atlantia to say?

This post is horrifyingly obtuse in its characterizations of any sort of object, and has no real questions in it. Addressing something like this has no real point, mostly due to the heavy use of generalization and would require reading more closely than I would care to do, and so I don't blame anyone who doesn't try to address it at all.

And secondly, what do your classifications have to do with the possibility of a higher power? I mean, honestly, who are you to put requirements on this magical being? Let him put forward his evidence.

It occurs to me I might get the opportunity to point out that most of the world believes in a God, and perhaps they do because they have senses which can detect God and God’s works.

That Arthais can’t do that suggests he lacks that capacity, and thus is defective.
What is this, ‘Ignore Flamebait Rules Week’?

What is this, ‘Ignore Flamebait Rules Week’?

Week?

Week?
Touché

2. Right and Wrong

((I am very dissatisfied with the way this turned out. I’ve had a very long day and my writing skills are not at top form…but I don’t want to keep you waiting for my argument much longer. I assure you weaknesses in the following argument are not caused by my lack of understanding, but by my inability to write well when I am tired. The existence of objective right and wrong is the strongest reason I believe atheism is wrong. This post tries to refute some of the claims of moral relativism and then allows for your rebuttal. Im sorry Im so slow in getting to the point, and for my unconcise writing… this is not the end of my argument.))

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis

I will start my explanation of theism’s, and finally Christianity’s, rationality with an exploration of human morality.

A) Society as the source of right and wrong

Many view concepts of right and wrong as mere codes of conduct produced by individual societies and cultures. Superficially this seems to be correct but a deeper examination of the facts reveals that this theory is deeply flawed. For example, Mother Teresa is generally thought of as a hero in the modern world. She gave up all that she had and went to serve the poor of Calcutta… almost all would agree that she led an extremely ‘good’ life. Our society however, tells us constantly in the form of advertisements, television shows, internet pop ups, ect. ect. that the key to living a good life is obtaining material wealth and sensual pleasure. Just look at some of our national icons today: Donald Trump, Oprah, Bill Gates, and Tom Cruise. They are famous, almost worshipped for the fortunes they’ve amassed and the glitzy, extravagant lifestyles they lead. Ask a high school or college student what they want to do in life and the answer is almost never: “to be a good husband,” or, “to be the best mother I can be,” but instead is “to be rich,” “to be famous,” “to have fun.” Why then, in this consumerist, materialistic, individualistic country is Mother Teresa (or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr.) so well respected for what she did? The answer must be that morality is more than a societal convention.

The point restated: Though various cultures have had slightly different takes on morality, the moralities of drastically different cultures are astoundingly similar. For example, regardless of whether you are in Feudal Japan, Nazi Germany, modern India, or ancient Egypt you will be hard pressed to find a sane person that wants to be called a traitor, liar, murderer, or rapist. In some of these cultures morality was limited to the family (or the race, or the religion, or the nation) but within this sphere killing a person without good cause was always considered wrong. The difference then, lies in what the culture emphasizes and not in the morality.

Some will argue with me saying: “But men often have to learn what is right and what is wrong, and they are often taught this by society. If right and wrong aren’t merely accepted conventions of behavior but real, inborn rules why would we need to be taught it?”

The laws of multiplication are real, but we are not born with an inborn knowledge of them…we need to be taught or self taught how to multiply, we simply do not ‘know them.’ So it is with the moral laws, or anything that is real…we do not simply ‘know it’ we must learn it from others or from ourselves.

B) Right and Wrong as a Way to Human Happiness

The following is a quote from Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation:

“For there to be moral objective truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways of seeking happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality […] love is more conducive to happiness than hate is.”

Mr. Harris’ morality is anything but objective. If our concept of good and evil is subjective psychological factors which lead to happiness, then good and evil don’t objectively exist. The holocaust was not evil; it was simply an inefficient way to seek happiness. I would argue, however, that this idea violates everything that we, in our hearts, believe. Moreover, it is not a supported by evidence. Human happiness is a subjective thing: I find pleasure in nature- hiking, kayaking, camping, ect.- my sister does not. She is happiest on the lacrosse field. If these are the things which make each of us truly ‘happy,’ shouldn’t our moral codes be radically different? Her conscience should lead her to play lacrosse as much as possible; mine should lead me outside. Regardless, our morality- and everyone else’s- is remarkably similar. Should, God forbid, our mother fall terminally ill, we would both forsake lacrosse or hiking and stay home to help her. Would this make us happy? Certainly not- our mother is ill and we can’t do what we enjoy doing. Watching her in pain is painful for us, and that- plus the certainty that she is dying- drains any warm gooey feelings we may get from “doing what’s right.” A possible argument against this is that we both stayed home to keep our mother as happy as possible in her time of pain. But keeping her as happy as possible would probably entail simply pumping as much morphine into her body as possible to relieve her suffering…neither of us would do that, nor would our mom want us to, because she loves us and we love her and we all would want to spend as much (conscious) time together as possible before the end. If we hated our mother and she hated us, we could A) leave her to suffer and die alone or B) have mercy on her and pump her full of morphine and then go hiking. In this case, hatred would leave us happier (even in a vindictive way) than love.

Some of you could argue with me and say that giving my mother the morphine, or even mercy killing her depending on the situation, would be the better thing to do. But beware, if you argue that you are implying that there is a Real, objective standard of Good and that your idea is closer to it than mine. Argue almost anything that has a moral implication with me- gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, gun control- and what you will really be doing is insisting that your position is closer to the Objectively Right thing to do. Prove me wrong on this point, and I will accept atheism’s veracity.

2. Right and Wrong

((I am very dissatisfied with the way this turned out. I’ve had a very long day and my writing skills are not at top form…but I don’t want to keep you waiting for my argument much longer. I assure you weaknesses in the following argument are not caused by my lack of understanding, but by my inability to write well when I am tired. The existence of objective right and wrong is the strongest reason I believe atheism is wrong. This post tries to refute some of the claims of moral relativism and then allows for your rebuttal. Im sorry Im so slow in getting to the point, and for my unconcise writing… this is not the end of my argument.))

Good, because in its present form, it's, to be honest, awful. Your very last paragraph is an excellent point, but the rest is easily rebutted.

And objective morality does not depend on a deity.

Our society however, tells us constantly in the form of advertisements, television shows, internet pop ups, ect. ect. that the key to living a good life is obtaining material wealth and sensual pleasure. Just look at some of our national icons today: Donald Trump, Oprah, Bill Gates, and Tom Cruise. They are famous, almost worshipped for the fortunes they’ve amassed and the glitzy, extravagant lifestyles they lead. Ask a high school or college student what they want to do in life and the answer is almost never: “to be a good husband,” or, “to be the best mother I can be,” but instead is “to be rich,” “to be famous,” “to have fun.” Why then, in this consumerist, materialistic, individualistic country is Mother Teresa (or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr.) so well respected for what she did? The answer must be that morality is more than a societal convention.

Nope. All you have shown is that our society's tendencies do not always reflect its moral values, not that its moral values are objective.

A society can encourage consumerism and greed while still believing that morally both consumerism and greed are immoral, or at least not morally admirable in and of themselves. Most people don't live up to their moral standards.

The point restated: Though various cultures have had slightly different takes on morality, the moralities of drastically different cultures are astoundingly similar. For example, regardless of whether you are in Feudal Japan, Nazi Germany, modern India, or ancient Egypt you will be hard pressed to find a sane person that wants to be called a traitor, liar, murderer, or rapist. In some of these cultures morality was limited to the family (or the race, or the religion, or the nation) but within this sphere killing a person without good cause was always considered wrong. The difference then, lies in what the culture emphasizes and not in the morality.

That is not "the point restated", it is a different point entirely. And it has little bearing on the argument. Neither difference of opinion nor universality of opinion has bearing in and of itself on the question of moral relativism (though certain additional premises about the nature of morality can make them more useful). Morality can be absolute even if most people believe that things actually immoral are in fact morally acceptable (after all, most people can believe falsities without them becoming true), and morality can be relative even if everybody agrees on its content - as long as conceivable disagreements exist that would not be resolvable by an objective standard.

Mr. Harris’ morality is anything but objective. If our concept of good and evil is subjective psychological factors which lead to happiness, then good and evil don’t objectively exist.

That's nonsense.

