Any suggestions to refute atheism

[Sideline]

I agree with most of what you wrote. For example, I have no problems in understanding the description of the orbital displacement of the celestial spheres in turns of angels moving such bodies being used in order to identify some form of divine laws governing such bodies.

Thank-you! I have to say to say, I love it that you don’t lead with insults. I think that most of us on this forum could learn from your example.

Rather than go through your post point by point, I’m going to give you my impressions and idea in a more general way.

Regarding the lack of natural atheism: I think that it is important to distinguish between natural atheism and natural areligiosity. I think there is a strong argument to be made that, in fact, many cultures lack a God. By that, I mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, everlasting, omnipotent being. They mostly have gods, beings which are closer to daemons or demons.

I would agree 100% with you that there is no areligiosity. There is a tendency in every culture everywhere to have faith in the supernatural and no natural tendency toward atheism. However, there is enough variety in our religiosity that it seems a stretch to suggest it is a genetically designed receptor that is picking up real external phenomena. At least, it seems like to much of a stretch to me.

I can’t say you are wrong, though. I’m only giving you my impressions on this point. Until such a gene is discovered, if there is one, we are hard pressed to explain how it came about.

Regarding the flood and other phenomena that seem to have historical explanations:

I take your point that inventing a great flood does seem to be unlikely. I am certainly not one to paint everything with a broad brush and say, “It’s a part of a religion so it didn’t happen.” I think that there probably was one or more “great floods”. I’ve seen small floods, and they are fairly devastating. A great flood would certainly leave a lasting impression. It is easy to imagine there being several floods throughout history that left the survivors thinking the whole world had been destroyed, especially since they had no idea how big the world was. However, I think it is safe to say that when people have something that overwhelming happen to them they tend to try and find some meaning to it all.

I have no problem accepting that the great earthquakes, floods, fires, pestilences, and winds, and wars were all inspired by real events. They just may not have been as wide ranging, or been caused for the reasons, that people at the time thought.

It has been argued that many of the stories that we once thought were wholly fabrications were inspired by real events. There could have been a real Hercules, Jason, and Perseus. There could even have been a real Ares, Athena, and Aphrodite. It is not likely that they were gods and goddesses that lived on Mount Olympus, but there is a strong argument to be made that there was once a real inspiration for these beings. Just as it is possible that there was a real, or even many real, Arthurs in England.

I think your argument is interesting, though. And I do appreciate an interesting argument.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, it is easier and more comforting to believe in god and intelligent design.

But is there any evidence to suggest that it is true?

Yes, certainly. The fact that the universe exists is evidence of a Creator.
The fine tuning of the universe is very strong evidence of God and intelligent design.
The existence of the multiverse theory, which has zero evidence to support it, is evidence that the design found in the universe cannot be explained by natural laws alone.

 

[wasmit]

I would like to know if a prophecy was fulfilled. This would be very interesting to me! Relating to the OP, this would be part of a good refutation to atheism. Specifically which prophecy(ies) are you talking about here?

can you be more specific in your links? There is a lot of content on those pages, and none of it that I have read so far answers any of the questions in my post.

Specifically where are these questions answered?
Where/how does this show that a prophecy was fulfilled?

thanks for your help

 

[wasmit]

Yes, certainly. The fact that the universe exists is evidence of a Creator.

No it isn’t. (Burden of proof)

The fine tuning of the universe is very strong evidence of God and intelligent design.

No it isn’t. (Burden of proof)

The existence of the multiverse theory, which has zero evidence to support it, is evidence that the design found in the universe cannot be explained by natural laws alone.

how is the existence of a poor theory (which this may or may not be) evidence that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws alone ? Does one bad theory mean that all the others are bad? Or that a better one will never be found?

 

[mich2]

Thank-you! I have to say to say, I love it that you don’t lead with insults. I think that most of us on this forum could learn from your example.

Thank you for your kind words, Sideline.

Rather than go through your post point by point, I’m going to give you my impressions and idea in a more general way.

Regarding the lack of natural atheism: I think that it is important to distinguish between natural atheism and natural areligiosity. I think there is a strong argument to be made that, in fact, many cultures lack a God. By that, I mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, everlasting, omnipotent being. They mostly have gods, beings which are closer to daemons or demons.

From what I understand, some are influence by myriads of gods, but in the same way a monotheist will speak of angels associated with different powers. Most, if not all, will recognize an overall powerful figure, which mostly will be a sun-god image.

