Support NeoGAF

[Korey]

Why did Noah make a random detour to Australia to drop off all the marsupials there?

 

[Furret]

Seems to me that most atheist's on this forum are making a claim, and that claim is that there is nothing other than the natural. And that proof is only available through natural science. Not science mind you, as atheists have redefined what that actually means. Science does not stand in opposition to religion or the super natural, only naturalists have been.

The burden of proof lies solely with the one making the claim. I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists. It is the atheist/naturalist who makes the claim that God does not exist because God cannot be tested by natural science.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Atheism makes no claims whatsoever, it is the absence of belief not belief in something contrary to religion.

Until there is proof, or even data to examine, there is no more reason to believe in God than in Russell's teapot or the Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Kurdel]

I have a few questions I would like the theists here.

1. How can you be sure you are on the good team? There have been thousands of religions the dawn of civilization, how can you be sure yor belief system is the right one? What tells you that the only right religion didn't dissapear thousands of years ago? Religion was very competitive in the middle east, and the story has been picked up by so many religions since the last ice age. Floods, Original sin, and many other concepts appear in sumerian religions that predate judaism and christianity.

2. If you concede that the idea of omnipotent superbeing exists, why can't there be many?

 

[Sharp]

I have a few questions I would like the theists here.

1. How can you be sure you are on the good team? There have been thousands of religions the dawn of civilization, how can you be sure yor belief system is the right one? What tells you that the only right religion didn't dissapear thousands of years ago? Religion was very competitive in the middle east, and the story has been picked up by so many religions since the last ice age. Floods, Original sin, and many other concepts appear in sumerian religions that predate judaism and christianity.

2. If you concede that the idea of omnipotent superbeing exists, why can't there be many?

To 1, I can't. To 2, there can. Pretty simple for me.

I'm sure for others the answers will be more interesting, though.

 

[SD-Ness]

Two thinkers I've come read who've cleared things up for me: Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Foster Wallace. Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. are too pugnacious for me, honestly.

Wittgenstein was a logician and philosopher. Probably the most important of the 20th century. Yet he was still a Christian. Again it goes back to epistemology. If you're an atheist and approach religion as an epistemological tool, you're going to run into a problem.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-wittgenstein-i-discovered-voice-that.html

David Foster Wallace was an author. He gave an awesome commencement speech at Kenyon in 2005. Published as a book recently.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080213082423/http://www.marginalia.org/dfw_kenyon_commencement.html

Makes you realize that the theism and atheism debate is quite trivial. We all believe in and worship something.

 

[HephalumpsAndWoozles]

You'r standpoint is perfectly OK, one thing i don't do is insult others beliefs. I will argue why i belief what i do but i would not insult another persons beliefs. The problem i see is that most atheist has no regard for religion and that's something i always hate. If a person prides themselves that they believe in nothing then that's all good and dandy but most atheist will go the extra mile by insulting the religion (This goes for both ways to some degree).

Does your religion have bullshit rhetoric that makes no sense in today society? If so, Ill call it out.

Something such as gays being an abomination. If religion preaches shit like this, when all it does is foster hate, I hate it and will call out the bullshit.

 

[ZZMitch]

I do not believe in God.

I do believe that religion has been a detriment to human progress and growth and bad for the species as a whole.

 

[nomis]

I have a few questions I would like the theists here.

1. How can you be sure you are on the good team? There have been thousands of religions the dawn of civilization, how can you be sure yor belief system is the right one? What tells you that the only right religion didn't dissapear thousands of years ago? Religion was very competitive in the middle east, and the story has been picked up by so many religions since the last ice age. Floods, Original sin, and many other concepts appear in sumerian religions that predate judaism and christianity.

If you are reading this thread, for any reason, you should watch this video about Pascal's Wager right now.

To summarize, it's not as simple as "If you choose to believe in God you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not do it?".

 

[Pixel Pete]

I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists.

Unfortunately for your argument, that's exactly what you are claiming when you believe in something.

What you aren't doing is making a claim as to the quantity and veracity of your evidence.

We all do this to some extent. I doubt most of those on this forum have the necessary scientific expertise to be able to replicate experiments that, e.g., prove the speed of light to be constant, nor even for much simpler Newtonian statements about how gravity works between celestial objects. In order for society to advance, we must take certain things at face value. That said, I'd much rather rely on things that have been independently verified hundreds or thousands of times by scientists following a method I understand and documenting their results than on a book written thousands of years ago by a number of different writers who do not appear to have had formal training of any sort.

But the point is, we CAN verify these things, that it's possible to do so.