"Morality requires that we pursue happiness for ourselves and others" could conceivably be an objective truth; were it to be such, morality would be objective, and good and evil would be objective concepts.

It's true that the causes of happiness are subjective, but as long as our moral duty is objective, this does not result in subjective morality.

The holocaust was not evil; it was simply an inefficient way to seek happiness.

No, the Holocaust did not seek happiness at all. Thus, it was evil.

(Out of curiosity, does Harris argue that we should pursue only our own happiness, or everyone's?)

If these are the things which make each of us truly ‘happy,’ shouldn’t our moral codes be radically different?

At the very least, your moral codes would share "Seek your personal happiness."

That's fundamental agreement, not disagreement.

Her conscience should lead her to play lacrosse as much as possible; mine should lead me outside. Regardless, our morality- and everyone else’s- is remarkably similar.

And perhaps you are all just wrong. The fact that your moral beliefs aren't the same as Sam Harris's does not mean that his are wrong.

Should, God forbid, our mother fall terminally ill, we would both forsake lacrosse or hiking and stay home to help her. Would this make us happy? Certainly not- our mother is ill and we can’t do what we enjoy doing. Watching her in pain is painful for us, and that- plus the certainty that she is dying- drains any warm gooey feelings we may get from “doing what’s right.”

The point you are making here is totally irrelevant, for reasons I've already mentioned, but I have trouble believing that Harris argues for selfishly pursuing our own happiness at the expense of everyone else's.

Perhaps your actions here do not make you happy, but certainly they make her happier than she would be otherwise.

Prove me wrong on this point, and I will accept atheism’s veracity.

"What, you liked Happy Feet? That movie was awful! I mean, penguins dancing! What the hell?"

Is movie taste objective or subjective?

I don't see any claims of moral relativism refuted so much as simply wished that they didn't exist...

To convince me of anything, you'll have to refute the author of:

"As far as good and evil are concerned, they also indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves, nor are they anything other than modes of thinking, or notions we form because we compare things to one another. For one and the same thing can be good, and [evil], and also indifferent. For example, Music is good for one who is melancholy, [evil to] one who is mourning, and nether good nor [evil] to one who is deaf."

"It is clear that we neither strive for, nor will, neither want, nor desire anything because we judge it to be good; on the contrary, we judge something to be good because we strive for it, will it, want it, and desire it."

"By good here I understand every kind of joy, and whatever leads to it, and especially whatever satisfies any kind of longing, whatever that may be. And by evil, every kind of sadness and especially what frustrates longing."

If you read part 1 instead of skipping to the later parts of his most prominent work, then you'll actually find a rather nice refutation for the existence of an outside-acting, higher deity.

Good luck.

Arguing the objectiveness of morality is a circular argument, and one that has very little bearing on the issue at hand, which is, expressly, you providing evidence that God exists.

An argument that good and evil are inherent truths in our world leads inexorably to Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, which in turn leads to Absolute Truth, a concept which at best is sketchy, and that leads to shoddy logic.

This sentence is absolutely true.

Either it is true, or I'm lying, but regardless, truth has always been subjective. Take for instance the shape of the world, a few hundred years ago it was taken as truth that the world was flat. Now, we consider the truth to be that the world is a sphere. And our world could also be a toroid, an idea that might take hold some time in the future where this will be held as an evident truth, just as the world being spherical is taken now. Absolute truth and Absolute good are basically the same thing, but alas, while looking good on paper are not evidence being as how truth and good are entirely subjective.

Take for instance the shape of the world, a few hundred years ago it was taken as truth that the world was flat. Now, we consider the truth to be that the world is a sphere. And our world could also be a toroid, an idea that might take hold some time in the future where this will be held as an evident truth, just as the world being spherical is taken now.

One of those three possibilities is objectively true. The shape of the Earth is not a subjective matter; the mere fact that people disagree does not change this fact.

We clearly do NOT get our morality from any deity. If your God is the source of our morality, then that means:
Slavery is moral
Murdering homosexuals is moral
Murdering any woman not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is moral

Need I continue? I can find plenty of evil things that your God advocates.

In any event, saying "God must exist, or there is no right and wrong" is an appeal to consequences. Unless you can prove that morality is completely objective, you cannot assume it.

The shape of the earth could be considered objective, except that I was merely pointing out that it's shape is not self-evident, and that a few hundred years ago it was self-evident that the earth was flat.

The shape of the earth could be considered objective, except that I was merely pointing out that it's shape is not self-evident, and that a few hundred years ago it was self-evident that the earth was flat.

Actually, the greeks knew the earth was round.

2. Right and Wrong

((I am very dissatisfied with the way this turned out. I’ve had a very long day and my writing skills are not at top form…but I don’t want to keep you waiting for my argument much longer. I assure you weaknesses in the following argument are not caused by my lack of understanding, but by my inability to write well when I am tired. The existence of objective right and wrong is the strongest reason I believe atheism is wrong. This post tries to refute some of the claims of moral relativism and then allows for your rebuttal. Im sorry Im so slow in getting to the point, and for my unconcise writing… this is not the end of my argument.))

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis

I will start my explanation of theism’s, and finally Christianity’s, rationality with an exploration of human morality.

A) Society as the source of right and wrong

Many view concepts of right and wrong as mere codes of conduct produced by individual societies and cultures. Superficially this seems to be correct but a deeper examination of the facts reveals that this theory is deeply flawed. For example, Mother Teresa is generally thought of as a hero in the modern world. She gave up all that she had and went to serve the poor of Calcutta… almost all would agree that she led an extremely ‘good’ life. Our society however, tells us constantly in the form of advertisements, television shows, internet pop ups, ect. ect. that the key to living a good life is obtaining material wealth and sensual pleasure. Just look at some of our national icons today: Donald Trump, Oprah, Bill Gates, and Tom Cruise. They are famous, almost worshipped for the fortunes they’ve amassed and the glitzy, extravagant lifestyles they lead. Ask a high school or college student what they want to do in life and the answer is almost never: “to be a good husband,” or, “to be the best mother I can be,” but instead is “to be rich,” “to be famous,” “to have fun.” Why then, in this consumerist, materialistic, individualistic country is Mother Teresa (or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr.) so well respected for what she did? The answer must be that morality is more than a societal convention.

The point restated: Though various cultures have had slightly different takes on morality, the moralities of drastically different cultures are astoundingly similar. For example, regardless of whether you are in Feudal Japan, Nazi Germany, modern India, or ancient Egypt you will be hard pressed to find a sane person that wants to be called a traitor, liar, murderer, or rapist. In some of these cultures morality was limited to the family (or the race, or the religion, or the nation) but within this sphere killing a person without good cause was always considered wrong. The difference then, lies in what the culture emphasizes and not in the morality.

Some will argue with me saying: “But men often have to learn what is right and what is wrong, and they are often taught this by society. If right and wrong aren’t merely accepted conventions of behavior but real, inborn rules why would we need to be taught it?”

The laws of multiplication are real, but we are not born with an inborn knowledge of them…we need to be taught or self taught how to multiply, we simply do not ‘know them.’ So it is with the moral laws, or anything that is real…we do not simply ‘know it’ we must learn it from others or from ourselves.

B) Right and Wrong as a Way to Human Happiness

The following is a quote from Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation:

“For there to be moral objective truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways of seeking happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality […] love is more conducive to happiness than hate is.”

Mr. Harris’ morality is anything but objective. If our concept of good and evil is subjective psychological factors which lead to happiness, then good and evil don’t objectively exist. The holocaust was not evil; it was simply an inefficient way to seek happiness. I would argue, however, that this idea violates everything that we, in our hearts, believe. Moreover, it is not a supported by evidence. Human happiness is a subjective thing: I find pleasure in nature- hiking, kayaking, camping, ect.- my sister does not. She is happiest on the lacrosse field. If these are the things which make each of us truly ‘happy,’ shouldn’t our moral codes be radically different? Her conscience should lead her to play lacrosse as much as possible; mine should lead me outside. Regardless, our morality- and everyone else’s- is remarkably similar. Should, God forbid, our mother fall terminally ill, we would both forsake lacrosse or hiking and stay home to help her. Would this make us happy? Certainly not- our mother is ill and we can’t do what we enjoy doing. Watching her in pain is painful for us, and that- plus the certainty that she is dying- drains any warm gooey feelings we may get from “doing what’s right.” A possible argument against this is that we both stayed home to keep our mother as happy as possible in her time of pain. But keeping her as happy as possible would probably entail simply pumping as much morphine into her body as possible to relieve her suffering…neither of us would do that, nor would our mom want us to, because she loves us and we love her and we all would want to spend as much (conscious) time together as possible before the end. If we hated our mother and she hated us, we could A) leave her to suffer and die alone or B) have mercy on her and pump her full of morphine and then go hiking. In this case, hatred would leave us happier (even in a vindictive way) than love.