I would agree 100% with you that there is no areligiosity. There is a tendency in every culture everywhere to have faith in the supernatural and no natural tendency toward atheism. However, there is enough variety in our religiosity that it seems a stretch to suggest it is a genetically designed receptor that is picking up real external phenomena. At least, it seems like to much of a stretch to me.

The thought would be that the inward tendency to understand a god figure would certainly be an imperfect one,this, being responsible for the difference in theologies we see as existing. However, I personally would associate the legends of the gods, whether they be romans, greeks, or others as being relics of superior civilizations which have been mostly destroyed. (I know this sounds “off the wall” and will understand anyone that disagrees with this point of view).So, I do not
regard such stories as being total inventions. In fact, they have, as I mentioned in my previous post,a commonality existing between themselves.

I can’t say you are wrong, though. I’m only giving you my impressions on this point. Until such a gene is discovered, if there is one, we are hard pressed to explain how it came about.

First, I believe that anything is possible, including the atheistic model of our existance. Secondly, I also believe that I am certainly not infallible, making me certain of myself to be wrong in at least some of my personal beliefs, the reason as to why I must respect other forms of belief. However, what each and everyone have chosen to believe makes us who we are, and this, in my opinion, is what makes us all
humans…for better or for worse.

Regarding the flood and other phenomena that seem to have historical explanations:

I take your point that inventing a great flood does seem to be unlikely. I am certainly not one to paint everything with a broad brush and say, “It’s a part of a religion so it didn’t happen.” I think that there probably was one or more “great floods”. I’ve seen small floods, and they are fairly devastating. A great flood would certainly leave a lasting impression. It is easy to imagine there being several floods throughout history that left the survivors thinking the whole world had been destroyed, especially since they had no idea how big the world was. However, I think it is safe to say that when people have something that overwhelming happen to them they tend to try and find some meaning to it all.

I have no problem accepting that the great earthquakes, floods, fires, pestilences, and winds, and wars were all inspired by real events. They just may not have been as wide ranging, or been caused for the reasons, that people at the time thought.

I agree; however, my point would be in the specifics found in the flood story.Let us take an Aztec account of the flood, for an example
of a geographically isolated case.

Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.

Notice how such a story must have had the same origin as the bible story? But why was this so important to pass on such a story if this had not happened?

It has been argued that many of the stories that we once thought were wholly fabrications were inspired by real events. There could have been a real Hercules, Jason, and Perseus. There could even have been a real Ares, Athena, and Aphrodite. It is not likely that they were gods and goddesses that lived on Mount Olympus, but there is a strong argument to be made that there was once a real inspiration for these beings. Just as it is possible that there was a real, or even many real, Arthurs in England.
.

I fully agree with you.

Andre

 

[reggieM]

how is the existence of a poor theory (which this may or may not be) evidence that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws alone ? Does one bad theory mean that all the others are bad? Or that a better one will never be found?

Apparently, you think that the multiverse is a “theory”. This provides me with evidence about your own understanding of the question.

Why do you think the multiverse notion was proposed at all? What evidence supports it?

What evidence to you have that natural laws existed before the universe existed? Even without evidence (of which, of course, you have none) how do you even explain it logically?

What do you think is the origin (or first cause, if you like) of the universe?

 

[reggieM]

Former atheist, British intellectual A.N. Wilson returns to Christianity

 

[Shredderbeam]

Former atheist, British intellectual A.N. Wilson returns to Christianity

I don’t really how that is a refutation of atheism.

 

[CWBetts]

Empirical evidence of a deity would go a long way, I’m sure.

Anybody have any of this?

Empirical evidence of a neutron? Its too small to see. I dont know the physics myself, but I trust that the scientists who say neutrons exist know what they are doing. Atheists have to have faith too. They just don’t want to admit it.

 

[buffalo]

No it isn’t. (Burden of proof)

No it isn’t. (Burden of proof)

how is the existence of a poor theory (which this may or may not be) evidence that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws alone ? Does one bad theory mean that all the others are bad? Or that a better one will never be found?

If the multiverse theory is true how do you know you are not living in the one with God, or even a fake one?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Empirical evidence of a neutron? Its too small to see. I dont know the physics myself, but I trust that the scientists who say neutrons exist know what they are doing. Atheists have to have faith too. They just don’t want to admit it.

The amount of public data (that can be very easily checked by anybody) to support the existence of neutrons, the testimony of the scientists who say “yes, we have detected these, and here are the credentials/contact information of the thousands of others who back our results up”, and the vast, purposeless effort that setting up a hoax this large would require all count as evidence for the existence of neutrons.