 

[Knox]

You'r standpoint is perfectly OK, one thing i don't do is insult others beliefs. I will argue why i belief what i do but i would not insult another persons beliefs. The problem i see is that most atheist has no regard for religion and that's something i always hate. If a person prides themselves that they believe in nothing then that's all good and dandy but most atheist will go the extra mile by insulting the religion (This goes for both ways to some degree).

I think this is what causes a lot of people to see atheists as mean or hateful, when really that's not the intent for most of us. I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion. It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner. As someone who doesn't believe the claims of any religion that I've been presented with, I find no reason to respect the claims themselves more than I would if someone said they were abducted by aliens or saw sasquatch. Religious people want to be treated special in this regard, probably because religion is so pervasive in our culture, but to atheists it's all the same.

 

[99hertz]

I just really hope God doesn't exist. That burning for eternity, don't really fancy that.

 

[Sharp]

Unfortunately for your argument, that's exactly what you are claiming when you believe in something.

What you aren't doing is making a claim as to the quantity and veracity of your evidence.




But the point is, we CAN verify these things, that it's possible to do so.

Of course, which is why religion is unfalsifiable. But that doesn't make it demonstrably false. Just not part of science.

 

[D'ultimate]

Religion: The root of all fucked in the world

Pretty much

 

[TaeOH]

Completely and utterly wrong.

Atheism makes no claims whatsoever, it is the absence of belief not belief in something contrary to religion.

Until there is proof, or even data to examine, there is no more reason to believe in God than in Russell's teapot or the Spaghetti Monster.

The absence of belief is the absence of thought. We all believe in something.

 

[JohnTuk]

Neither makes any sense to me.

 

[Schmattakopf]

The burden of proof lies solely with the one making the claim. I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists. It is the atheist/naturalist who makes the claim that God does not exist because God cannot be tested by natural science.

You, personally, may not be making a claim, but other theists are, so the burden is on them.

The burden is not on science to disprove or prove every claim. Where are we to start?

 

[Kalnos]

I'm an agnostic leaning atheist

Those terms aren't mutually exclusive, I would define myself as both.

 

[Pixel Pete]

I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion.

bingo

It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner.

2 for 2!

Religious people want to be treated special in this regard, probably because religion is so pervasive in our culture, but to atheists it's all the same.

Atheists often get the attention for having a negative stance on religion. Giving religion the benefit of the doubt because it's religion begs the question.

Of course, which is why religion is unfalsifiable. But that doesn't make it demonstrably false. Just not part of science.

That's exactly why I don't posit that all of the claims of religion are demonstrably false, some clearly are, but not the the important fundamental ones.

But I digress. This thread is about atheism vs theism, not atheism vs religion.

The absence of belief is the absence of thought. We all believe in something.

True. What's important, at least in my case, is that I don't believe in things despite empirical evidence.

 

[Juicy Bob]

I just want to say that I don't believe in God, but while I shake my head at the terrible things some people do in the name of their religion I also can't fucking stand the way "Atheists" act when it comes to this debate, either.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Why is it that the religious beliefs most espoused on GAF are essentially 'I just have faith', or 'I believe because the bible said so' (there are of course exceptions)? Can we have some actual theistic debates, how about using more sophisticated arguments that can actually be argued?

I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?

 

[Atrus]

I frankly don't see a Theism vs. Atheism debate.

I see a reality vs. nonsense debate and for me it applies to more than just the machinations of an invisible omniscient ruler. That Hitchens quote someone quoted is pretty apt.

While I understand and even tolerate aspects of believing in nonsense in the way that I don't really care about the celebration of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, somehow this order of nonsense rarely generates as much stupidity as the grander 'my soul is dependent on this bullshit because I'm afraid to cease existing' kind.

Nobody builds national policy on Santa Clause, oppress or persecute because of the tooth fairy, or spend inordinate amounts of capital invested in the non-existent hereafter in deference to the issues of the very real here and now.

I'm not really sure if I'd mince words really. Angels, Ghosts, Gods, these are all works of fiction. There are no 'supernatural' miracles or juju or magic or whatever the hell you want to call it. Yet somehow these statements require more scrutiny than if I were to point out that Sauron isn't real.

There's also no kind way to say to someone that you're bullshit sucks even if it was real. This isn't even an Atheistic point. Even if I was worshiping Zeus, the point would still remain. The only difference is that I would allow people to point the same criticisms back at me for worshiping a similar brand of bullshit. Being Atheistic in that sense just means that you prefer more logical consistency in your arguments.

 

[Korey]

I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?

I have a 2000 year old book saying so and also I was indoctrinated to believe in it since birth after by the stroke of fate having been born on this side of the planet.

I'm curious if the above sentence describes all of the theists in this thread or just 99% of them.