Some of you could argue with me and say that giving my mother the morphine, or even mercy killing her depending on the situation, would be the better thing to do. But beware, if you argue that you are implying that there is a Real, objective standard of Good and that your idea is closer to it than mine. Argue almost anything that has a moral implication with me- gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, gun control- and what you will really be doing is insisting that your position is closer to the Objectively Right thing to do. Prove me wrong on this point, and I will accept atheism’s veracity.

Since you exerted such an effort to define all the atheistic arguements against theism in your opening post, presumably to demonstrate that you have an understanding of the atheists position, I find it hard to beleive that an appeal to consequences is your strongest reason to beleive that atheism is "wrong". Does it really need to be re-stated that atheism is simply a lack of beleif in a deity? Therefore it would follow that any statement that atheism is "wrong" would have to be supported by an arguement proofing that a supernatural Deity/God does indeed exist. You have made no such arguement. Even is atheism led to negative moral outlooks on life,(which it doesnt) this would have no bearing on the truth value of the claim that God exists.

Actually, the greeks knew the earth was round.

Care to post a link that shows that conclusively? I'd like to see it.

Care to post a link that shows that conclusively? I'd like to see it.

I know that Greek mathematicians discovered that the earth was spherical, but whether or not those beliefs were widespread is something else entirely. After all, very few people back then had the kind of mathematical knowledge to know or really understand the work of the educated philosophers and mathematicians who discovered these things.

Care to post a link that shows that conclusively? I'd like to see it.

Well, Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) estimated the circumfrence of the earth around 240 BC.

I know that Greek mathematicians discovered that the earth was spherical, but whether or not those beliefs were widespread is something else entirely. After all, very few people back then had the kind of mathematical knowledge to know or really understand the work of the educated philosophers and mathematicians who discovered these things.
Wouldn't they take what they said at face value then?

Care to post a link that shows that conclusively? I'd like to see it.
I wont do it for him but I will assert that the Egyptians proved it before the greeks. They set stakes in the sand then used timers to take the shadow angle off the stakes really far apart. Typical Egyptian, lots of man hours, impressive result. The dude in charge calculated the earths circumferance pretty damn well.

As for objective morality, how about the Aztecs? The ceremonial killing, was it evil, how about when the condemned went to the block full of pride and certainty of a great afterlife for being the ones whose blood was chosen to make the feilds productive for the next year? Their morals said it was the "right" thing to do, and though they may have regretted leaving family behind or something else, they did it (largley based on religion) and thought it was right and good.

It seems to me that your morality as a Catholic would say that this practice is wrong. The simple fact that you have different moralities implies to me that there is no universal right and wrong.

A more modern example, gay marrige, people argue both for and against (as you stated) based on moral arguments. Opposite moralities, a result of there being no overlying truth (just opinion) anyways, the reason I think that it should be legal is not only because I feel that is the moral thing to do, but because I think that in a time of globalization, in which so many cultural moralities exist, we must accept cultural relativism, and simply try to balance different people's moral codes. In the instance of gay marrige, allowing a socially progressive branch of christianity to perform said institution does not really harm anybody. Churches with a narrower veiw on life can simply strike the churches performing these marriges from their good list, and tell God to smite them, its all fine by me (no real harm being done their, yes?)

An alternative explanation to some omnipotent dude/dudette/flying pile of noodles would be evolution. Looking at primates other than humans, it would seem to me that they too have a moral code, has god bestowed this upon them? and if so, why the hell didn't he do it for the rest of the animal kingdom? or perhaps, in developing brains to where they can use tools, chimps and the like figured out that killing off the next strongest males doesnt really help the species, much less the tribe, all that much. Perhaps the chimps who figured out that showing dominance without killing was the better way, were more succesful, and thus that is the prevailing ideology amongst chimpanzees. This is all coming out of my ass, so maybe I am wrong, but the idea stands. Humans would never have reached the agricultural stage if they had no taboo on killing other humans. I would argue that most of those higher values (like caring for your sick mother) could be explained as having originated long before any current religion.

Also, if god existed, why would he let religions fuck up in his name so damn much? I can see the whole learn from your mistakes angle, but if they were doing the killing in my name it sure as hell would piss me off.

Also, do you believe in hell? Why would god make a place for his beloved children to spend in eternal damnation? He is omnipotent, right?

I am not even Athiest, more of an agnostic, but it isnt really for any of the reasons you give. I am not an athiest for the simple glib reason that I have seen no good evidence against their being some higher being. But as far as organized religions go, I like the opening 50 pages of the Silmarillion better than most creation stories, and am closer to worshipping the Valar than your god.

I'm disappointed.

The 'conclusive proof' I was hoping for never materialised... and the best argument is C.S. Lewis, repackaged.

Morality doesn't require god. It requires experience and self-preservation. Simple pragmatism can lead us to a situation where our 'moral laws' all centre around the premise of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

There doesn't need to be objective good or objective evil. There just needs to be that little realisation that 'hey, if I kill this guy, maybe his buddies will kill me'.

So - giving mommy morphine... is it close to an 'objective' right or wrong? No way to know - but I know I don't like pain, and if that was to be the entirety of my existence till I died, I wouldn't want that wait to be long. Some might be more selfish, and wish to keep mommy in pain for longer, just so they get a few extra minutes - which is fine... for them, but not for me.

Since you exerted such an effort to define all the atheistic arguements against theism in your opening post, presumably to demonstrate that you have an understanding of the atheists position, I find it hard to beleive that an appeal to consequences is your strongest reason to beleive that atheism is "wrong". Does it really need to be re-stated that atheism is simply a lack of beleif in a deity? Therefore it would follow that any statement that atheism is "wrong" would have to be supported by an arguement proofing that a supernatural Deity/God does indeed exist. You have made no such arguement. Even is atheism led to negative moral outlooks on life,(which it doesnt) this would have no bearing on the truth value of the claim that God exists.

I thought that Athiesm was the stated belief that there was no higher being, and Agnostism is the lack of belief in any religion, but accepting that there could be something. I personally think that agnostism is the only way to go, you can even be agnostic and hate the church for all the evil things its done, quite aside from its espousing drivel. And as an Agnostic, one can simply propose an alternate theory to someone arguing the existence of a higher being, you dont need to prove conclusively what bullshit the higher being bunk actually was.

Originally posted by Italy 1914d I thought that Athiesm was the stated belief that there was no higher being, and Agnostism is the lack of belief in any religion, but accepting that there could be something.


Agnosticism literally means without knowledge. They beleive that it is impossible to come to a conclusion about wether or not God exists, but differ with atheists in that they give equal weight to both sides of the arguement. Atheism however, gives only a very small, almost insignificant probability of God existing, simply based on the sheer lack of evidence. So it doesnt necessarily amount to a positive denial. Agnostics live their life on the assumption that God could exist, while atheists live their lives on the assumption that he most probably doesnt. There, are of course strong atheists however who are not open minded at all to the possibility that God might exist.

I personally think that agnostism is the only way to go, you can even be agnostic and hate the church for all the evil things its done, quite aside from its espousing drivel.

Well, I'm actually a former Muslim that grew up in a Muslim society, so am a little bit unfamiliar with the evils of the church, I only have a basic knowledge of it.:p . Mind, you some of the stuff I heard at the mosques would easily qualify as hateful drivel, it's not just Churches that have a monopoly on this.

And as an Agnostic, one can simply propose an alternate theory to someone arguing the existence of a higher being, you dont need to prove conclusively what bullshit the higher being bunk actually was.

Well, from your definition of what an Agnost is I guess that's what I am. But I wont call myself an Agnost, mostly because I give more of a probability to God not existing as opposed to God existing. I'm agnostic to God in the same way I am agnostic to the tooth fairy, give me good, reasonable, strong evidence and I'll beleive.