I define faith not as “some sort of belief”, but as “belief in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence”. Examining my worldview, I don’t think that I have any beliefs that require faith.

 

[CWBetts]

The amount of public data (that can be very easily checked by anybody) to support the existence of neutrons, the testimony of the scientists who say “yes, we have detected these, and here are the credentials/contact information of the thousands of others who back our results up”, and the vast, purposeless effort that setting up a hoax this large would require all count as evidence for the existence of neutrons.

I define faith not as “some sort of belief”, but as “belief in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence”. Examining my worldview, I don’t think that I have any beliefs that require faith.

Simply put, atheists have problems because they lack understanding. Theology is a branch of Philosophy, faling under the realm of Metaphysics. Philosophy, as a rule, rejects empirical evidence. What ateitst want then, is for something to be proven with empirical evidence from a field that does not accept empirical evidence. I will admit that God can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically. Anyone who claims otherwise lacks a basic understanding of the way science works. Asking for scientfic proof for God is like going to a mechanic because you have a toothache.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Simply put, atheists have problems because they lack understanding. Theology is a branch of Philosophy, faling under the realm of Metaphysics. Philosophy, as a rule, rejects empirical evidence. What ateitst want then, is for something to be proven with empirical evidence from a field that does not accept empirical evidence. I will admit that God can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically. Anyone who claims otherwise lacks a basic understanding of the way science works. Asking for scientfic proof for God is like going to a mechanic because you have a toothache.

Using philosophy to answer questions about reality is a risky business, though. We live in reality, where philosophy cannot tell us about this tree or that volcano. The only way to gain knowledge about those facts of reality is to empirically investigate them.

Of course, I would also accept a valid logical proof of the existence of God. I didn’t mention it because it’s so rarely offered.

 

[CWBetts]

Using philosophy to answer questions about reality is a risky business, though. We live in reality, where philosophy cannot tell us about this tree or that volcano. The only way to gain knowledge about those facts of reality is to empirically investigate them.

Of course, I would also accept a valid logical proof of the existence of God. I didn’t mention it because it’s so rarely offered.

I am unfamiliar with aristotolean logic conventions. Not that I don’t think logically, its just i don’t know the “rules” That will cahnge in the near future, its just it is a method I am unprepared for at this time

 

[AirLiner]

Using philosophy to answer questions about reality is a risky business, though. We live in reality, where philosophy cannot tell us about this tree or that volcano. The only way to gain knowledge about those facts of reality is to empirically investigate them.

Of course, I would also accept a valid logical proof of the existence of God. I didn’t mention it because it’s so rarely offered.

Oh no, this has become a false dichotomy since philosophy has become separated from truth. I suppose all immaterial information isn’t real, does that mean you don’t believe in mathematics or any form of logic? I suppose that I should use the word reason instead. Truth is found through reason. Both philosophy and empiricism involve reason!

There is evidence everywhere for the existence of God, the universe itself is great evidence for the existence of God. Yet atheists are always setting up a labyrinth of sophist arguments to avoid this obvious explanation. Everything from the infamous “we don’t know” to universes that create themselves.

Of course I’m sure that they would like something a bit more obvious. This is why my favorite argument for the existence of God is the argument from consciousness. Now if you ask an atheist whether a few atoms can produce consciousness, they often answer no, They’ll even answer that a lot of organized atoms don’t produce consciousness which is why the scientific consensus now is that PC’s aren’t self aware (The quest for A.I. continues). Instead they usually say something like the fact that consciousness will occur when neuron populations cross a certain threshold, defined both by number and complex organization. Basically what happens here is that atheists say that a few atoms won’t create consciousness, but a bunch of them will.
This is absurd. Because regardless of the amount or organization, you still only have atoms in motion.

Now more atoms and more organization does increase a structures capacity to carry information. This is why a rock doesn’t do the same job as a calculator. But then again, what human beings interpret as digital information is still merely matter in motion. A computer merely moves atoms ((name removed by moderator)ut) in paths (adders, logic gates, etc) that are set up by programmers to move the atoms to positions that we see as computed (output). So the principle is no different than pushing a child down a slide.