 

[soul creator]

Why is it that the religious beliefs most espoused on GAF are essentially 'I just have faith', or 'I believe because the bible said so' (there are of course exceptions)? Can we have some actual theistic debates, how about using more sophisticated arguments that can actually be argued?

I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?

honestly, most "sophisticated" arguments I've seen for God essentially just revolve around word games. Like defining god in such a vague, slippery way that you can't say anything at all about it. I tend to find that kind of annoying.

As always, if there is some crazy new argument out there for god (a god that has an actual set definition, not some slippery concept a believer changes to fit the current argument), I would love to hear it

 

[Cyan]

I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion. It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner.

Well said.

 

[Kalnos]

I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?

It isn't the arguments for his existence that bother me, it's the arguments for a specific god. Everyone thinks they know who the 'real' god is and just assume that every other religion has a false/incorrect god.

To me, because of the above, the strongest argument to me are people who believe in a god and are unsure of who or what god actually is.

 

[blame space]

If you are reading this thread, for any reason, you should watch this video about Pascal's Wager right now.

To summarize, it's not as simple as "If you choose to believe in God you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not do it?".

this one too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[Reprise]

My thoughts on the train to work this morning whilst overhearing some guy go on about all the translations/interpretations that are performed on the bible...

If God is omnipotent and knows all why did he pick one of the worst times in human history to make an appearance (i.e. where the ability for man to document events was pretty much non-existent) and not now?

IF he wanted a clear and concise message to be sent out this would the perfect time to have delivered it.

 

[Orayn]

I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?

What is a god in the first place? We sort of need to answer that question before we can talk about whether or not such a thing exists.

 

[Kalnos]

What is a god in the first place?

A miserable little pile of rules.

 

[FleckSplat]

I believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, and science/rationalism should play a part in all of them. I highly recommend reading Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces. In that book, Campbell explains that all the world's religions, myths, and folk tales are not the end goal of spiritual enlightenment, but symbolic vehicles to a universal understanding of humanity.

 

[NullPointer]

What is a god in the first place? We sort of need to answer that question before we can talk about whether or not such a thing exists.

The original causeless cause is what I go by.

If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Well let's make this thread more interesting then, I will be playing devil's advocate and champion what I think is the strongest argument for the existence of 'God' (though the flaws that become apparent inevitably discredit the argument). So I will set out the argument one step at a time so that each premise must be agreed upon before moving on (unlike the typical ploy of apologists who throw out 50 premises to 'bog down' the argument. Anyone keen?

 

[FleckSplat]

Sounds good, SD.

 

[Pixel Pete]

The original causeless cause is what I go by.

If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?

trust in cause and effect aside, I still follow Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be causeless? (this is not a rhetorical question)

 

[D'ultimate]

I just want to say that I don't believe in God, but while I shake my head at the terrible things some people do in the name of their religion I also can't fucking stand the way "Atheists" act when it comes to this debate, either.

What the hell are atheists to do? Go sit in the corner and STFU?

Everyday, in most western cultures, we are bombarded with religious influences, some would say intrusions, on our everyday lives. Yet, whenever atheists speak up about the subject of non belief they are to be despised for it? Even by other non believers? Really? I mean REALLY?!?

To me, people such as yourself come off as a self hating pricks. It's much like (closet) homosexuals who rail against homosexuality to the point of legislating against it. "Damn faggots, why don't they just stfu!!"

 

[NullPointer]

trust in cause and effect aside, I still follow Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be causeless? (this is not a rhetorical question)

That's kind of a major thing to toss to the side there don't you think? Isn't it the very basic assumption of science?

 

[Orayn]

The original causeless cause is what I go by.

If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?

Interestingly enough, we can toss around answers to that question without involving anything that even remotely resembles a god, as long as you're cool with quantum physics and the inflationary model.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Gods, the kind that act and think like superpowered humans, are a non-answer to a non-question. There's no scientific field of study that would be perfectly explained by the jumbled, incoherent notion of what many people quite literally think of as an omnipotent man with a white beard, or similar concepts through the ages. You can still ask deep and weighty questions like, "How did time start?" and "What establishes our universe's physical constants?" but putting all those answers under a big tent and calling that tent "god" doesn't really accomplish much, since the idea of a god is so unclear to begin with.

 

[Pandaman]

nobody derails "religious" threads because they actually care that other people are religious or not, typically its because they're fielding some poisonous argument and trying to hide it behind their religion and then they typically get offended when atheists don't respect their religion as an untouchable forcefield against disagreement.

 

[Pixel Pete]

That's kind of a major thing to toss to the side there don't you think? Isn't it the very basic assumption of science?

When the alternative is a causeless cause?