BTW sorry, if my english comes across as unclear sometimes or my grammar and puntucation are bad, it's not my first language.

As to the hating the church bit; I did not mean to imply that I hated the church, for while as an institution they have done/supported some pretty nasty things, the church has also helped a lot of people, and done plenty of positive things. I was simply pointing out that you dont have to prove god does not exist to have a beef with the church. I personally more see religion as a force of nature that isnt going to go away, and by church, I was more refering to places of worship, because most religions I can think of have had slaughter done in their name. Oh, and the drivel, not necessarily hateful stuff, I just think that all religions generate a lot of bullshit, that is all I meant by drivel.

As for the Agnostic thing, your definition is better than mine, but it is of the same theme. I guess all that I am saying is that Athiest or Agnostic, I dont feel any need to have certainty in my life regarding a god or the origins of the universe (the matter in the big bang must have come from somewhere, but knowing where isnt going to change anything in my life) I live my life how I live it, regardless of spirituality.

Be careful not to confuse "morality" with "ethics". Morality is personal, what you know is right, what guides your conscience. Ethics is what your society deems acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The two concepts can be closely intertwined, but they are distinct. Morality evolved (presumably) to make ethics possible, which in turn made social organization possible. Oddly enough, morality (or some related concept) seems to exist among other animals as well. Observations of intelligent animals including chimps, dolphins, big cats, monkeys, dogs, wolves, and even rats suggest that they are capable of altruistic behavior, foresight, mercy, and social bonding, all elements of what could be called morality. So, then, is morality something strictly human? At the very least, it diminishes the strength of the idea that humans somehow have a monopoly on conscience, and possibly with it soul, if you believe in such a thing. The anthropocentric concept of the soul seems to be one of the defining features of deism, whatever its form, since one of the important roles of God is to provide for human (and only human, as other beings supposedly lack them) spiritual needs.

I thought that Athiesm was the stated belief that there was no higher being, and Agnostism is the lack of belief in any religion, but accepting that there could be something. I personally think that agnostism is the only way to go, you can even be agnostic and hate the church for all the evil things its done, quite aside from its espousing drivel. And as an Agnostic, one can simply propose an alternate theory to someone arguing the existence of a higher being, you dont need to prove conclusively what bullshit the higher being bunk actually was.

Atheism is not a stated belief, rather a lack of belief, being as how Theism is belief in a God, a prefix of a- would cancel that, indicating an opposite, so Atheism would be no belief in a God.

Atheism is not a stated belief, rather a lack of belief, being as how Theism is belief in a God, a prefix of a- would cancel that, indicating an opposite, so Atheism would be no belief in a God.

Uh... I believe you have that backwards. Well, not quite backwards. Agnosticism is specifically belief that God is unknowable. Atheism is specifically belief that God is nonexistent. Both are stated beliefs. "Apatheism" is, I believe, more the term you're looking for: lack of interest in whether or not God exists.

Uh... I believe you have that backwards. Well, not quite backwards. Agnosticism is specifically belief that God is unknowable. Atheism is specifically belief that God is nonexistent. Both are stated beliefs. "Apatheism" is, I believe, more the term you're looking for: lack of interest in whether or not God exists.

Funny side-note, most dictionaries don't agree on a specific definition of Atheism.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

So rather than a belief in no God, I consider it to be a disbelief, or a lack of a belief. Mostly because it seems to be truer to the actual word. That's just my opinion.

Incidentally, the definition that infers a belief in no God allows for theists to argue that Atheism is a religion, and therefore an ideology, whereas in my viewpoint it is a lack of an ideology whereas others have one.

Uh... I believe you have that backwards. Well, not quite backwards. Agnosticism is specifically belief that God is unknowable. Atheism is specifically belief that God is nonexistent. Both are stated beliefs. "Apatheism" is, I believe, more the term you're looking for: lack of interest in whether or not God exists.

No. Agnosticism is that it's impossible to know the truth value of the statment "God exists". Atheism is anything and everything that is not theism. Apatheism is just a silly word.

Unfortunately, I believe that this so called proof can easily be explained as racial qualities that are observable in most species, and easily explainable as the results of evolution, and the selective survival of the fittest species.

Most animals wont kill others of the same species, they have similar rites of courtship, will try to protect females from undesired couplings and will protect some kind of territory, they will also go to some lenght to protect their weak and elderly, all so called "morals", that make a lot of sense as survival mechanisms. (ie, the more there are of your species, the safer you are, the less common undesired couplings, the more likely it is to secure your own offspring, and so on...). These in no way prove God's existence but merely that we all happen to be part of the same species and that some level of instinct remains.

I happen to have a similar background, having been raised catholic, but finding out as I went that most arguments for there being a God fall apart, or can be just as easily explained without one. That and the convenient way religion has given anyone with the smarts and position a way to control populations into doing whatever they desire at a given time.

There is also the fact that the word of God, if true, should be beyond time and interpretation, the truth, yet its meaning changes periodically to serve and fit whatever the society of the time wants, in order to stay current, then so which version of the bible is the correct one, what translation? and, was the church of 100 years ago wrong? how about the one from 200 years ago? 500? 1000? If any, or all incarnations of the church (any church) have been or are considered to be wrong, what would make the current one "right".

The problem with the concept of an absolute being with absolute power and an absolute truth as presented in the Bible, is that such a thing (absolute truth) requires the observer to be completely devoid of a viewpoint, as any interpretation on this observers part, any filtering of reality through its lens, would make this absolute reality into a subjective one, and thus no longer absolute. So, if God's viewpoint was the absolute truth, whatever he wanted at a given time, would be true, merely by the act of being wanted by him, making any semblance of stability in our reality unknown and removing any need of interaction between him and creation as every desire of his would change things to fit whatever it is He wanted at any given time. Again, this seems not to happen as our reality seems to be (at least what we perceive of it) relatively stable.

Otherwise, this absolute being with absolute powers would require to be without a point of view at all, and thus arguably without a consciousness, or desires of any kind, which does not work with the God of the bible either, as he is indicated to have desires that widely change at given times.

Thus for God to exist as the bible describes him, one must accept the likely possibility that, reality is not anchored to him (as its stable and doesn't change by God's mere perception), thus changing God from the embodiment of absolute truth, to merely a being of great power with a subjective point of view and set interests, however, its main quality being lost (that of absolute truth) this subjective being would just be as likely of being wrong as any person (although sporting perhaphs a more advanced level of understanding than that of people, but at the same time, the difference in agenda and interests would make servitude to this God not as desirable as the church would paint it).

Thus we are left with a being of great power (or the incorporation of one into historical accounts) proposed by a church and movement that have been wrong on several ocassions and have had, or have, questionable morals that change at different times, as socially and politically convenient, based on a book full of discrepancies that are explained merely as "mysteries", with a doctrine that promises salvation to those that believe without proof.

On the other hand we have empyrical evidence, observation, and methodological studies that give us plausible answers for most of the questions the Bible aims to answer.

I would believe the latter to be more likely true, than the former.

This is a pretty dumb argument. The fact that some things are right and others wrong doesn't have anything to do with there being a god. I've recently been reading a book on Kantian ethics, called The Sources Of Normativity by Christine Korsgaard. I would very much encourage you to read it.

So where exactly is the true Challenge To Atheism, as announced in the thread title, now? :rolleyes:

nothing has to not exist any more then anything has to exist, but more to the point: whatever does exist, it is still up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other, and i think THAT's what counts. at least as long as we're living here.

as to what has anything to do with some other life or existence, i don't think anyone knows half as much or at all, what fanatics of every stripe seem to think they do or want everyone else to.

and just between you, me and the gatepost, i rather suspect big, friendly and nontangable would be happier to see us dealing with that then splitting hairs over what to call 'him', or what day of the week to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

Weak thread with no argument relevant to the stated topic.

*still waiting for OP's real argument*

So - giving mommy morphine... is it close to an 'objective' right or wrong? No way to know - but I know I don't like pain, and if that was to be the entirety of my existence till I died, I wouldn't want that wait to be long. Some might be more selfish, and wish to keep mommy in pain for longer, just so they get a few extra minutes - which is fine... for them, but not for me.

often enough people who see mommy in unremitting pain that will only lead to death give mommy enough morphine to ease her pain forever.

some people will selfishly keep mommy conscious and suffering long past what could have been a natural death so that they can consider themselves good children.

there is no objective morality when someone you love is dying. you go with what seems most right at the time and almost always get criticized for it by someone.