However I’m not talking about information, I’m talking about how matter in motion can produce consciousness, if moving a child down a slide doesn’t do it (atheists agree), then a computer shouldn’t either (atheists still agree), so if the atoms in a computer don’t produce consciousness then neither should the human mind (atheists still - wait that leads to dualism of the mind, which can lead to the existence of God, that’s unacceptable!). But, atheists rather than follow sound reasoning, ignore all the evidence right in front of them. The brain is made up of atoms, we know its basic structures. None of that comes close to explaining how matter can produce consciousness. So atheists are forced to accept the idea that atoms moving can create consciousness, making them hypocrites.

Honestly if it wasn’t for the human mind, atheists would never agree that matter can produce consciousness. As absurd as that situation is the statement makes sense. Even infamous atheist Sam Harris has stated that we can’t know if an animal is conscious or not from the outside. According to him its an issue of reportability. So in his view they could all be philosophical zombies. This makes perfect sense from an atheist world view.

After all, thinking that matter produces consciousness is like thinking that matter produces free will. However I know from personal experience that many atheists do believe in free will. This shows how incompetent some atheists can be at reasoning. However unlike consciusness, free will isn’t obvious enough to be accepted by by mainstream science. The good news is that atheists are willing to delude themselves enough to preserve our legal system.

 

[mich2]

The amount of public data (that can be very easily checked by anybody) to support the existence of neutrons, the testimony of the scientists who say “yes, we have detected these, and here are the credentials/contact information of the thousands of others who back our results up”, and the vast, purposeless effort that setting up a hoax this large would require all count as evidence for the existence of neutrons.

Why would the testimony of those who have witnessed the risen Christ be dismissed, while the interpretation of what scientists have observed and identified by the term neutron be immediatly accepted, if not for one’s faith in science and one’s lack of faith in christianity? Also, the claim of empirical evidence for the neutrons as existing, depends on ones definition of existance as such. To claim that atoms are made of electrons circling around a proton-neutron nucleus is used just as a type of analogy and nothing more.

I define faith not as “some sort of belief”, but as “belief in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence”. Examining my worldview, I don’t think that I have any beliefs that require faith.

Those who witnessed the risen Christ claimed to have seen the risen Christ, while those who claimed to have observed the atom never did see any atoms. In your worldview,Shredderbeam, length contractions and time dilations exists, as well as the particle/wave duality of matter…I question your reasoning as to how you can claim that your beliefs do not require faith.

Andre

 

[mich2]

Oh no, this has become a false dichotomy since philosophy has become separated from truth. I suppose all immaterial information isn’t real, does that mean you don’t believe in mathematics or any form of logic? I suppose that I should use the word reason instead. Truth is found through reason. Both philosophy and empiricism involve reason!

There is evidence everywhere for the existence of God, the universe itself is great evidence for the existence of God. Yet atheists are always setting up a labyrinth of sophist arguments to avoid this obvious explanation. Everything from the infamous “we don’t know” to universes that create themselves.

Of course I’m sure that they would like something a bit more obvious. This is why my favorite argument for the existence of God is the argument from consciousness. Now if you ask an atheist whether a few atoms can produce consciousness, they often answer no, They’ll even answer that a lot of organized atoms don’t produce consciousness which is why the scientific consensus now is that PC’s aren’t self aware (The quest for A.I. continues). Instead they usually say something like the fact that consciousness will occur when neuron populations cross a certain threshold, defined both by number and complex organization. Basically what happens here is that atheists say that a few atoms won’t create consciousness, but a bunch of them will.
This is absurd. Because regardless of the amount or organization, you still only have atoms in motion.

Now more atoms and more organization does increase a structures capacity to carry information. This is why a rock doesn’t do the same job as a calculator. But then again, what human beings interpret as digital information is still merely matter in motion. A computer merely moves atoms ((name removed by moderator)ut) in paths (adders, logic gates, etc) that are set up by programmers to move the atoms to positions that we see as computed (output). So the principle is no different than pushing a child down a slide.

However I’m not talking about information, I’m talking about how matter in motion can produce consciousness, if moving a child down a slide doesn’t do it (atheists agree), then a computer shouldn’t either (atheists still agree), so if the atoms in a computer don’t produce consciousness then neither should the human mind (atheists still - wait that leads to dualism of the mind, which can lead to the existence of God, that’s unacceptable!). But, atheists rather than follow sound reasoning, ignore all the evidence right in front of them. The brain is made up of atoms, we know its basic structures. None of that comes close to explaining how matter can produce consciousness. So atheists are forced to accept the idea that atoms moving can create consciousness, making them hypocrites.