 

[NullPointer]

Interestingly enough, we can toss around answers to that question without involving anything that even remotely resembles a god, as long as you're cool with quantum physics and the inflationary model.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Gods, the kind that act and think like superpowered humans, are a non-answer to a non-question. There's no scientific field of study that would be perfectly explained by the jumbled, incoherent notion of what many people quite literally think of as an omnipotent man with a white beard, or similar concepts through the ages. You can still ask deep and weighty questions like, "How did time start?" and "What establishes our universe's physical constants?" but putting all those answers under a big tent and calling that tent "god" doesn't really accomplish much, since the idea of a god is so unclear to begin with.

Well, for my part I strip away the dogmas and just consider the concept of God to be one of causeless cause with consciousness and agency. And no, I'm not really up on my inflationary theory, but have heard something about quantum fluctuations.

When the alternative is a causeless cause?

I honestly don't know how one idea is any sillier than the other.

 

[Monocle]

I don't believe in any god, and I'm glad there's no evidence at all that a theistic entity exists, because every conception of an intervening deity that is known to me portrays a tyrant, a putz, or a distinctly unpleasant something-in-between. (That said, if I had to kowtow to a supernal egomaniac in exchange for eternal life and otherwise limitless freedom, I'd probably do it.)

I'll be more than pleased to change my mind on the god question if strong empirical evidence presents itself. For example, if a being who claimed to be the Lord materialized in a public area and cheerfully agreed to perform over a year's time a set of the same miracles (say, resurrecting a fossilized creature cell by cell, producing a hailstorm concentrated over a single cubic meter, healing an amputee in a matter of minutes, etc.) at the invitation of any scientist, and managed to make good on his promise and win the endorsement and esteem of the scientific community, my notions of the possible and actual would be drastically revised.

Religion is a fascinating sociocultural phenomenon and a pox on our species. It empowers fools to claim divine warrant for any folly and makes otherwise humane and enlightened people do and say grotesque things. I don't know if we'll ever manage to rid ourselves of it, but perhaps in time we can domesticate it, or if nothing else, shoo it out of the public square for good.

 

[Superimposer]

I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.

This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.

Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.

 

[Trent Strong]

The original causeless cause is what I go by.

If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?

How could there be something like a "causeless cause"? This idea seems illogical and impossible to me.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Well, for my part I strip away the dogmas and just consider the concept of God to be one of causeless cause with consciousness and agency.

The main problem I have with that stance is that is excessively redundant. Why not save a step and simply posit that the universe caused itself?

I honestly don't know how one idea is any sillier than the other.

Well, for one, I'm not completely disregarding cause and effect. But when you layer assumptions upon assumptions, the likelihood of those assumptions all being true begins to crumble feebly.
We can both admit, that wherever, whenever, and whatever circumstances surround the beginning of the universe and beforehand, it's likely the laws of physics are open to interpretation, to put it lightly. Slapping a creator over complicates things, to put it simply.

 

[NullPointer]

How could there be something like a "causeless cause"? This idea seems illogical and impossible to me.

Does "first cause" sound better? Its the same thing.

The main problem I have with that stance is that is excessively redundant. Why not save a step and simply posit that the universe caused itself?

We could, but then we'd have to accept that it could happen at any time wouldn't we? So there is no necessary connection between a cause and its effect, since the universe can just cause itself into being.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Sounds good, SD.

Alright, just to be clear this isn't my argument, it has been proposed by an 'apologist', but I will try and use my own terminology where acceptable. I'm also not going to be on GAF very often for the next week, so I may be slow to add the next premise once it has been agreed upon. This argument is for the Biblical god as described in the Old and New Testaments, you can decide if it successfully accomplishes the goal of 'proving' that God's existence.

1st Premise.

1. There are some objective logical absolutes.

Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.

Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.

Alright there we go. I can provide examples for the logical absolutes if needed. Will be interested on everyone's take. Let me know if you accept the first premise.

 

[NumberTwo]

Agnostic atheist chiming in. As a rational thinker, I cannot state with definitive fact that a god does not exist. However, the lack of evidence and unlikely probability leaves me skeptical. If one does exist, I highly doubt it cares about any of the moral squabbles theists indulge themselves in.

 

[Knox]

I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.

This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.

Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.

Most atheists don't make the claim that there is absolutely no way that there is a god. People that do are called "Strong Atheist" and are very rare. Atheism is just not believing the positive claim that there is a god. So in this scenario, nothing would change. People claiming that there is absolutely no god are still trying to falsify something unfalsifiable.

 

[Schmattakopf]

Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god?

There is no basis to say it isn't possible, in that situation or otherwise. Everything is possible.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Its not my business what other people believe.