Good points all around. As for all of you who say that I'm dodging the topic of the thread or not getting to the point, you might as well stop reading. I will, in the end of this thread (should my argument prove satisfactory), provide a summary of my argument. Sorry if the contents of the thread are dissappointing or don't stand up to the title. Please also remember that I am not yet arguing for Christianity.

As for the rest of you who want to battle it out, I will restate the main point of my last post in hopefully clearer way. Right now I'm going to deal with the question of morality as a human/societal convention . Keep in mind my current point is not to necessarily assert God, the cause could be evolution or predetermined psychological factors. I will deal with these later.



As for objective morality, how about the Aztecs? The ceremonial killing, was it evil, how about when the condemned went to the block full of pride and certainty of a great afterlife for being the ones whose blood was chosen to make the feilds productive for the next year? Their morals said it was the "right" thing to do, and though they may have regretted leaving family behind or something else, they did it (largley based on religion) and thought it was right and good.



If someone today were to willingly leave his and family and die attempting to prevent a famine (perhaps by stopping a bio-terrorist attack) (s)he would be rightly regarded as a hero. The difference between us and the Aztecs, is that the Aztecs thought wrongly that it was the gods that caused famine and that human sacrifices were what prevented them; we know that is not the case. It is a difference in dogma, belief, and scientific knowledge but not a difference in morality. It is still 'good' to die in order to save others, which is exactly what the willing human sacrifice was doing. Science and religion were in the wrong, not morality.


All you have shown is that our society's tendencies do not always reflect its moral values, not that its moral values are objective.

A society can encourage consumerism and greed while still believing that morally both consumerism and greed are immoral, or at least not morally admirable in and of themselves. Most people don't live up to their moral standards.

Soheran, you have just argued my point... Cultural tendencies and beliefs do not reflect it's moral values. I would simply go two steps more and say that no culture perfectly reflects a it's values, and that moral values are remarkably similar in all cultures. The difference, as I have stated above, is often religious/scientific knowledge. Child sacrifice was considered acceptable in ancient cultures because it was thought to appease the gods and save lives. Saving lives = the objectively right thing to do. Angry gods are not real, the difference is not morality but science.

Another example…
Christians in the middle ages burned women and men believed to be witches- that is, people who sold themselves to the Devil for magical powers. The medieval Christians were factually misguided in assuming the witches exist, but, since they believed in witches, they were not wrong for burning them at the stake. Indeed, if witches really did exist who would be more deserving of death? But they don’t. The difference is one of science and not of morality.

I will not argue with you that religion often allows for a misinterpretation of the facts, that is obvious and I will address it later.


Neither difference of opinion nor universality of opinion has bearing in and of itself on the question of moral relativism (though certain additional premises about the nature of morality can make them more useful). Morality can be absolute even if most people believe that things actually immoral are in fact morally acceptable (after all, most people can believe falsities without them becoming true), and morality can be relative even if everybody agrees on its content - as long as conceivable disagreements exist that would not be resolvable by an objective standard.

Your argument here is particularly weak. It is theoretically conceivable that there is an absolute morality that no one knows about, or that everyone simply agrees with each other concerning moral rules…but this is sophistry. Humans, all sane humans, feel bound by certain codes of conduct that are extremely similar. They may be evolutionary products or psychological factors common to our race but my argument so far is that they are not human inventions. If morality was a human invention- like the angry Aztec gods, or the Muslim belief that women are inferior to men, or the Christian belief in witches in the middle ages, or a person’s belief that he was better than you because he was richer- morality would vary accordingly between pagan nations, Muslim nations, Christian nations, democratic nations, feudal societies, communist societies ect ect. We find however that it does not, no one anywhere is lauded for running from the battlefield or raping his sister.

((To those, esp. Krysaria, Defiantland, and Ashmoria, who's posts I have not addressed...I am not ignoring you I will get to your arguments. If I do not, please remind me))

no culture perfectly reflects a it's values, and that moral values are remarkably similar in all cultures.

Wait, if no culture reflects its values, how could you know the values, compare them, and find them similar?

Christians in the middle ages burned women and men believed to be witches- that is, people who sold themselves to the Devil for magical powers. The medieval Christians were factually misguided in assuming the witches exist, but, since they believed in witches, they were not wrong for burning them at the stake. Indeed, if witches really did exist who would be more deserving of death? But they don’t. The difference is one of science and not of morality.

Uuuh...

So, as long as I believe it's a moral action, it is?

Another example…
Christians in the middle ages burned women and men believed to be witches- that is, people who sold themselves to the Devil for magical powers. The medieval Christians were factually misguided in assuming the witches exist, but, since they believed in witches, they were not wrong for burning them at the stake. Indeed, if witches really did exist who would be more deserving of death? But they don’t. The difference is one of science and not of morality.


Some nazis really believed that they do good for humanity then they eliminate jews.

((To those, esp. Krysaria, Defiantland, and Ashmoria, who's posts I have not addressed...I am not ignoring you I will get to your arguments. If I do not, please remind me))

no need.

you can address this point instead.

all cultures have certain moral principles at heart.

we can use "thou shalt not kill" as an example. all cultures find murder morally reprehensible. all cultures punish murderers.

but the definition of murder varies incredibly from culture to culture. Pirated Corsairs pointed out that in some cultures killing a woman who on her wedding night proves to not be a virgin is not murder but justifiable homicide. in other places it might earn the killer the death penalty

the punishment for murder varies wildly. in the united states many murders qualify for the death penalty. in some countries of europe it qualifies for life in prison which turns out to be about 16 years.

the need to control who gets killed and why is universal but the rules are completely subjective.

so my question is is that proof of anything beyond a social necessity developed over thousands of generations of individual judgements of innocence and guilt?

Wait, if no culture reflects its values, how could you know the values, compare them, and find them similar?




A) No culture perfectly reflects its values.

B) I know charity is considered morally right in the United States even though almost everything we do in this country is based around 'getting rich' or 'getting ahead.' I know charity was considered morally right in the Renaissance Catholic Church even when Popes were busy building crystal cathedrals and extravagent statues.



Some nazis really believed that they do good for humanity then they eliminate jews.


I'll give you that, though I would argue that a great deal did what they did out of selfishness or fear. Sincerity does not make an action morally right, though it may decrease a persons guilt. I think we as humans focus too little on getting the Facts and instead focus believing what we want (some would say that's what Im doing right now)...so perhaps the nazi's sin (or fault, if you like) was not so much acting on his false beliefs but not examining his beliefs and coming to the realization that they were false.

The nazi doctrine of Jewish inferiority was a human invention. If it was true they would be justified in what they did, but it is not true, so they are guilty of examining the facts with an emotional bias and coming to a terrible conclusion. Those nazis that did what they did, no matter what they told themselves, knowing in their hearts that what they were doing was wrong- just like the Christians who knew that the woman they were about to burn was not a witch- are guilty of either cowardice, laziness, or greed.

The nazi doctrine of Jewish inferiority was a human invention. If it was true they would be justified in what they did, but it is not true, so they are guilty of examining the facts with an emotional bias and coming to a terrible conclusion. Those nazis that did what they did, no matter what they told themselves, knowing in their hearts that what they were doing was wrong- just like the Christians who knew that the woman they were about to burn was not a witch- are guilty of either cowardice, laziness, or greed.

Since when did they 'know in their hearts' it was wrong? Just a post ago, it was a moral act, and everything was science's fault.

A) No culture perfectly reflects its values.

And? Without a perfect idea of every culture's values, that doesn't seem a viable method of coming to the conclusion of universal morality.

Okay, perhaps an example would help.

Meet John. John is a peasant farmer in France in 1400. John's neighbour Alice is a mean, nasty old lady who hates John's ten year old son, Frank. One night John is walking home and he sees Alice dancing and muttering to herself in the dark. John finds this weird, but says nothing about it. The next day Frank is afflicted with boils all over his body and is on the verge of death. John, a peasant, knows little about what we call science. What he does know is that witches exist, just as we know that atoms exist. He does not believe in witches the same way he believes in God, he believes witches the way we believe in atoms. Other people in the town start falling ill...John comes to the reasonable conclusion that Alice is a witch and reports her to the Inquisition and has her burned at the stake.