Honestly if it wasn’t for the human mind, atheists would never agree that matter can produce consciousness. As absurd as that situation is the statement makes sense. Even infamous atheist Sam Harris has stated that we can’t know if an animal is conscious or not from the outside. According to him its an issue of reportability. So in his view they could all be philosophical zombies. This makes perfect sense from an atheist world view.

After all, thinking that matter produces consciousness is like thinking that matter produces free will. However I know from personal experience that many atheists do believe in free will. This shows how incompetent some atheists can be at reasoning. However unlike consciusness, free will isn’t obvious enough to be accepted by by mainstream science. The good news is that atheists are willing to delude themselves enough to preserve our legal system.

Very interesting, Airliner.
Keep it up

Andre

 

[CWBetts]

History also requires a good degree of faith. How do you know thet Darwin siked on the HMS Beagle? Did you witness this? Of course you could counter that he wrote of his exploits. It was written down. Does this mean that Gulliver also went to Liliput? In fact there are more contemporary writings about Christ, if you include noncanonical writings, than about Julius Ceasar! Yet you have no boubts about him. Curious, isn’t it.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t really how that is a refutation of atheism.

Let’s take a quick look. Clearly, a well-known intellectual would normally have some reason for abandoning atheism and embracing Christianity, right?

The Easter story answers their questions about the spiritual aspects of humanity. It changes people’s lives because it helps us understand that we, like Jesus, are born as spiritual beings.

Every inner prompting of conscience, every glimmering sense of beauty, every response we make to music, every experience we have of love - whether of physical love, sexual love, family love or the love of friends - and every experience of bereavement, reminds us of this fact about ourselves.

The Easter story points to the spiritual nature of humanity, just as beauty, music, love and bereavement do the same.

In the past, I have questioned its veracity and suggested that it should not be taken literally. But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition. That, too, is why I now believe in it.

Easter confronts us with a historical event set in time. We are faced with a story of an empty tomb, of a small group of men and women who were at one stage hiding for their lives and at the next were brave enough to face the full judicial persecution of the Roman Empire and proclaim their belief in a risen Christ.

More evidence refuting atheism. The Easter story is supported by multiple, corroborating, eyewitness testimonies. That is the kind of evidence that is used in a court of law.

And in contrast to those ephemeral pundits of today, I have as my companions in belief such Christians as Dostoevsky, T. S. Eliot, Samuel Johnson and all the saints, known and unknown, throughout the ages.

Belief in God is supported by many intelligent and holy persons through the ages.

When that great saint Thomas More, Chancellor of England, was on trial for his life for daring to defy Henry VIII, one of his prosecutors asked him if it did not worry him that he was standing out against all the bishops of England.

He replied: ‘My lord, for one bishop of your opinion, I have a hundred saints of mine.’

For every one atheistic materialist, there are hundreds of saints who proclaim the existence of God (some also with eyewitness testimony to divine action - testimony supported under oath and in the face of threats of death).

As a matter of fact, I am sure the opposite is the case and that materialist atheism is not merely an arid creed, but totally irrational.

Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.

Atheism is irrational. It has no answer to the question of human love, heroism, poetry or the struggle for fulfillment and purpose. For atheism, we are accidental products of nature and this contradicts human history and even atheists’ own value systems.

The Resurrection, which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are. It confronts us with an extraordinarily haunting story.

The Ressurection provides an answer where atheism provides none.

J. S. Bach believed the story, and set it to music. Most of the greatest writers and thinkers of the past 1,500 years have believed it.

But an even stronger argument is the way that Christian faith transforms individual lives - the lives of the men and women with whom you mingle on a daily basis, the man, woman or child next to you in church tomorrow morning.

Belief in God transforms lives. This can be seen especially among those who are addicted to immoral behavior or who are hospitalized in sickness or who have been imprisoned. Belief in God provides hope and lasting purpose for people, where atheism provides despair of an ultimate purpose and predicts certain and absolute failure (death) for every human being.
To live in accord with atheist philosophy is to embrace death (nothingness) as the final goal and purpose of life. Atheism is refuted simply because the embrace of nothingness and death is anti-human and anti-life and even atheists cannot bring themselves to accept the consequences of their own philosophy.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi CWBetts,

Simply put, atheists have problems because they lack understanding.

What problems are these, that atheists have? Please tell us.

Theology is a branch of Philosophy,

I think it would be more accurate to say that theology is a branch of imaginative fiction; no evidence of any sort is required in that field, and that is a defining characteristic of theology.

I will admit that God can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.

Really? So what way can he be proven or disproven?

Regards,

Marcus