We know that the illness of John's son has nothing to do with whatever Alice was doing in the dark, but John does not know that. Because of his limited knowledge of real facts, he does what he thinks to be best. The science of his culture accepts witches as real, just as the science of our culture accepts atoms as real. Now, the science of 1400 France is not as good as ours...but how is John supposed to know that what he has been told is true is actually false? I cannot prove atoms by myself, I rely on the arguments of people I trust b/c they have no reason to misguide me. So, can we blame John for Alice's death?

Okay, perhaps an example would help.

Meet John. John is a peasant farmer in France in 1400. John's neighbour Alice is a mean, nasty old lady who hates John's ten year old son, Frank. One night John is walking home and he sees Alice dancing and muttering to herself in the dark. John finds this weird, but says nothing about it. The next day Frank is afflicted with boils all over his body and is on the verge of death. John, a peasant, knows little about what we call science. What he does know is that witches exist, just as we know that atoms exist. Other people in the town start falling ill...John comes to the reasonable conclusion that Alice is a witch and reports her to the Inquisition and has her burned at the stake.

We know that the illness of John's son has nothing to do with whatever Alice was doing in the dark, but John does not know that. Because of his limited knowledge of real facts, he does what he thinks to be best. The science of his culture accepts witches as real, just as the science of our culture accepts atoms as real. Now, the science of 1400 France is not as good as ours...but how is John supposed to know that what he has been told is true is actually false? I cannot prove atoms by myself, I rely on the arguments of people I trust b/c they have no reason to misguide me. So, can we blame John for Alice's death?

Fancy.

Now, lesse here...You've said before John's actions are moral, because he doesn't know enough to think otherwise. Thus, so long as one does not know better, any action taken is moral.

Science doesn't comply anyone to do anything. Of course, as there's nothing scientific about his conclusion, the whole science bit is simply irrelavant.

I asked you to say whether his actions are moral.

I asked you to say whether his actions are moral.

Why're you asking me? This is your show, buuuddy.

since they believed in witches, they were not wrong for burning them at the stake

Besides, with a universal morality, I shouldn't have to tell you what I think, should I? It's either moral or it isn't, you think it's moral, and believe in universal morality. *shrug* Were I to say it wasn't moral, you'd consider me misguided, no?

You seem to have fallen into a logical fallacy common among the extremely religious. The "You-can't-prove-me-wrong-therefore-I'm-Right" Logical fallacy. It's pretty self-explanatory.

snip

Someone wants to play TAG (bad philosophy pun).

If there exists innate morals within men, it is far easier to explain it through the already established mechanisms of evolution than by inventing a god.

There has been a great deal of research into phenotypic expressions of altruism and how they cause the correlating genes to become more evolutionarily fit.

Altruistic behavior quite similar to that of humans have been documented in other species, some rather detached from our own evolutionary branching.


You're It!

You seem to have fallen into a logical fallacy common among the extremely religious. The "You-can't-prove-me-wrong-therefore-I'm-Right" Logical fallacy. It's pretty self-explanatory.Isn't that how science works though... they can't 'prove' anything, only disprove ideas, laws and theories, and create hypothesises then wait for someone to disprove it. Now depending how good a hypothesis is that could be a very long time.

Soheran, you have just argued my point... Cultural tendencies and beliefs do not reflect it's moral values.

But this has no bearing on whether morality is ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE TO CULTURE (or something else - there are other possibilities.)

Cultural behavior and cultural morality can be wildly different even if there is no absolute standard - just as a person can consistently behave in a way she believes to be immoral, even if her belief is subjective or even outright false.

What you must show is not that cultures fall short of their morality, which I agree you have shown, but that morality is absolute.

It is theoretically conceivable that there is an absolute morality that no one knows about, or that everyone simply agrees with each other concerning moral rules…but this is sophistry.

Um... why?

If you acknowledge its theoretical possibility, you must also acknowledge that you have no argument, for your entire point deals with the supposed universality of certain moral standards. If, in fact, this has no necessary bearing on the question, how can say that it demonstrates absolute morality?

Humans, all sane humans, feel bound by certain codes of conduct that are extremely similar. They may be evolutionary products or psychological factors common to our race

Then they are subjective.

Someone who lacks those "evolutionary products or psychological factors" would have no reason to follow the moral code, and it's easy to imagine an autonomous rational being (a moral agent) who lacked them.

but my argument so far is that they are not human inventions.

I agree that the foundation of morality is not human invention. So?

Edit: And you still have failed to demonstrate that objective morality is dependent on a deity.

So can we now have the Challenge To Atheism please?

So can we now have the Challenge To Atheism please?Woah... we still haven't had the 'Challenge' yet... this must be the longest introduction in history. My introductions for my essays aren't normally longer than 200 words.

An Atheist Approach to Objective Morality

This argument requires two assumptions
-humanity has inherent worth
-humans have rights

This is how I've approached morality as an atheist...

Pretty much all rights fall under the right to personal freedom, or the right to personal security. To have either of these basic rights, you must be human and alive. Therefore, freedom and security derive from the right to be alive, and the right to be alive derives from the right to recognition as a person.

This establishes a hierarchy of rights with the right to recognition as a person at the top, followed by the right to life, followed by the rights of freedom and security on equal ground, and all other rights coming after that. A more detailed hierarchy could be established using the same method for the remaining rights.

Morality can be established by examining this hierarchy of rights. It is always wrong to remove the higher rights of a person to preserve the lower rights of others. An example - capital punishment. Capital punishment removes the right to life of a person to provide for the right to security of many people. This is wrong. Imprisonment, however, removes the right to liberty of a person to provide for the right to security of many people. This is acceptable.

The question I have not fully decided on yet is whether or not people may voluntarily give up rights. For example, is it moral to allow someone to sell himself into slavery? Is it moral to allow someone to take his own life? I lean towards it being wrong to allow people to give up their rights.

I think I've adequately given the grounds for a universal objective moral system not based on the existence of a god.

Let me justify my first assumptions...
I am a human. We're all humans. It's nice to think that we have inherent worth. We live happier lives thinking that we have inherent worth and enjoying rights.

Atheism DOES NOT MEAN moral relativism.

Note: I believe that my universal objective moral system DOES apply to everyone. I do NOT believe that 'this is fine for me' but some other moral system may be better for others. I also believe it is my duty to convince other people that I'm right. That said, my purpose here was merely to demonstrate that objective morality can be achieved without recourse to a higher power.

Isn't that how science works though... they can't 'prove' anything, only disprove ideas, laws and theories, and create hypothesises then wait for someone to disprove it. Now depending how good a hypothesis is that could be a very long time.

Oh your god that is not how science works at all you imbecile. Proof comes from tests that have repeatable outcomes. Deduction alone, is not scientific proof and this thread is dumb as hell. And by hell I mean Australia.

@Old Atlantia

Now you are arguing for a different point entirely, unless of course I'm completely off my rocker (which is a possibility I am willing to accept). It seems to me that with your last 2 posts you've been arguing for Ignorance as being socially acceptable.

John decided to burn Alise, the weird old lady, because his son was sick, and she was really weird. Well Thank God! That makes everything better! This isn't relative morality at all! Admittedly I wouldn't place all of the blame on John, but I would place some of it at his feet, and the rest would go to the Church who decided to start blaming witches for strange occurances.

My point is that ignorance isn't an acceptable excuse anymore, not because of an Absolute Morality, but because we as a society decided that it isn't. Punishment is doled out to the infirm who become violent, just not quite in the same way as with a person who doesn't have any mental disorders. I'm still waiting for the evidence of Abolute Morality.

Okay, perhaps an example would help.

Meet John. John is a peasant farmer in France in 1400. John's neighbour Alice is a mean, nasty old lady who hates John's ten year old son, Frank. One night John is walking home and he sees Alice dancing and muttering to herself in the dark. John finds this weird, but says nothing about it. The next day Frank is afflicted with boils all over his body and is on the verge of death. John, a peasant, knows little about what we call science. What he does know is that witches exist, just as we know that atoms exist. He does not believe in witches the same way he believes in God, he believes witches the way we believe in atoms. Other people in the town start falling ill...John comes to the reasonable conclusion that Alice is a witch and reports her to the Inquisition and has her burned at the stake.

We know that the illness of John's son has nothing to do with whatever Alice was doing in the dark, but John does not know that. Because of his limited knowledge of real facts, he does what he thinks to be best. The science of his culture accepts witches as real, just as the science of our culture accepts atoms as real. Now, the science of 1400 France is not as good as ours...but how is John supposed to know that what he has been told is true is actually false? I cannot prove atoms by myself, I rely on the arguments of people I trust b/c they have no reason to misguide me. So, can we blame John for Alice's death?

The problem here is that you talk about the 'science' of John's day - but what you describe is 'faith', not 'science'... John 'observes', and he makes a conclusion, but he does not eliminate other possibilities, he doesn't show one thing is causative to the other. His basic assumption set is illogical, and he fails to analyze the data objectively.

Your own assumptions are just as flawed: "We know that the illness of John's son has nothing to do with whatever Alice was doing in the dark"... but we actually know no such thing. You might think it a reasonable assumption, of course - but that's not the same thing. (As an example - Alice might have a highly contagious disease which is readily airborne - her 'dancing in the dark' could indeed be the vector of the illness).

If someone today were to willingly leave his and family and die attempting to prevent a famine (perhaps by stopping a bio-terrorist attack) (s)he would be rightly regarded as a hero.


By some, perhaps.

If he or she left children behind uncared for, and they die... maybe not such a hero?

This influences my belief that there can be no 'heroes' in our invasion of Iraq. Choosing to occupy another country isn't heroic. Putting your family at needless risk isn't heroic. Dying in Iraq is stupid, not heroic.


The difference between us and the Aztecs, is that the Aztecs thought wrongly that it was the gods that caused famine and that human sacrifices were what prevented them; we know that is not the case.


No - we don't know that... although YOU might believe it.


Saving lives = the objectively right thing to do. Angry gods are not real, the difference is not morality but science.


Again, I disagree. The man in Atlanta who recently beat his 10-month-old child to death 'because it wouldn't stop crying' is not a life worth saving. Indeed, objectively, that person is a negative influence and should be removed.

Saving lives =/= objectively right.


Christians in the middle ages burned women and men believed to be witches- that is, people who sold themselves to the Devil for magical powers. The medieval Christians were factually misguided in assuming the witches exist, but, since they believed in witches, they were not wrong for burning them at the stake.


1) Witches were not people that 'sold themselves to the devil for magical powers'. They were people that opposed Christian dogmatism, which the church SAID was equivalent to serving 'the devil'.

2) Who says the Christian were misguided? Between their no-win logic, and your rendition of it there may be confusion... I think you are mistaking your own opinion for fact.


Indeed, if witches really did exist who would be more deserving of death?


Which sort of witches? People who practise non-Christian religion? (The target of historical 'witch-hunting').

People who 'sold their souls' to 'the devil'? There is no evidence of either 'souls' OR 'devils'... why should someone deserve to die for something you can't prove?

Even if there ARE people who serve a 'real' devil... why do they deserve to die, just because their 'god' isn't the mainstream one?


But they don’t.


Another assumption. You are heavy on those, but remarkably light on the substance to back them.


The difference is one of science and not of morality.


No - the difference is opinion.

Even if you believe that 'witches' are real... people that barter their 'souls' with a 'devil' for 'magical powers', I don't buy your justification that it is 'objectively right' to kill them.

Just something I thought worth addressing;

...Again, I disagree. The man in Atlanta who recently beat his 10-month-old child to death 'because it wouldn't stop crying' is not a life worth saving. Indeed, objectively, that person is a negative influence and should be removed.

Saving lives =/= objectively right.
Might I suggest that this man's character could be reprogrammed into an individual whose life (and therefore the man's life prior to reprogramming) would have been worth saving? Shock Therapy, for instance, has proven capable of rewriting personalities and memories.

Just something I thought worth addressing;


Might I suggest that this man's character could be reprogrammed into an individual whose life (and therefore the man's life prior to reprogramming) would have been worth saving? Shock Therapy, for instance, has proven capable of rewriting personalities and memories.

You can suggest what you like.

I live in a country where, in the last week, I have heard news reports about a man who lives within an hour or so of me, beating his baby to death 'because it wouldn't stop crying'... where a woman sprayed lysol in her childs face until it died, for the same reason. Where an infant and a toddler were found in blackbags under their parent's house, apparently murdered, based on a history of abuse.

A year ago, I read about a woman who had cut off her two-year-old daughter's arms with a butcher knife, because 'god told her to do it'. A year ago, I read about a teen being arrested for beating his stepmother to death with a baseball bat and raping her.

The country I live in is screwed up. People do bad things to each other everyday, and we are debating how harsh is 'fair' to treat those survivors.

The father who beat his child to death... maybe he'd be improved by electroshock therapy - but I don't care. Lethal injection, quick and painless. Clinical cure to the problem... and then we never have to worry that he MIGHT re-offend.

Might he 'be worth saving'? I don't know. To me - it looks like he has already proved he isn't. I see no good enough reason to gamble the lives of more children to find out whether that impression is accurate.

Raised Christian. Mostly based off the Bible, although having read about a dozen different versions of how it could all be interpreted decided to just stick with what felt right to me. Which means you end up with ideas from Buddhism and the like creeping in at times. Even I don;t know exactly what I think all the time *shrugs*. If Paul couldn;t be certain despite having God whack him on the head with a massive stick (figuratively speaking) I doubt I'll know until God decides to explain it.

But hey, the key point (for me) is that God exists, that he has sent a variety of messengers to point this out to people and that he sent Jesus to balance the cosmic scales of good and evil.

And I'll doubtless have a thousand screaming theologians after my blood for this but that's their problem not mine.

The basic theory on heaven/hell actually came from a Jehovah's Witness friend of mine but I skipped out on the whole bodily resurrection bit *shrugs*So your theology is not really personal, is it?

I really don't get why believers keep trying this "You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So I'm Right!" thing.

Sure, it's possible there is an omnipotent, omnicient, supernatural being who Created the universe and oversees our existence. Because of the limitations of human beings, there is no possible way for us to disprove said being. Of course, we also can't disprove the possibility that invisible supernatural leopards are secretly controlling our reality using magical rays that shoot out of their spots.

Here's a really wild thought, folks: it doesn't matter if God exists.

Really. It doesn't.

God, as defined by the overwhelming majority of believers, cannot be tested or proven or verified in any way. Human beings CAN NEVER KNOW if God exists, if we use the definitions of God that are used by most believers. We can't even know if God exists, let alone know anything about God's characteristics, values, opinions, or desires.

Whether or not God exists, we aren't going to know. We cannot. Ever. So can we please stop making shit up and taking wild-ass guesses that serve no purpose beyond propping up our own personal opinions and self-aggrandizing views? I mean really, let's just quit with the bullshitting and time-wasting and deal with the stuff we can actually deal with. God is irrelevant, and it is pathetic to see so many people wasting their lives on a non-issue when there are so many real things that need to be done in the world.

That only applies for hidden, mute, transcendent gods like the supposed biblical god. But if a god would suddenly do an interview on prime time television, we are in fact going to know. And according to tradition gods have talked to people, so there is no reason why we cannot. Ever.
God, as defined by the overwhelming majority of believers

...

Whether or not God exists, we aren't going to know. We cannot. Ever.That only applies for hidden, mute, invisible, remote, transcendent gods like the supposed biblical god. But if a god would suddenly do an interview on prime time television, we are in fact going to know. And according to tradition gods have talked to people, so there is no reason why we cannot. Ever.

That only applies for hidden, mute, transcendent gods like the supposed biblical god. But if a god would suddenly do an interview on prime time television, we are in fact going to know.

No, we're not. We would know that SOMETHING is giving an interview, and it is claiming to be God. But it might just be some other extremely powerful being. It might be the Devil. It might be a god, but not the God it was claiming to be. It might be some yahoo who's had one too many at the pub. People claim to be God all the time.

Similarly, God could be talking to every single one of us right at this moment, but we might not know it. God could talk to you ever Thursday at 7pm, but then remove your memory of it happening. It's possible we've all met God and spoken personally with her, yet we don't know it.

There's no way to test or verify any of it.


And according to tradition gods have talked to people, so there is no reason why we cannot. Ever.
Which gods? When? To whom? What evidence do we have that any of this occurred? If God spoke into the mind of somebody standing right next to you, how could you confirm that a) something was speaking to them, b) that something was God?

God, as defined by the overwhelming majority of believersIf a god gave an interview, it could not be a god, as that would not meet the definition held by the overwhelming majority of believers?

No, we're not. We would know that SOMETHING is giving an interview, and it is claiming to be God. But it might just be some other extremely powerful being. It might be the Devil. It might be a god, but not the God it was claiming to be. It might be some yahoo who's had one too many at the pub. People claim to be God all the time.

Similarly, God could be talking to every single one of us right at this moment, but we might not know it. God could talk to you ever Thursday at 7pm, but then remove your memory of it happening. It's possible we've all met God and spoken personally with her, yet we don't know it.

There's no way to test or verify any of it.


Which gods? When? To whom? What evidence do we have that any of this occurred? If God spoke into the mind of somebody standing right next to you, how could you confirm that a) something was speaking to them, b) that something was God?

You wouldn't know a god if you saw one, huh? :D :rolleyes:
If a 30ft tall, radiant god came to Trafalgar Square, you would ask for his/her passport, wouldn't you?

You wouldn't know a god if you saw one, huh? :D :rolleyes:

No human being would. I am a human being. So yes, I share the limitations that are inherent to our species.


If a 30ft tall, radiant god came to Trafalgar Square, you would ask for his/her passport, wouldn't you?
I would have no particular reason to assume that a 30ft tall radiant being was a god. It might be an alien postal worker who was trying to deliver a package to the wrong address. It might be a demon spawned from Hell. It might be a very clever marketing trick by a cutting-edge electronics company.

It's kind of like how people constantly see the Virgin Mary in their grilled cheese sandwiches and stuff: people see God wherever they want to see God, and they see whichever God they want to see. People can look at anything and see whatever God they feel like, and that's without any 30ft tall radiant beings in Trafalgar Square.

There is an invisible sofa stuck to my ceiling and on the day when gravity reverses I will be sitting on it, and all you unbelievers will have to stand!

No human being would. I am a human being. So yes, I share the limitations that are inherent to our species.Assumed limitations. Your sight is limited? Do generally do not trust your senses?


I would have no particular reason to assume that a 30ft tall radiant being was a god. It might be an alien postal worker who was trying to deliver a package to the wrong address. It might be a demon spawned from Hell. It might be a very clever marketing trick by a cutting-edge electronics company.

It's kind of like how people constantly see the Virgin Mary in their grilled cheese sandwiches and stuff: people see God wherever they want to see God, and they see whichever God they want to see. People can look at anything and see whatever God they feel like, and that's without any 30ft tall radiant beings in Trafalgar Square.An alien postal worker who was trying to deliver a package to the wrong address or a demon spawned from Hell do count as gods. And you sure could tell a marketing trick from a real experience when it comes to a 30ft radiant figure. So why would you be so ready to dismiss any sign of divine existence? Just because the signs given to us by today's religions are plain bullshit?

Assumed limitations. Your sight is limited? Do generally do not trust your senses?

Please take the time to read my posts before responding to them. You'll find that your questions have already been answered.


An alien postal worker who was trying to deliver a package to the wrong address or a demon spawned from Hell do count as gods.

Says you. I could find you a hundred others who would not agree with your choice of definition.


And you sure could tell a marketing trick from a real experience when it comes to a 30ft radiant figure.

Perhaps, perhaps not. People make mistakes all the time.


So why would you be so ready to dismiss any sign of divine existence? Just because the signs given to us by today's religions are plain bullshit?
I don't "dismiss" it, any more than I "dismiss" evidence of leprechauns. Because neither one exists. There IS no evidence for (or against) God/gods, so there's nothing to dismiss.

What you describe is not evidence of God or gods in any way. You simply like to ASSUME that certain things are God, and so you view various things in your environment in a way that conforms to your assumption.

Assumed limitations. Your sight is limited? Do generally do not trust your senses?

I suppose you mean that 'you' generally do not trust your senses?

if i might say so, I do NOT trust my senses at all, the problem is that i have no way to check on my senses because the only way to get information in my brain is by my senses... in other words you cannot prove that anything you see or hear or sense is truly there, or even exists...

and if anyone can prove me wrong there, in other words: if you DO trust your senses...
then that person can prove god exists as well...

Please take the time to read my posts before responding to them. You'll find that your questions have already been answered.


Says you. I could find you a hundred others who would not agree with your choice of definition.


Perhaps, perhaps not. People make mistakes all the time.


I don't "dismiss" it, any more than I "dismiss" evidence of leprechauns. Because neither one exists. There IS no evidence for (or against) God/gods, so there's nothing to dismiss.

What you describe is not evidence of God or gods in any way. You simply like to ASSUME that certain things are God, and so you view various things in your environment in a way that conforms to your assumption.

You just do not know whether there is any evidence for or against gods, because based on your own assumptions you would never let anything count as evidence. And even if a 30ft radiant figure said hello, you would not even consider it.

2. Right and Wrong

((I am very dissatisfied with the way this turned out. I’ve had a very long day and my writing skills are not at top form…but I don’t want to keep you waiting for my argument much longer. I assure you weaknesses in the following argument are not caused by my lack of understanding, but by my inability to write well when I am tired. The existence of objective right and wrong is the strongest reason I believe atheism is wrong. This post tries to refute some of the claims of moral relativism and then allows for your rebuttal. Im sorry Im so slow in getting to the point, and for my unconcise writing… this is not the end of my argument.))

I sure hope this is not the end of your argument. I am quite unimpressed with your arguments so far, even taking into account your tiredness. As a fellow theist and Catholic, I have to express some disappointment in what I've seen so far.

Though I will say that I am glad you're not trying to make straw men out of your opponents' positions, and that you're dealing with them respectfully. That's always nice to see.

As bottle said, there is no way to see the difference between anything and "God" because you cannot prove he is God...

and how could you prove to be a god? doing something supernatural, but what seems supernatural now, might be common knowledge in a century.. so nothing can prove it is god...

You're pretty good at this.
It is theoretically conceivable that there is an absolute morality that no one knows about, or that everyone simply agrees with each other concerning moral rules…but this is sophistry. Humans, all sane humans, feel bound by certain codes of conduct that are extremely similar. They may be evolutionary products or psychological factors common to our race but my argument so far is that they are not human inventions. If morality was a human invention- like the angry Aztec gods, or the Muslim belief that women are inferior to men, or the Christian belief in witches in the middle ages, or a person’s belief that he was better than you because he was richer- morality would vary accordingly between pagan nations, Muslim nations, Christian nations, democratic nations, feudal societies, communist societies ect ect. We find however that it does not, no one anywhere is lauded for running from the battlefield or raping his sister.
But this is lame. You're presupposing objective morality (I'd love to hear your objection to sophistry, by the way), and you're doing so by failing to think it through.

Perhaps all successful societies tend to share basic moralities because those similar characteristics are conducive to success. Then you'd have a self-selection problem, where all the moralities which differ significantly fail to last very long, and thus you miss them in your analysis.

As bottle said, there is no way to see the difference between anything and "God" because you cannot prove he is God...

and how could you prove to be a god? doing something supernatural, but what seems supernatural now, might be common knowledge in a century.. so nothing can prove it is god...Hard times then for Yahweh (you know, the one craving and begging for worship) and his brothers and sisters...

You're pretty good at this.

But this is lame. You're presupposing objective morality (I'd love to hear your objection to sophistry, by the way), and you're doing so by failing to think it through.

Perhaps all successful societies tend to share basic moralities because those similar characteristics are conducive to success. Then you'd have a self-selection problem, where all the moralities which differ significantly fail to last very long, and thus you miss them in your analysis.But does morality not come from individual experience and the assumption that what hurts yourself will likely hurt others? And thus you and the society around you (i.e. a loose collection of individuals) will evolve conduct to minimize hurts? What is a successful society? A collection of successful individuals?

You just do not know whether there is any evidence for or against gods, because based on your own assumptions you would never let anything count as evidence. And even if a 30ft radiant figure said hello, you would not even consider it.

If a 30ft radiant figure said "Hello." to me, I'd say "Hello." right back, but if that same radiant figure said "Hello, I'm God," I'd have a hard time with it, for the same reason I have a hard time believing the crazy drunk guy who lives down the street really did see an angel in a bottle of Jack.